Government bans on smoking in public places

Tchocky · 10:13 PM

Michigan workplaces -- including bars and restaurants -- will go smokefree in May | Michigan Politics & Elections - - MLive.com

So my state has jumped on the no-smoking in public workplaces bandwagon, including bars and restaurants. I got in a disagreement with a friend of mine on Facebook about this:

HIM: Well that's retarded, if you don't want to smell like smoke you shouldn't go to where people smoke a lot. And I'm not a smoker, I just don't think the government should make decisions barring citizens from doing as they please in a private place such as a bar. And there is no such thing as a public bar, they are all private property. I completely agree that in a restaurant there shouldn't be smoking, other people's smoke ruins the taste of the food. However, except in public places (i.e. anything not privately owned) the government should have no authority to regulate what people can do, as long as what they are doing is Legal. Smokers are not selfish to light up in a bar that does not ban smoking. This law is no different than the government making it illegal to smoke in your own house if you have someone over who doesn't live there. If you don't like smoke, don't go where people smoke, and don't hang out with smokers. Does that not seem reasonable? Or should everything that inconveniences you automatically have a law prohibiting or restricting it? I'm not saying I love the smell of cigarette smoke in my face, what I am saying is the government is overstepping its bounds.

ME: How about this: I don't want to pay taxes toward government-funded health care programs, like Medicare, that provide health care for people with self-destructive habits, such as smoking. But I have to. I don't want to have to pay for the choices others make to harm themselves. I'll gladly support people smoking in bars, as long as I don't have to foot any of their medical bills. People like to hide behind the ideals of 'liberty' as a way of justifying their self-destructive habits. Over-regulation? Please. Many people who are opposed to this are merely whining because it's becoming harder for them to continue an addictive and disgusting habit. Now, when the government actually comes after a 'right' that isn't self-destructive, hazardous to the health of themselves & thouse around them, and just downright foul, please let me know & I'll start picketing.

HIM: If you were naked, would you go try to walk a couple miles in the snow? No, because you are guaranteed to find frostbite and hypothermia in that situation. If you do not like Indian food, would you go to an Indian restaurant? You likely would, and then when you were served curry rice you would bitch to the government to have Indian food banned in restaurants. Also, along these current lines of thought, we should also ban consumption of alcohol in any public places, including bars. Because drunk driving accidents are mostly the cause of people drinking and then driving. So if drinking were banned in bars, you would have to drink at home and then you would drastically cut down on drunk driving accidents and fatalities.

ME: This is why when I drink, I usually drink at home or at a place I'm not going to drive from until I'm sober. And I like how all this talk about 'liberty' doesn't take into account the concept of nicotine addiction. You can make the argument that 'it's there choice to become addicted to the stuff', but it's just a cop-out. So one form of control that might improve people's health is bad because the government is taking away people's rights to be self-destructive, but another form of control is good because addiction is a choice? Sounds like a weak argument to me. And I don't think this is what Ben Franklin had in mind when he said what you quoted. The way I see it, those who are stupid enough to sacrifice their health for 'liberty' deserve neither.

Oh no! The government is making it harder for me to destroy my lungs and pollute the air around me! Such a slippery slope!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SO.....what do you people think about this?

Eulogy · 12-11-2009, 10:09 PM

meh

I smoke and so I find them annoying (hooray for Indiana!), but I get it. I used to try to argue against them but I can't find a good line of argument.

Future Boy · 12-11-2009, 10:28 PM

until they find a way to keep all the smoking shit confined to the person puffing away, tough shit. If beer drinkers turned and spit it down the throats of those around them it'd be the same thing.

I'm seeing a commercial for something called perfect fit button. Those bastards are going to be rich.

Order 66 · 12-12-2009, 03:04 AM

we banned smoking indoors a few years ago and I was totally cool with it. But then they started writing citations to folks smoking in the parking lot.... fuck no. I'm sorry I don't care how sensetive you are to smoke if I'm outdoors and several feet from you, you'll fucking survive

jczeroman · 12-12-2009, 04:34 AM

If smoking is actually causing harm (not could cause or might cause) then there can be a case for bans of smoking in very specific places. Obviously people don't have a right to blow toxic or harmful smoke into other people's breathing air. And it doesn't even have to be that - if it affects anything that people are already using the air for (i.e. - they have homesteaded the air) then it is not ok to smoke in those places if such people do not want the smoke.

But even that is simplistic. This issue is far, far too complicated to just start issuing wide-scale bans as many governments have done. Really, the best way to do this (and things complicated like property in the air) is probably with the judicial system.

Nimrod's Son · 12-12-2009, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tchocky

ME: How about this: I don't want to pay taxes toward government-funded health care programs, like Medicare, that provide health care for people with self-destructive habits, such as smoking.

So you're not really talking about smoking in bars, you're talking about making cigarettes illegal. Oh, and alcohol. And fatty foods. Also you endorse mandatory daily exercise.

Or...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tchocky

ME: This is why when I drink, I usually drink at home or at a place I'm not going to drive from until I'm sober.

Liquor is bad for you. My guess is you support a public healthcare program. You want other people to pay for your cirrhosis treatments...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tchocky

ME: How about this: I don't want to pay taxes toward government-funded health care programs

Unless THAT is what you mean, in which case you don't have to worry about smokers and they don't have to worry about your drinking problem.

jczeroman · 12-12-2009, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

Unless THAT is what you mean, in which case you don't have to worry about smokers and they don't have to worry about your drinking problem.

Agreed. This is one of my major objections to a public healthcare system - everyone's business is everyone else's business.

dudehitscar · 12-12-2009, 11:31 AM

wow that's good news with one reservation. I agree it should be the
business's choice but the business, like any other, must provide
protection of their employees. If a chemical plant allowed their
workers to be exposed to cancer causing toxic vapors/fumes/smoke then
they would be shut down by OSHA in a second.

In america it is not ok to make money off an employees work without ensuring safety and health of the worker. Employer still has a choice to use the substance. So I don't think it's the right way to do it but I'll be practical and say I'm happy.

Flame on.

dudehitscar · 12-12-2009, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jczeroman

If smoking is actually causing harm (not could cause or might cause) then there can be a case for bans of smoking in very specific places.

if that were the criteria we will all still be breathing asbestos fibers up the wazoo. You are reaching pretty bad to justify your position.. which is you don't like being told you can't do anything. No need to be intellectually dishonest about your reasoning.

dudehitscar · 12-12-2009, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Future Boy

until they find a way to keep all the smoking shit confined to the person puffing away, tough shit. If beer drinkers turned and spit it down the throats of those around them it'd be the same thing.

jczeroman · 12-12-2009, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudehitscar

if that were the criteria we will all still be breathing asbestos fibers up the wazoo. You are reaching pretty bad to justify your position.. which is you don't like being told you can't do anything. No need to be intellectually dishonest about your reasoning.

Is asbestos harmful? I'm pretty sure it is. In which case, it shouldn't be used where it causes harm. People don't have a right to harm other people. This has nothing to do with not liking being told I can't do anything. People can and should be told not to do things (at the very least) if they cause harm. I fail to see the problem here.

dudehitscar · 12-12-2009, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jczeroman

Is asbestos harmful? I'm pretty sure it is. In which case, it shouldn't be used where it causes harm. People don't have a right to harm other people. This has nothing to do with not liking being told I can't do anything. People can and should be told not to do things (at the very least) if they cause harm. I fail to see the problem here.

Asbestos is harmful in the same way you describe secondhand smoke. It may or may not cause harm but is generally recognized harmful with serious consequences. It is the same thing. Some people breathe asbestos for years and never have a problem. Some people die. It's the same thing. Employers have a duty to protect employees from known hazards. Especially since they are making a profit on another persons labor. Same principle applies to secondhand smoke.

But it sounds to me that you acknowledge that if the above is true then you would support the banning. Which is good enough for me.

D. · 12-12-2009, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tchocky

SO.....what do you people think about this?

i think you're both retards for arguing over facebook about some bullshit like this.

Luke de Spa · 12-12-2009, 07:29 PM

yes, if you want to discuss such matters, ensure that you do so at the appropriate location

i.e. a smashing pumpkins forum

jczeroman · 12-12-2009, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudehitscar

Asbestos is harmful in the same way you describe secondhand smoke. It may or may not cause harm but is generally recognized harmful with serious consequences. It is the same thing. Some people breathe asbestos for years and never have a problem. Some people die. It's the same thing. Employers have a duty to protect employees from known hazards. Especially since they are making a profit on another persons labor. Same principle applies to secondhand smoke.

But it sounds to me that you acknowledge that if the above is true then you would support the banning. Which is good enough for me.

I support people not being able to harm others intentionally. And, where they harm people unintentionally, I support them getting penalised (civil or criminal depending on what we are talking about: accidents, negligence, fraud, etc...). However if people want to go to a "smoke room" or an "asbestos eating contest" - and they are made aware of the harm that will be caused, then they should be able to do so. Employers have a duty to obey this just like anyone else - so if they put people at risk of second hand smoke (assuming it's harmful) or asbestos, without any kind of explicit consent, then they should be held accountable. It has nothing to do with employers being "special" or because they "make a profit" - it's part of a universal application of the non-aggression axiom.

D. · 12-14-2009, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke de Spa

yes, if you want to discuss such matters, ensure that you do so at the appropriate location

i.e. a smashing pumpkins forum

random people with whom you have no real life connection seeing you act like a jackass > people you know and see every day seeing you act like a jackass

lambert · 01-09-2010, 03:39 AM

I actually voted against the smoking ban in Seattle a few years back. I thought the idea of having to smoke 25 feet from an entrance was a bit much. It passed and as long as you are outside, no one really seems to bother with the 25 foot thing. I've definitely changed my mind about it. I like coming home from a night out and not reeking of smoke or smelling it all over myself when I wake up hung-over as shit the next morning. And despite people claiming that bar owners would loose money, it hasn't seemed to affect them too negatively at all.

Bottom line, in a few months people get over it, walk out the door to smoke and all is cool.

View Poll Results: Government bans on smoking in public places are
A case of government over-regulation	7	35.00%
The government doing the public a great service for people's health	11	55.00%
BURP	2	10.00%
Voters: 20. You may not vote on this poll

12-11-2009, 10:05 PM	#1
Tchocky Minion of Satan Location: Wher I en nd yu begn Posts: 6,996	Government bans on smoking in public places Michigan workplaces -- including bars and restaurants -- will go smokefree in May \| Michigan Politics & Elections - - MLive.com So my state has jumped on the no-smoking in public workplaces bandwagon, including bars and restaurants. I got in a disagreement with a friend of mine on Facebook about this: HIM: Well that's retarded, if you don't want to smell like smoke you shouldn't go to where people smoke a lot. And I'm not a smoker, I just don't think the government should make decisions barring citizens from doing as they please in a private place such as a bar. And there is no such thing as a public bar, they are all private property. I completely agree that in a restaurant there shouldn't be smoking, other people's smoke ruins the taste of the food. However, except in public places (i.e. anything not privately owned) the government should have no authority to regulate what people can do, as long as what they are doing is Legal. Smokers are not selfish to light up in a bar that does not ban smoking. This law is no different than the government making it illegal to smoke in your own house if you have someone over who doesn't live there. If you don't like smoke, don't go where people smoke, and don't hang out with smokers. Does that not seem reasonable? Or should everything that inconveniences you automatically have a law prohibiting or restricting it? I'm not saying I love the smell of cigarette smoke in my face, what I am saying is the government is overstepping its bounds. ME: How about this: I don't want to pay taxes toward government-funded health care programs, like Medicare, that provide health care for people with self-destructive habits, such as smoking. But I have to. I don't want to have to pay for the choices others make to harm themselves. I'll gladly support people smoking in bars, as long as I don't have to foot any of their medical bills. People like to hide behind the ideals of 'liberty' as a way of justifying their self-destructive habits. Over-regulation? Please. Many people who are opposed to this are merely whining because it's becoming harder for them to continue an addictive and disgusting habit. Now, when the government actually comes after a 'right' that isn't self-destructive, hazardous to the health of themselves & thouse around them, and just downright foul, please let me know & I'll start picketing. HIM: If you were naked, would you go try to walk a couple miles in the snow? No, because you are guaranteed to find frostbite and hypothermia in that situation. If you do not like Indian food, would you go to an Indian restaurant? You likely would, and then when you were served curry rice you would bitch to the government to have Indian food banned in restaurants. Also, along these current lines of thought, we should also ban consumption of alcohol in any public places, including bars. Because drunk driving accidents are mostly the cause of people drinking and then driving. So if drinking were banned in bars, you would have to drink at home and then you would drastically cut down on drunk driving accidents and fatalities. ME: This is why when I drink, I usually drink at home or at a place I'm not going to drive from until I'm sober. And I like how all this talk about 'liberty' doesn't take into account the concept of nicotine addiction. You can make the argument that 'it's there choice to become addicted to the stuff', but it's just a cop-out. So one form of control that might improve people's health is bad because the government is taking away people's rights to be self-destructive, but another form of control is good because addiction is a choice? Sounds like a weak argument to me. And I don't think this is what Ben Franklin had in mind when he said what you quoted. The way I see it, those who are stupid enough to sacrifice their health for 'liberty' deserve neither. Oh no! The government is making it harder for me to destroy my lungs and pollute the air around me! Such a slippery slope! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SO.....what do you people think about this? Last edited by Tchocky : 12-11-2009 at 10:13 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
obama is the joker now pparently?	redbull	General Chat Archive	231	10-13-2009 04:34 AM
Too bad JC Zeroman isn't in the US now...	sickbadthing	General Chat Archive	30	04-15-2009 09:58 PM
why is sex so important to you guys all the time	bardy	General Chat Archive	48	12-23-2007 08:33 AM
Monthly dean_r_koontz appreciation / positive comments thread	Warsaw	General Chat Archive	10	12-06-2007 07:32 AM
Ballet	rocksteady	General Chat Archive	25	12-04-2006 08:53 PM

12-11-2009, 10:09 PM	#2
Eulogy huh Posts: 62,362	meh I smoke and so I find them annoying (hooray for Indiana!), but I get it. I used to try to argue against them but I can't find a good line of argument.

12-11-2009, 10:28 PM	#3
Future Boy The Man of Tomorrow Posts: 26,972	until they find a way to keep all the smoking shit confined to the person puffing away, tough shit. If beer drinkers turned and spit it down the throats of those around them it'd be the same thing. I'm seeing a commercial for something called perfect fit button. Those bastards are going to be rich.

12-12-2009, 03:04 AM	#4
Order 66 Socialphobic Posts: 11,883	we banned smoking indoors a few years ago and I was totally cool with it. But then they started writing citations to folks smoking in the parking lot.... fuck no. I'm sorry I don't care how sensetive you are to smoke if I'm outdoors and several feet from you, you'll fucking survive

12-12-2009, 04:34 AM	#5
jczeroman Socialphobic Location: In my house. Posts: 14,465	If smoking is actually causing harm (not could cause or might cause) then there can be a case for bans of smoking in very specific places. Obviously people don't have a right to blow toxic or harmful smoke into other people's breathing air. And it doesn't even have to be that - if it affects anything that people are already using the air for (i.e. - they have homesteaded the air) then it is not ok to smoke in those places if such people do not want the smoke. But even that is simplistic. This issue is far, far too complicated to just start issuing wide-scale bans as many governments have done. Really, the best way to do this (and things complicated like property in the air) is probably with the judicial system.

12-12-2009, 11:31 AM	#8
dudehitscar Apocalyptic Poster Posts: 2,652	wow that's good news with one reservation. I agree it should be the business's choice but the business, like any other, must provide protection of their employees. If a chemical plant allowed their workers to be exposed to cancer causing toxic vapors/fumes/smoke then they would be shut down by OSHA in a second. In america it is not ok to make money off an employees work without ensuring safety and health of the worker. Employer still has a choice to use the substance. So I don't think it's the right way to do it but I'll be practical and say I'm happy. Flame on.

12-12-2009, 07:29 PM	#14
Luke de Spa someone more...punk rock? Location: Ice cream pig out in M1-aud is why i don't play plug in baby the wrong way, like you Posts: 22,217	yes, if you want to discuss such matters, ensure that you do so at the appropriate location i.e. a smashing pumpkins forum

01-09-2010, 03:39 AM	#17
lambert Demi-God Posts: 273	I actually voted against the smoking ban in Seattle a few years back. I thought the idea of having to smoke 25 feet from an entrance was a bit much. It passed and as long as you are outside, no one really seems to bother with the 25 foot thing. I've definitely changed my mind about it. I like coming home from a night out and not reeking of smoke or smelling it all over myself when I wake up hung-over as shit the next morning. And despite people claiming that bar owners would loose money, it hasn't seemed to affect them too negatively at all. Bottom line, in a few months people get over it, walk out the door to smoke and all is cool.