Is the anti-smoking campaing hazardous to your rights?

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Merlin1047, Nov 14, 2004.

  1. Merlin1047
    Offline

    Merlin1047 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    3,500
    Thanks Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    AL
    Ratings:
    +450
    Following the first successful lawsuit against the tobacco companies, we have seen a flood of anti-smoking efforts arise. These started out as well-intentioned efforts to protect people from the hazards of smoking, including second-hand smoke. But as time passed, the anti-smoking efforts appear to have turned into a crusade. A crusade which has attracted more than it's share of wild-eyed zealots who have predictably driven the common sense out of the cause.

    The thing that concerns me about the anti-smoking movement is that in their enthusiasm for banning any and all tobacco products, the anti-smoking groups are trampling the property rights and individual rights of Americans.

    Before anyone jumps to conclusions - no, I DON'T smoke. I smoked my last cigarette in 1978. I don't allow people to smoke in my house or my car. My office is not an issue since it is located on federal property and the DoD bans smoking inside any building.

    But recently a trend has begun to emerge which causes me concern. Cities are beginning to ban smoking in areas where they should have no authority whatever:
    ========================================================
    http://www.thedickinsonpress.com/ma...=1&ArticleID=8016&SectionID=3&SubSectionID=83

    Smoking laws discussed
    Wednesday, February 04, 2004

    By BETTY RANDALL The Dickinson Press

    Dickinson city commissioners heard strong support for a proposed ordinance banning smoking in public places at their meeting on Tuesday evening.

    The proposed ordinance would prohibit smoking in any public or private business except freestanding bars. This would include common work areas and all areas within 25 feet of the building.

    Exceptions to the smoking ban would include private residences, except when used for day care or health facilities and apartment buildings. Hotels and motels would be allowed to designate up to 25 percent of their rooms as smoking rooms.

    A perfect world would be completely smoke-free, said Frank Hurt, co-chairman of the Southwest Alliance against Tobacco (SWAAT).

    “However, we are looking for a reasonable compromise,” he said.

    One area businessman who spoke against the proposed ordinance said business owners should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not their facilities are smoke-free.

    “I don’t see where legislation has any right to tell a business owner what they can or can’t do with their own property,” Scott Martin said.

    Dr. Amy Oksa responded by outlining existing rules businesses must already follow.

    “We have cleanliness rules and hand-washing rules,” she said. “Why not have (clean) air standards?”
    ==========================================================
    http://www.jointogether.org/sa/news/reader/0,1030,263123,00.html

    Philadelphia Considers Banning Smoking in Restaurants
    5/18/2000

    A Philadelphia, Pa., city councilman has introduced a measure that would prohibit smoking in restaurants and public buildings, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported May 11.

    The bill sponsored by City Councilman Michael Nutter would make Philadelphia's smoking laws among the more restrictive in the United States.

    Under the measure, smoking would be banned in all enclosed public places, including restaurants, bowling alleys, buildings and lobbies. In addition, hotels would have to designate 75 percent of their rooms as nonsmoking.

    The bill would exempt private clubs and union halls, tobacco stores, and bars and taverns that derive 60 percent or more of their gross sales from alcoholic beverages.

    City Council members predict that passage of the measure will be difficult. "It's going to be a problem," said Councilman Richard Mariano, a nonsmoker. "I think Michael is a smart person and overall it's a good thing, but it's going to negatively affect a lot of people."

    Already voicing their opposition are restaurateurs and trade groups, who claimed their businesses would suffer. Others argued the bill would violate the rights of patrons.

    A scheduled hearing on the bill is expected soon.
    =====================================================

    I do not dispute that second hand smoke is harmful. I have no issue with banning smoking. I do have a problem with governmental interference in the rights of individual property owners.

    Government at all levels has refused to attack the smoking problem head-on. They have refused to make cigarettes illegal and they have refused to make smoking an illegal activity. Instead, they are approaching the problem from the back door.

    Government recognizes that banning cigarettes would be about as successful as prohibition. People who want to smoke are going to find the means to do so. Not only that, governments at all levels currently enjoy a huge tax income from the sale of tobacco products and they are loath to kill the golden goose.

    But government seems to have no such compunction about watering down our civil liberties. In their efforts to control smoking, government has begun to encroach on the rights of property owning Americans including businesses.

    Business owners are being beset by ambitious city and state officials who seek to regulate smoking in private businesses. So what's so bad about that? The dangerous aspect is that government has trodden upon another liberty. So long as smoking remains a LEGAL activity, what right does government have to tell a business (property) owner that he or she cannot allow smoking on their premises? Is it that much of a stretch from regulating private businesses to regulating smoking in your home? If you think I'm reaching, consider the fact that some are encouraging lawmakers to view smoking in the home as a form of child abuse.

    ======================================================
    http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Sept97/smoking.abuse.ssl.html
    Cornell child abuse expert says it's time to recognize smoking as child abuse

    ITHACA, N.Y. -- Cigarette smoking is a form of child abuse, says one of the nation's leading child abuse experts, and it's high time we recognize it as such.

    "More young children are killed by parental smoking than by all unintentional injuries combined," says James Garbarino, an internationally recognized expert on child protection and the director of Cornell University's Family Life Development Center. These deaths include almost 3,000 annually due to low birth weight, 2,000 due to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and another 1,300 attributed to respiratory infection, asthma and burns, according to researchers in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (July 1997 edition).
    =======================================================

    These groups plan to use this approach as a means of insinuating themselves and their agenda into your home.

    So we are left with the conundrum that government refuses to outlaw a hazardous activity because;
    1. It will likely be unenforceable.
    2. It will likely create a new crime syndicate.
    3. It will cost governments billions in tax revenue.

    Worse, groups like the American Heart Association willingly play the stooge for government taxation of tobacco products. They assert that increasing taxes will decrease smoking, especially among younger smokers. Baloney. By making it more expensive, they serve to make smoking a status symbol. But here is the "logic" if you care to read it:
    =====================================================

    http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=11225

    Tobacco Excise Taxes

    AHA Advocacy Position
    The American Heart Association has called for significant increases in federal and state cigarette taxes to reduce teen smoking, to save lives and to offset the costs of smoking by raising significant new revenue.

    Increasing the excise tax on tobacco products has been one of the most effective ways to discourage youth from starting to smoke. According to an August 1993 report from a National Cancer Institute expert panel, "An increase in cigarette excise tax may be the most effective single approach to reducing tobacco use by youth. The impact of an increase can be expected to encourage teenagers to stop smoking, and it may also discourage children from ever starting."

    Publicly, the tobacco industry decries excise tax increases as ineffective. Privately, in their own documents, the industry admits exactly the opposite — that kids are especially sensitive to price.
    ======================================================

    If "kids are especially sensitive to price", explain the brand-new high dollar cars you see in high school parking lots. Explain the $150 dollars sneakers. Explain the designer clothing. If you want to make cigarettes unpopular with high schoolers, try making them dirt cheap.

    In my opinion, the tobacco industry sees higher taxes as a means of keeping government off their backs. The industry knows that government officials will tread carefully so long as there is tax income to be derived.

    So what is the solution to mitigating the effects of second hand smoke in public places, which does not infringe on our rights? The solution is so incredibly simple that it boggles the mind. Allow the INDIVIDUAL to make his or her own choice. Instead of attempting to regulate smoking on private property, simply require the business owner to post one of two signs in their entrance. The sign should say either "Smoking Optional" or "Smoke Free".

    That way, when you or I walk up to the front door, we are cognizant of the status of that facility. If we object to smoking, we can take our business elsewhere. THAT is the way to solve the problem without sacrificing another of our steadily dwindling liberties in the process. Let the consumer regulate the activity of a business with his or her dollar. That is the way the free market has operated for centuries. It works far better than government fiat.

    The problem is that those who have appointed themselves to "take care" of us will see themselves left out of the loop. And they get very upset whenever someone suggests that individual Americans are damn well capable of taking care of themselves. I guess it's a job security issue.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    Our county tried passing an anti-smoking law. It was successfully overturned in court because it went against state law. So now the smoking nazis are trying to change the state law!!! :mad:

    Now I don't smoke, but I certainly believe that if a business wants to cater to smokers, it's their right.
     
  3. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    So i guess the taxes I pay on smokes goes to help the people that don't like it? Does that make sense ? :wtf:
     
  4. Merlin1047
    Offline

    Merlin1047 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    3,500
    Thanks Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    AL
    Ratings:
    +450
    I still don't understand why some groups seem hell bent on imposing their view on everyone. Simply posting the smoking status of an establishment should be sufficient. Businesses could choose which policy to pursue on their premises. Restaurants could have both smoking and non-smoking sections, so could bars. The only thing that would be required would be a ventilation system set up in such a manner that the intake for the air exhaust is in the smoking section while the majority of the vents for the airconditioning are in the non-smoking section.
     
  5. fuzzykitten99
    Offline

    fuzzykitten99 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,965
    Thanks Received:
    199
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    You'll have to check the Marauder's Map...
    Ratings:
    +199
    I don't smoke, and don't care what laws are imposed OTHER THAN the airplanes being smoke free and some family areas where children are present. Anti-smoking laws do not affect me, therefore, I leave it to the ones that DO smoke (or care about others smoking around them) to hash it out.

    I laugh when my co-workers say they are going out for some air...then light up a heater.
     
  6. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +618
    Oh boy...do I have an opinion on this..for now I'll just say, I think it is
    a drastic abuse of rights.
     
  7. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    in california........you can't smoke in any bar, any restaurant, any place of work with an employee, in a park, on the beach, within 100 ft of any builidng entry, some city streets.........but you can dress up as a woman with your pickle swinging in the breeze and get maariied at city hall while the all gay boyscout troop views a bust of harvey milk and a den mother er father er lesbian explains the twinky defense

    this state should be magenta not blue
     
  8. NightTrain
    Offline

    NightTrain VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,425
    Thanks Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Wasilla, Alaska
    Ratings:
    +87
    I'm a smoker, and the way these people have gone overboard with fanatical abandon really pisses me off.

    It's a classic study of incrementalism. First it was airplanes. Then airports. Then public places. Then bars. Then whole cities.

    It's yet another case of liberals protecting ourselves from ourselves. Glad they're there to keep an idiot like me in check. It's for my own good.
     
  9. Avatar4321
    Online

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,539
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,155
    I am probably in a minority here. i think cigerettes should be banned as well as alcohol. if there was a law to ban them both i would support it. As long as any such ban was done through the Constitutional means ie the people choose to do it.

    With that said I am not about to start an active campaign to restart prohibition on alcohol or cigerettes. There are alot of more important issues to address right now. Besides simply creating a law wont necessarily fix the problem i think educating people will. If you teach people good principles they will govern themselves. (Which is exactly why liberalism doesnt work, it teaches people bad principles and wonders why they always turn to genocide)
     
  10. NightTrain
    Offline

    NightTrain VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,425
    Thanks Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Wasilla, Alaska
    Ratings:
    +87
    This is your second warning, Avatar! I told you never to disagree with me!

    :dev3:

    j/k, man! :beer:
     

Share This Page