How did 'liberal' come to 'nanny statism'

[Jesus Saves]

We're supposed to be responsible for all the moral excesses of the twentieth century, and yet they castigate us for smoking bans in bars, etc... Talk about getting it from both sides! We're too permissive and we're too rigid at the same time!

How did this happen?

Is a smoking ban really a liberal law?

Personally, I think bars should be allowed to decide if they want smokers. But then again I'm from the Rocky Mountain West.

[whatelseisnew]

1. it is called propaganda

[MsTryska]

2. to be honest with you

that's one of the problems i have personally with "Liberalism". That line between "for the common good" and "personal liberties" gets hazy.


I think the biggest things that pushed a lot of rural types from the Democratic Party was

1. Gun Control
2. Political Correctness, and
3. Seatbelt laws, Smoking laws and those other laws that infringe on people's right to do stupid things to themselves if they so wish.

[Jesus Saves]

3. I agree

I guess I'm a libertarian liberal. I think there's a lot us out there.

It just shows that the whole liberal/conservative dichotomy is pretty phony. You could say that the pub party is liberal. Too liberal with tax cuts for the rich! To liberal with favors to big business!

[alarimer]

11. Unfortunately some of those things do affect other people

What about MY right to breathe smoke-free air in a restaurant or bar? Indoor air quality is bad enough withough cigarette smoke. I love how smokers feel it is okay to impose THEIE bad habits on other people.

Seat belt laws have to do with public safety. The state or city has to pay to shovel those who don't wear seat belts up off the sidewalk.

The term political correctness has been highjacked by the right. What is so wrong about not using words that offend or being offended by certain words??

[MsTryska]

30. Well that’s just it –

in many cities YOUR right to breathe smoke-free air has been deemed more important than a smoker’s right to smoke during their meal or at a bar or whatever.


You can’t really blame them for feeling bitter about having what they perceive as their personal rights infringed upon. I certainly don’t.

[seabeyond]

33. or outside, what a concept

[MsTryska]

38. smokers can't smoke outside either now?

that's gotta suck.

[seabeyond]

40. kinda does, kinda have non smoking towns now

go figure.

[Name removed]

159. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sandnsea]

51. Indoor air standards - the hypocrisy

On some days, the air quality outside is worse than a smokey bar or restaurant. Other indoor air pollutants, that you can't see or smell, are ignored.

Building owners should have the option to install air filtration systems.

If air quality were really the issue, this is the approach that would have been taken. Indoor air quality standards, just like we have outdoor air quality standards.

We didn't do that. Why?

Cigarette taxes.

[alarimer]

105. I do blame them

Clean air trumps smokers' rights every single damn time. The facts are that second smoke has the potential to cause cancer and it is pretty fucking unpleasant too. Especially around food. They need to shut up and deal or quit. This is not a rights issue; it is a health issue. Period.

[Name removed]

158. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tx_dem41]

31. You don't have a right to breathe smoke-free air in a restaurant

or bar that you chose to go into. Smokers don't have the right to smoke in a bar or restaurant they chose to go into. The bar/restaurant owner has the right to decide what policy is followed, IMO.

[w4rma]

36. Resturaunts are individually unable to stand up to the tobacco lobby.

There were NO non-smoking resturaunts, except for high class ones, before any of these indoor public smoking bans.

[mongo]

64. Bull shit

Zanesville has NO smoking ban, yet we have non-smoking restaurants and bars.

What the fuck? Do you think if you open a non-smoking restaurant, the tobacco mafia comes in and busts up the place?

[tx_dem41]

154. That's interesting...

because everytime I've lived where they proposed a no-smoking ordinance, it was the local restaurant association that was fighting the ordinance. I think your statement should be that the restaurant are unable to stand up against the government. You have your teams mixed up.

In Dallas, the no-smoking ordinance has devastated the local restaurant business. Many restaurants that were open for 30+ years have closed or are very close to closing.

[tsuki]

41. That is where I am at. When the smoker's ban was enacted in

Florida, many places had a hard time making a living in the food industry, esp. coffee houses in the morning. Should not the owner decide whether he is smoking or non-smoking? Reports from south FL said that early morning coffee houses were losing business because their patrons were smokers. They were scrambling for outdoor space. Should we demand that business go out of business?

I in no way support smoking, but as a small business owner understand that it is difficult to make a living in small business without others making business decisions for them.

[Warren DeMontague]

166. See, this is why municipal or state ordinances are needed.

NO small business owner is going to want to be the "first" to risk alienating even a small section of his or her customer base by saying they can't smoke. And they know that the non-smokers, faced with the fact that everyhwhere they go will be full of choking, nasty smoke, won't have a choice. This idea that any businesses will "voluntarially" decide to become non-smoking is a crock of shit. The only way to deal with the issue responsibly is to say that smokers should just go outside to smoke. Period. Then all businesses will be "affected" equally. And I can tell you from California's experience, when the statewide law was passed, the smokers pissed and moaned for a few weeks, and in no time they were back in the bars, adjusting to this new, highly oppressive situation :eyes: where they had to go out to the sidewalk to smoke.

[alarimer]

106. Cities have the right to enforce indoor air quality standards

Just like the Health Department has the right to inspect restaurants for violations of those codes. Same fucking thing. Smokers can go to hell. I am so sick of their fucking whining. Smoking is disgusting, bad for their health (but who the hell cares about that if they don't) and, most importantly, bad for the health of everyone around them. Smokers are the most inconsiderate, rude assholes. They want to impose their nasty, disgusting, dangerous habits on everyone else. Well it's bullshit.

[tx_dem41]

155. It's usually the non-smokers that do the whining...

from my experience. I'm all for the cities enforcing air quality standards. That's why some cities have tried to set standards for ventilation systems, non-smoking or smoking areas, etc.

[Warren DeMontague]

167. Yeah, because the non-smokers haven't completely destroyed their

sense of smell... not to mention their lungs, yet.

Lets see. Next time you're in a restaurant, let's say someone else brings their dog in. Hmmmm? Not so bad- Except it's a big, hairy, smelly dog. Nice, huh? How about this. Now it comes over to your table. Nice, pooch. Licks your face... with really bad breath. Mmmmmmm. Now it takes a big, steaming dump--- right next to your dinner. Yummy.

Ready to start "whining"?

[tx_dem41]

179. No, I would be ready to tell the owner of the restaurant that I have ..

a problem with his policy. You would want to go whining to the city government to pass an anti-dog policy. We differ on our approaches.

BTW, dogs are allowed in restaurants in Paris. It was no problem at all, in fact quite charming as many of the local neighborhood places have their own personal dogs and cats that act as mascots in a way. Same thing with many pubs in London.

[Fovea]

4. The more important question for me

is why you don't hear the right wing radicals
described as a 'Prison State' Wingnut.

[Jesus Saves]

7. Yep

They're pretty 'liberal' when it comes to passing new criminal laws. And they're pretty 'liberal' when it comes to government snooping on private citizens.

[yellowcanine]

5. It is a George Will fave.....he may have created it.....

Bowtie wife ditcher Will uses the term nanny state all the time. He thinks it is clever. Of course he always thinks he is clever.

[Jesus Saves]

6. The right wing is pretty nanny statish itself

[gizmo1979]

13. Did you see how fat will has gotten?

He looks like he swallowed a puffer fish.

[yellowcanine]

8. Smoking bans are about the rights of other people to breath clear air.

Even libertarians believe your rights end where they infringe on someone elses rights. Anyway, most bars actually have more business when they ban smokers. I know I will stay in a bar longer if I know I am not going to feel like I need to take a shower afterward to get the tobacco smell out of my hair. Truth is there is no reason why nonsmokers should have to tolerate smokers stinking up public spaces anymore. A lot of smokers seem to think they have the right to throw their butts out of the car window as well. That pisses me off also, as it means I can't put my window down unless I want to risk having a butt blow into my car and set my upholstery on fire. I can gin up a lot more sympathy for smokers when they recognize that it is objectionable to a lot of people and ask permission before lighting up. AND use the dang ashtray!

[alarimer]

12. Cigarette butts are also not biodegradeable

They need to be disposed of properly.

[lonestarnot]

131. Yep. Camels

:beer: :smoke:

[ProgressiveConn]

20. Bah.

Anyway, most bars actually have more business when they ban smokers.

I know I'd rather go to a non-smoking bar. But why should we prohibit bars from allowing smoking? Wouldn't it be enough to create a situation where smoke free is the norm not pro-smoking?

Truth is there is no reason why nonsmokers should have to tolerate smokers stinking up public spaces anymore.

Because "public" spaces are not "Public" at all. They are generally privately owned and operated businesses. Why shouldn't smokers be able to gather in designated places and smoke?

It is much better for us non smokers to encourage collective smoking practices than to attempt to prevent them from smoking. Like you if I'm going to the Bar I'd much rather be in one where the smokers go outside but I see no reason why bars and restaurants should be banned from allowing smoking. Let them allow smoking as long as they are prepared to pay additional taxes to pay for the cost of the regulations plus paying into a tobacco education fund. I know a ton of people (both regular smokers and those who "smoke when they drink") who would pay an extra couple bucks a night for the ability to light up at the bar instead of being forced outside into the New England winter.

A lot of smokers seem to think they have the right to throw their butts out of the car window as well.

That is silly. Littering has little to do with smoking. The person who throws his butts out the window is not doing it because he is a smoker he is doing it because he doesn't mind littering. No doubt he'd toss his beer can, or fast food packaging out the window without anymore thought than the butt.

I can gin up a lot more sympathy for smokers when they recognize that it is objectionable to a lot of people and ask permission before lighting up.

Depends on the situation. I'd never expect someone to ask me if we were for example in their home or car. I don't have to be there if the smoke bothers me that much. Though light up in my home and you're gonna be told to put it out in harsh language at the very least. =)

[StolenSummer9]

22. you're right about the business part

we own two bars, banned smoking in one and not the other. Banned smoking bar customer's increased by 22%. Then we banned smoking in the other and our customers increased 20%. Alot of people do not want to tolerate it.

[tsuki]

46. That is your right as an owner. I agree with that, and I would

patronize your bar. But, being told that you have to ban smoking, I consider that an infringement. It is your decision. You own the property; you provide the service.

You should have the right to decide.

[mongo]

63. "Anyway, most bars actually have more business when they ban smokers."

Do you have any proof of that? If that were the case I'm sure that more places would go smoke free on their own.

We don't have a smoking ban here in Appalacia yet, but Columbus, Oh just passed one this year, so now all the cities are talking about it.

But we do have a couple of non-smoking bars and resturants. They saw a market and from what I've heard, they have been doing quite well.

Which is not to say I support a ban, I do not.

[RITPTV]

107. What if I want to create a bar for smokers?

I'm the only employee and I'm a smoker so you can't talk about employees being forced to risk their health.

Why can't I create a bar for people who want to have a couple of beers and a smoke?

[Warren DeMontague]

168. You can- it's called your house. nt

[EVDebs]

9. Corporate Welfare, anyone ? Hypocrites ...Red Ink Republicans

[ProgressiveConn]

10. No limiting freedoms is never Liberal.

Banning goods and ideas is always a conservative impulse. Not limited to anti-tobacco legislation by any means either. Gun control is a good example of this. Most self described liberals will defend all types of gun control and are generally shocked that I oppose their efforts.

Regulation = Liberal. Prohibition = Conservative. Banning smoking in restaurants and bars is conservative because it is an effort to prohibit an action instead of creating an atmosphere where people are able to be informed yet not pressured and thus can make their own decision.

In my state smoking is banned in bars. Now I don't smoke tobacco and am pretty hostile to it in general; no one smokes it in my home and no one smokes it in my car. Yet why should the government ban smoking in bars? I think a much better solution was to demand that all bars and restaurants choose "Smoke Free" or "Smoking." Both should be required to display which they are and a tax should be placed on all those who file as "smoking" restaurants that is dedicated to combating tobacco abuse.

A liberal does not want to take away freedoms. A liberal wants a well regulated marketplace where the consumers have access to the facts and can then make the choice on their own. A conservative wants to prevent others from doing what they find objectionable. At least IMO. =)

[alarimer]

14. The government has every right to ban smoking

in indoor spaces. It is a question of public health and air quality and should be treated as such, not a question of "rights".

[Warpy]

21. Exactly

Smokers force their habit onto every unwilling person near them. That's the difference. Nobody would give a hoot if they went to a bar and used nicotine gum.

[ProgressiveConn]

26. I agree w/ your statement but not the point you are trying to make.

Smokers force their habit onto every unwilling person near them. That's the difference.

I completely agree. Smokers do force their habit onto those around them. That is why it is a good idea to regulate where people can smoke. I am not attacking that in any way. Yet we should be trying to do this in the least restrictive way as to preserve their freedom TO smoke.

Would one out of four or five establishments being designated as "smoking clubs" really bother you that much? Why? Personally I'd rather the smokers go to designated smoking clubs just so I don't have to walk through a giant cloud of smoke outside the entrance to my local bar.

[Redstone]

45. And don't forget the part about how the Connecticut legislators said

they passed the law because they were oh, so concerned about the workers' health, yet the casinos were exempted.

Gee. Wonder why.

Redstone

[ProgressiveConn]

71. Well they should have partial autonomy as their own nations.

Though we wont go into whether I feel the Pequots have anything to do with the nation that existed prior to the Pequot war or not. =)

[ProgressiveConn]

25. Everything is a question of "rights."

There is a difference between assuring access to a smoke free environment where people are not exposed to the health hazard that is tobacco smoke and preventing establishments from allowing smoking at all. As long as we make sure that we have access to smoke free establishments why should we as non-smokers care if smokers are smoking at a bar down the street?

Think of it this way. Right now it costs all of society financially for the costs associated with smoking. I think a more preferable solution is to shift as much of this cost as possible onto smokers and those who profit from smoking.

[tsuki]

49. The federal and state governments profit from smokers. How would

you "shift" the costs to them?

[ProgressiveConn]

65. Government doesn't profit from anything.

If it has a surplus it is not a profit as it must be given back or used. Do you think the president or a governor just pockets surpluses? =)

[tsuki]

153. No, I think they give them to Halliburton so they can "collect"

as board members when they retire.

[midlandsdawg]

16. With ya on the

Smoking vs. Non-smoking bars, let them choose, however, I don't think we should tax the bars simply for designating themselves as a smoking establishment, then it basically pushes them for financial reasons, outside of the market, to go non-smoker.

[ProgressiveConn]

24. EXACTLY!

I don't think we should tax the bars simply for designating themselves as a smoking establishment, then it basically pushes them for financial reasons, outside of the market, to go non-smoker.

Yep I agree with your statement 100%. That is my intended goal. We should be creating a "norm" of non-smoking and those who depart from that norm should be responsible for any additional societal costs that originate from their product. If a restaurant decides to go "pro-smoke" they should be accountable for this to society. Their smoke filled restaurant should be required to:

1) Help fund public tobacco education programs so that the public can make an educated decision on whether to partake in tobacco. If we give the final burden of choice to the consumer, which is what I am arguing for here we have to make sure that the consumer is educated towards the product. This burden should fall as much as possible on those who profit from tobacco. This would include pro-smoke establishments.
2) Help fund public quit smoking programs so that the public is not forced to continue to visit pro-smoke establishments because of their addiction.

Because guess what? People do have the right to breathe smoke free air just as I feel that you have the right to light up indoors. To insuring that both people can have these costs money. Not only does the bureaucracy regulating it need to be paid but there are obvious costs to society such as increased healthcare costs that result from smoking etc. In my opinion these costs should be paid by those who partake not society as a whole.

[tsuki]

52. But you already tax them. What would happen if the cigarette, or

cigar tax disappeared tomorrow?

[ProgressiveConn]

67. In CT we'd have to raise taxes on the rich to cover the budget gap.

They decided not to add an additional 4 cents a pack to raise tobacco awareness though.

And there is nothing saying that you can't tax both the purchase of cigarettes and the license to smoke in bars. =)

[THUNDER HANDS]

35. technically, liberalism has nothing to do with freedoms

that has more to do with libertarianism.

There are many authoritarian liberals.

[ProgressiveConn]

42. Sorry no you're wrong.

I hear that ALL the time from those who drank the McCarthy-Reagan Kool-Aid. Liberalism is the opposite of Authoritarianism. I have no doubt that you are about to push forward some Marxist-Leninist as an example of an "authoritarian liberal" to which I'll probably have to go drag the collected works of Lenin down and quote for you how he feels about liberals. You need to understand that you are just spouting authoritarian conservative retoric designed to move us backwards into darkness. Keep repeating it only if you are intentionally trying to spread anti-democratic, anti-liberal propaganda.

lib·er·al·ism
1. The state or quality of being liberal.
2.
1. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
2. often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.
3. An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.
4. Liberalism
1. A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology.
2. A 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored political democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically orthodox.

[mongo]

68. There's quite a few autoritarian liberals

on DU when it comes to the smoking issue

[alarimer]

108. Because smoking affects other people

Who have to breathe the vile, noxious fumes that can cause cancer. Why the hell is that so goddman hard to understand?????

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

177. John Locke would HEARTILY disagree with you. Sometimes LIMITING

freedoms is necessary in the interest of liberty. For instance the alcoholic who is harming his life with alcohol is not free. Lockian philosophy would say you need to take away his freedom to drink so that he may have true liberty.

[applegrove]

15. They are desperate to change the 'norms' of the market. The market

belongs to humans and is very efficient (though not always right) at delivering goods. The corporations want human beings and their 'public goods' kept out of the markets and their distribution systems. Because then human will have to rely on word of mouth to teach each other about important human goals (like more health, less death, more robust children, etc.).

Corporations want all human goods out of the markets (which they claim belong only to them). They bully, & ridicule, and coerce us by calling us names whenever we question their right to block us out of the market when we want to 'share knowledge'. They teach this to each other and then they hire freepers to get online and attack any liberal that says: "wouldn't it be better to invest in solar power energy cells than big cars? Perhaps we should put some money into this and tax big cars to discourage them".

It is a norm they desperately want to send around the world by meme (and idea that gets repeated when humans (workers for corporations) copy it and teach it). Otherwise human beings around the world may start to discourage industries that are bad for the planet & mankind, and encourage ideas that work using the market (like universal health care which works so well every Western nation in the world except the USA has a version of it).

And how could the rich gun industry stock owners make money if you ban the proliferation of assault rifles? (well they could just reinvest in other industries..really wouldn't affect their lifestyle much). It would also save lives. And improve the quality of life for people in poor communities. But these human experiences are all "externalities". They do not matter.

The market is only for corporations. Human beings are not allowed to use the market to further their own needs. APPARENTLY!

[midlandsdawg]

18. Now, call me nieve or crazy

but prove to me that an assualt weapon ban saves lives. I am kind of of the thinking that if you're gonna kill, you're gonna kill. Not saying I want these for sale at walmart, I believe they are a bad idea, but I think the saving lives reason isn't true. Just a gut feeling, could be wrong.

[applegrove]

23. I don't want to get into a debate on that. Obviously another creepy

child or adult will get ahold a another assault rifle and make there way to a school. Having only a rifle, or a hand gun would make it much harder to kill. Fewer would die. In every instance of a nutcake with an assault rifle... fewer will die. Drive by shootings, etc.

In Montreal with a population of metropolitan 3 Million, 60 people die a year. Philadelphia... 300 people or something... Of course these are not all assault rifles. But the numbers do speak.

The point is there are some truth out there that corporations would rather not deal with. MBA have been taught to attack not just their competitors in the market but consumers, suppliers, and government regulators as a legitimate way to increase the market. A huge gun market that feeds on itself and grows is going to kill people. Lack of study into energy alternatives will result in peak oil shocks to economies that will be worse than they had to be. Using the market to deliver public goods as well as corporate ones is the most efficient way of being. Corporations would like us to change our norms to as to think we do not have a right to use the tools human beings created for themselves 10,000 years ago.

[slackmaster]

29. I wonder if you really know the difference

Between "only a rifle" and an "assault rifle".

Can you please explain what the terms mean to you?

[applegrove]

32. An assault rifle would shoot multiple rounds (100 a minute). A rifle would

require the thought process for each shot.

[slackmaster]

34. You use the term "assault rifle" for fully automatic weapons?

If so, that is the standard definition of assault rifle used by most people who work with firearms, and I salute you for using proper terminology. Fully automatic weapons, or "machineguns" as defined in the United States Code, are capable of firing more than one round of ammunition per trigger pull. With a semiautomatic you have to "repeat the thought process for each shot" as you say - Aim, pull trigger, release trigger, aim, pull trigger again, etc.

Please see http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000921----000-.html for the legal definitions of various types of firearms in US federal law.

Unfortunately the PRESS often gets these things wrong, and "assault rifle" is used just about every day to refer to almost any kind of rifle. And anti-gun PROPAGANDISTS intentionally blur the distinction between automatic weapons and semiautomatic lookalikes. That is how they scare people into supporting legislation like the now-expired federal "assault weapons" ban. A lot of people in the USA really don't understand that the AW ban had nothing to do with real assault rifles and other military weapons.

Did you know that nobody, not even a Canadian citizen, can simply walk into a gun store in the USA and buy an assault rifle or any other fully automatic firearm? They've been strictly regulated since 1934.

http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/nfa/index.htm

The expiration of the US federal "assault weapons" ban on 9/13/2004 did not change the regulation of assault rifles or other automatic weapons.

So if your murderous dope-growing fiend in Alberta had an actual assault rifle (as opposed to a semiautomatic copy), there is essentially no chance that it was ever in the legal commerce stream for civilian firearms in the USA.

[applegrove]

37. How 'bout the bullets? The body armour piercing ones?

[slackmaster]

39. Any metal-jacketed rifle bullet can penetrate police body armor

Only the very strongest body armor (very expensive, bulky, uncomfortable to wear) can stop a standard metal-jacketed bullet fired from a centerfire rifle.

As a Canadian police officer remarked in the thread in the Canada forum yesterday, the common 30-30 round used in lever-action hunting rifles can penetrate level II body armor easily. Many hunters use much more powerful ammunition. Typical assault rifles like the AK-47 fire a round that has similar ballistics to the 30-30.

Police body armor is intended to stop pistol rounds. A police officer facing a violent felon who is armed with a deer rifle is in very serious trouble.

BTW - Armor-piercing handgun ammunition is regulated in the USA. It's sold only to police and military.

[applegrove]

70. I cannot wait for the victims to get organized the world over and

get corporations to start to pay for "externalities". It seems these days that corporations will get together themselves and police each other (and human beings.. online... minding their own business) so as to not 'hurt' each other. Even John Kerry got goated into dropping his winning line Corporate Benedict Arnolds.

Funny how corporations are not supposed to do anything to hurt the 'greater' corporate agenda... but externalities that hurt & kill human beings... now those are not policed fixed at all.

As long as the externalities hurt human beings and not corporations.. they are free. And corporations should never be held accountable for them.

Interesting talking to you. NRA is a very powerful lobby (& they do quite a bit of policing themselves). No matter what you say.. if you are America your mind has been filled with memes from the NRA.

[Bake]

17. Read some of the McDonald's rants around here

and you'll see why "liberal" is a dirty word in some quarters. Not content just to boycott McD's themselves, a lot of vocal DUers (presumably liberal) don't want ME to be able to enjoy a Big Mac either, on the guise of some added "tax" on them to pay for my healthcare when McD's causes my inevitable heart attack. They'd be much happier if I enjoyed a nice falafel.

To which I say BULLSHIT.

Bake

[ProgressiveConn]

27. "Sin Taxes"

or as I prefer calling them "Luxury Taxes" are not a way to prevent you from "enjoying" a Big Mac. It is instead a way for society to allow unquestionably bad things for society to continue in the name of freedom and liberty. There needs to be regulations on food products as to protect society. Only the most extreme Libertarians (ie complete anarchists) will even begin to claim otherwise. I would argue that we have a duty to insure that our population is eating well and that as part of that we should encourage luxury taxes for Junk food. Because there is a financial cost to society for the current over-representation of junk food in America. One needs to only look around at expanding waistlines to get it. Society is going to pay these costs REGARDLESS of what we do. By shifting these costs to those who eat all this junk food it shifts the burden from those who do not. If it has the unintended byproduct of making America healthier great. =)

If you enjoy those big macs you should be arguing for a luxury tax on them. American Society will have to deal with our poor nutritional situation eventually. I personally think it would be better if we did it without banning these food products all together. Which would promote a luxury tax as opposed to outright prohibition.

[mongo]

73. And your views are EXACLTY why democrats are not in power

today. The RW media has painted all democrats as nanny state autoritarians like yourself that want to decide what we can eat, smoke, read, view, talk about, etc.

Using your logic:

Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. We should estabilish a $1000.00 tax on EACH abortion performed to educate society and keep abortion rare.

Not so nice when the shoe is on the other foot - is it?

[ProgressiveConn]

99. ROTFLAMO. You must be kidding me.

I'm argueing for "smoking clubs" ie bars and restaurants that agree to either a yearly fee for the license or a like a 2% sales tax on product sold in the clubs. Right now you cant smoke in any public access building in the state. A law signed by a Republican Governor.

Our republicans defeated adding a 4 cent a pack tax hike (to an overall 75cent or so tax hike per pack that was used to fund our budget shortfalls) to help raise tobacco awareness. Connecticut has the worst funding for tobacco awareness programs in New England and as a result has not seen the benefit of reduced teenage-smoking rates that all the other states up here have.

So because I want to regulate indoor smoking in public instead of banning it I am being a nanny state authoritarian? I coulda swore I was taking a moderate compromise position designed to prevent the outright prohibition of tobacco smoking in bars and restaurants.

And abortions are a medical procedure not a recreational drug and thus your comparison is ridiculous. The proper analogy is to alcohol, caffeine, or marijuana.

Its funny when people call me an authoritarian without even understanding the argument they are commenting on. Oh and IIRC I more libertarian orientated than any other member of this board according to the political compass post from last week.

How do you feel about the nanny state authoritarians of both parties that have banned marijuana use?

[mongo]

100. I think the analogy is valid

I think that the "sin tax" is a bad model. The same thing is being tried against pornography in several states - mostly a prohibitive licensing scheme designed to make business unprofitable.

I believe that the market would create smoking and non-smoking establishments based on the demand if government would just butt out.

As far as marijuana goes, I'm all for legalization. They can even tax it if they want to - as long as the tax is low enough that it won't create a black market. (or rather will dry up the black market)

And to go further than that, I believe that the Feds intrusion into California's cannabis cooperatives is an illegal action by the government.

My analogy stands - It's the "compelling government interest" used over an individuals (or business owners) rights that started with seat belt laws making America a nanny state - taken to an (almost) absurd extreme.

[ProgressiveConn]

150. We need to tax to provide the services that the country demands

Now we can tax housing, health care, and meals things that everyone needs or we can tax luxury items like booze, gambling, porn and tobacco. I know it would be impossible to end taxation on necessary goods completely but it makes sense to do as much as possible.

Now I don't want to come off as wanting to prohibit these goods or even make them harder to acquire. But it just makes sense that if you can tax luxury items as much as possible as to keep the basic necessities of life completely tax free (or as low as possible) than it is the best thing for everyone.

I just think you are basically looking at it the wrong way. If you have money to blow on such things on such a frequent level than just doesn't it make sense try and free up the tax burden on those who are having a hard time paying for college for their kids? By placing a tax on luxury items including expensive goods (I would substitute a luxury tax for our state sales tax) it would shift the tax burden from the poor and middle class further to the wealthy. Progressive Taxation is very important to me.

Further I have heard the argument about "How the poor use such luxury goods at a much higher rate than the wealthy so it will not end up being progressive. And to me this is the same sort of copout as Bushco says "oh blacks should oppose social security because they don't live as long as whites." If the poor are using them more does it not make sense that the reason for it has a great deal to do with poverty?

Lastly the stress must be placed on the "luxury nature" of these products. If you can't afford a $3.00 tax on a pack of cigarettes maybe you should stop smoking for at least economic reasons.

[info being]

170. Well I don't want nationalized healthcare if we can't incent people...

to do the right thing. You see, personal freedom comes with personal responsibility. Collectivism comes with collective responsibility. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Yupster]

80. The theory is

that when you have a heart attack from your last Big Mac, all of society will end up paying for your bad choice due to extra healthcare costs.

The problem with that argument is it can be made for absolutely anything.

Certainly anyone driving without a seatbelt can be the cause of healthcare costs going up, as could anyone having sex who can't afford to pay for a baby.

I'm real skeptical of the "harm to society" argument made around people's individual choices because it can be an argument for the state to ban absolutely anything it wants to ban.

[Warpy]

19. No, it's a lie.

Right wingers started throwing feces at liberals because they didn't like being told they had to treat black people, women, Jews, and all other minority groups as equal citizens.

However, every single ugly, repressive law that curtails our rights to live our lives as we please is pure conservatism.

Liberalism seeks to expand rights and extend them to all. Conservatism is a fear driven point of view that thinks people have too many rights and seeks to restrict them.

[Blue_Tires]

28. the GOP are the queens of 'nanny statism'

THEY are the ones who drafted, developed, passed, and continue to defend the PATRIOT ACT!!!

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jesus Saves]

47. There's nothing wedge about this

It's an interesting observation.

On one hand the right wing says we're too permissive, and on the other hand they say we're to restrictive. Kinda funny isn't it?

And there are many liberals who aren't in favor of smoking bans in bars. There's lots of different kinds of liberals I guess.

[RandomKoolzip]

50. Yeah.... it's funny. Not "ha ha" funny, but funny.

Just like the OP title.

[MissB]

55. I'm rather weary of the wedgies tonight.

:hi:

[Susang]

57. You said it, missb!

;-)

[RandomKoolzip]

61. ME too...let's switch to swirlies!

[JimmyJazz]

48. erm --- my friends wanna know if you'll buy me a mercedez benz -

they all have porches and I must make amends...

[xmas74]

56. But I want the color tv

[ScreamingMeemie]

53. Have we? I hadn't noticed, Jesus. I always admired the Democratic

Party for hashing out severe and radical differences...think Southern Democrat here, and coming together to work on effective policy. I'd hate to see that end, wouldn't you?

[Jesus Saves]

58. I would hate to see it end

I'm just saying it's odd that liberals are now being identified as the nanny staters.

Just think, wingnuts will rail about how we don't have any standards and are too permissive, etc. You've heard that. And then they'll turn right around the next and say how liberals are trying to control what everyone does and thinks, etc...it's unbelievable.

It's just an odd thing.

And the smoking ban in bars I'm against. But that's just me.

I've often thought that there are just so many different kinds of liberals. It makes it easy to come up with different attacks, even contradictory ones. We all get thrown in the same pot. I don't have much in common with PETA, but I'm a liberal just like they are in the eyes of the right wing. No difference.

The right wing on the other hand is far more monolithic.

[e1ectra]

54. I agree

they should be allowed to smoke or not smoke on their premises.

[American Tragedy]

59. I don't support smoking bans in bars. because it's totally unnecessary.

There are enough people like me out here for whom the presence of cigarette smoke is an absolute deal-breaker, and we're quite vocal about it. The pressures of the free market have caused many to change voluntarily.

However, I am very glad that most workplaces now prohibit smoking. My parents can remember a time when it was nearly impossible to find a job where they didn't spend hours in rooms clouded with smoke, coughing and wheezing.

I'm a big time civil libertarian, but I still believe that people are entitled to a certain degree of occupational safety.

[ultraist]

60. Bars are workplaces

People work in bars. Should bars be exempt from clean air standards that other workplaces are required to adhere to?

[American Tragedy]

151. True, I just don't know whether a ban is NECESSARY.

It may be different in other cities, but where I live, smoking is still ostensibly permitted by law in bars. However, the establishments of their own volition render themselves non-smoking, simply in the interest of staying in business. There are too many of us who absolutely refuse to breathe cigarette smoke, who will walk out the door if we find that non-smokers aren't segregated from the fumes. Some, like myself, not only find the smoke personally offensive, but cannot physically tolerate it without having an allergic reaction or asthma attack. So trust me, I appreciate the hazardous aspect of it. Nevertheless, I'm very pleased to say that businesses have become overwhelmingly attentive to our interests.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

62. I'm more worried about liberals who call themselves right wing names

like "Nanny Statists."

IMHO, nothing has hurt liberals and progressives more than adopting right wing language.

There is a COMPELLING PUBLIC INTEREST in having smoke free establishments especially for the people that need to earn a living in them.
There is a COMPELLING PUBLIC INTEREST in society not having to pay for traumatic brain injury care for some stupid neanderfuck who wants to feel the wind between his ears on a motorcycle.
There is a COMPELLING PUBLIC INTEREST in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and psychopaths.

Notice the same people calling me Nanny Statist have managed to lock up people for smoking a little pot for YEARS at the expense of COMPELLING PUBLIC INTEREST.

[Jesus Saves]

66. I'm not saying we are

IMO the right wing is far more nanny statish.

See my reply to Mrs. Grumpy for further explanation.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

69. No you ARE saying it and you are saying it in THEIR language

the same way you stated in THEIR LANGUAGE on your now locked thread that people who acknowledge the REAL history of this nation are America bashers.


The right wing clearly wants to be in your bedroom but does not want to upset the tobacco industry.

The right wing wants to take Janet Jackson's tit off TV but defends Abu Graib as though it were a frat prank.

Using THEIR LANGUAGE is like holding THEIR GUN to YOUR HEAD.


I also note my good friend, Mr Baker above seems to think I want to take his Big Mac away. Mr Baker is WELCOME to shovel all the Big Macs down his throat that he can fit..but when McDonald's claims they are HELPING schools when in fact they are brainwashing kids with marketing and getting them young and away from their parents...McDonald's is not practicing marketing but indoctrination.

An adult can be trusted to eat as poorly as they wish..not so with children. Mr Baker is old enough that his coronary artery disease is well under way no matter what we have him eat at this late date. Prediposing school age children to Type II diabetes so McDonalds can get wealthier is NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST!

[Jesus Saves]

72. I'm just saying they get to have their cake and eat it too

Blame us for being too permissive and blame us for being too restrictive.

I'm just pointing it out. The very definition of the world liberal would seem to preclude the nanny state label.

I consider them more nanny statish in every respect.

That being said: I still think bars should be able to allow smokers. Personally, I like a smoke filled pool bar. That's my thing. I like to play pool in dive bars.

I agree about keeping McDs out of schools.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

75. The word liberal is rooted in the word LIBERTY but LIBERTY does not mean

doing what you want regardless of others. The right to swing YOUR FIST ends where MY CHIN begins.

Liberty does NOT MEAN that you can flush your toilet in the river on YOUR PROPERTY and then send all your shit DOWNSTREAM.

In fact, sometimes one can only have liberty truly when SOMEONE's freedom is impeded..for instance, if I want the liberty to drive down the street without being endangered by my neighbor's drunkenness behind the wheel, then it is in THE PUBLIC INTEREST to compel my neighbor to give up the keys when he's drunk or arrest him if he doesn't.

BTW..on the smoking ban in California, if an establishment has fewer than three employees, they can smoke indoors..this applies to bars.
The humorous thing is Republicans have taken the smoking laws passed by the state and made them more severe.

In Solano Beach a very Republican area, you cannot smoke on the beach.

[Jesus Saves]

77. Yeah I agree with most all that

:shrug:

I still think smoking bans in bars is a stupid thing. You're not going to change my mind on that. I have all kind of arguments I could muster, but I'm getting tired. So let's just leave it at that.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

79. Please google fatal asthma and then tell me you should

be able to smoke indoors. Don't change your mind but you should confront the issue of liberty..like their liberty to LIVE AND BREATHE

[Jesus Saves]

81. just bars

not everywhere indoors...

maybe even give some encouragment to not allow smoking... I don't know.

But I'm outta here.

[ultraist]

91. whatever, criticizing liberals is a theme of yours

What is your next thread going to be? Liberals don't support the troops?

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

130. You noticed that too, Ultraist?

Makes me wonder...(not much, though).

[ultraist]

133. LOL! We aren't the only ones!

[Jesus Saves]

135. You're wrong

plain wrong.

[hollowdweller]

74. The civil liberties issue is a winner

Unfortunately neither party really embraces say the right to privacy and the right to not be fired for speech. Both parties are standing by while our 4th amendment rights are whittled away.

Unfortunately due to the gun issue and their ability to frame some issues as civil liberties the republicans are leading on this issue/

[Warren DeMontague]

78. I just don't believe being able to smoke INDOORS is a civil liberty

End the drug war, yes. Stop trying to tell people what they can read or watch or which states they can buy sex toys in, sure.

But if you have to go outside to smoke, it's not the end of the world. Frankly, the smoking ban has improved live 1000% in California. Sometimes I go through Nevada or the midwest and people can still smoke in restaurants, even. Totally fucking vile.

Part of the problem is, smokers don't realize how nauseatingly sick that shit is.

[ultraist]

88. Maybe it is a civil liberties issue: Workers right to breath clean air

in the workplace. Second hand smoke triggers asthma attacks and has been proven to be very unhealthy. I'm surprised smoke filled workplaces meet OSHA standards.

The big corp tobacco industry is so powerful and wealthy, I'm sure they had a hand in preventing smoking bans. We KNOW they lied about research and put of total junk science so they could keep selling their product.

I think this is about employees' rights more than anything. Customers can choose not to patronize a smoking establishment, but workers are there to earn a living.

I wonder where the Union stands on banning smoking in the workplace?

[Warren DeMontague]

90. I agree in principle.

But I also happen to think that any enclosed public place, the patrons are almost as much held hostage to the person who smokes as the employees are. Yes, people can choose not to patronize a certain establishment, but why should one or two smokers have the right to foul the air for everyone?

I think the Occupational angle was one of the issues driving the CA law. Whatever the impetus, the end result has been nothing short of wonderful, the plaintive whines of smokers massively inconvenienced :eyes: at having to step outside notwithstanding.

[ultraist]

94. I'm in NC, a BIG PRO tobacco state--Winston-Salem land

Smoking is allowed almost everywhere. It's disgusting.

[hollowdweller]

187. I agree. I HATE to breathe cigarette smoke.

[Yupster]

84. A real big one was the 55 mile speed limit

I really think that was a serious cause of losing the House.

What an arrogant, stupid law that was telling people in all parts of the country that they could only drive 55.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

86. Why did the 55 mph speed limit come about? To conserve fuel.

If only we would make such sacrifices now, we wouldn't be up shit's creek.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

101. ROFL..uh,,that wasn't a nanny law, that was Carter during a REAL energy

crisis when US oil production peaked. It wasn't about saving lives, it was about saving GAS.

[Warren DeMontague]

76. Make a cigarette where ALL the smoke goes in your lungs...

..then we'll talk.

California is a million times better now that you can't smoke indoors. It was not an uncommon experience in my youth to walk into a bar for 15 minutes and need to wash all my clothes afterwards. Smoking inside is not a "personal freedom" because anyone unfortunate enough to be trapped in the building with you is subjected to your smoke.

And stepping out to the sidewalk is not such a god-damn burden.

Inside your house? You should be master of your domain, as Seinfeld might put it. But in an enclosed public establishment the air is communal and hence subject to regulation.

That is not political correctness, that's simple public health-- and courtesy.

I think consenting adults should be able to make up their own minds about what substances they wish to ingest- but as soon as they cross the line into everyone else's territory- by, say, driving under the influence, they should be subject to laws and regulations.

Guns are a tough call. Gun control is not a front-burner issue for me. I happen to think there are too many guns in our society, but I also acknowledge the political realities assosiciated therein, and I question how effective serious gun control laws could even be with regards to the Merkin public at large.

Helmet laws? Again, I'm not so hung up on them, what I would like to see with regards to motorcycles is some kind of fucking noise control assosciated with the vile things. I guarantee you, if I was to drive down the street blasting my stereo one tenth as loud as some of these yahoos let their choppers run at, I would get pulled over. Maybe the solution is to tax motorcycles and other dangerous vehicles and use the funds to finance emergency rooms.

[mongo]

83. It was a "compelling public interest" based on FLAWED STUDIES

The 2nd hand smoke studies are all flawed. There is no direct connection between casual exposure to 2nd hand smoke and disease.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/05/16/smoking030516

http://168.144.6.51/src/second-hand-smoke.htm

But junk science is all the rage today.

How about the most recent "study" that found a greater link between 2nd hand smoke and breast cancer than actually being a smoker? Sorry I don't have a link on that one, heard it on Keith Olberman the other day.

[Warren DeMontague]

85. I don't need there to be a cancer link.

I know how my lungs used to feel after hanging out in a bar in the old days. I know how my clothes used to smell.

I know how pieces of paper on the walls of this one bar would turn yellow in the space of a couple months.

Sorry, chum, but when your cigarette smoke starts crossing the line into everyone else's air, it is perfectly legitimate to have some kind of regulation. No one is saying smokers should be thrown in jail like, say, potheads currently are. God forbid people should have to take those filthy things out to the sidewalk.

There are times and places for everything.

For example, I'm all for the rights of consenting adults to have sex in whatever way they see fit--- but they can't do it in the grocery store.

[mongo]

93. But we can't let individual business' decide for themselves

if they want to ban smoking? Why do YOU have the right to decide if an individual bar or resturant wants to allow smoking?

If it were left up to business, the market would create places where you could enjoy a smoke-free environment. Our city does not have a smoking ban (yet), but there are resturants and bars where smoking is prohibited.

Columbus, Ohio's smoking ban went into effect in Jan. Since then, all the resturants and bars just outside the city have seen an increase in business.

[Warren DeMontague]

95. All I know is the results here in California.

Previously, every single bar I ever went into was full of smoke. The experience was uniformly miserable. There were no "voluntarily" smoke-free bars. Anywhere. I never saw such an animal.

Now it's a completely different experience. And the poor, downtrodden, oppressed smokers have to drag themselves out to the sidewalk before they light up. Wow, what an onerous infringement.

[mongo]

104. Zanesville, Oh

population around 30K - has two non-smoking bars. You can't smoke in any of the fast food joints, and some of the restuarants are non-smoking too.

I don't think it's right to impose a smoking ban on all bars in a city when it hurts the individual business owners.


--------
ECONOMIC LOSSES DUE TO SMOKING BANS IN CALIFORNA AND OTHER STATES
By David W. Kuneman and Michael J. McFadden

Background:


Many studies have been published purporting to prove smoking bans in bars and restaurants are either good or neutral for business, and conflicting studies have also been published purporting to prove bans are bad for business. Scollo, Lal, Hyland and Glantz recently summarized many of these studies, concluding those which find no economic impact are published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature and funded by “objective” antitobacco interests, while those that do find bans hurt business are funded almost universally by Big Tobacco or its allies. Tobacco Control, 2003;12:13-20. However, the objectivity of those who publish studies finding smoking bans don’t hurt business is also questioned because they are funded by groups with clear and open objectives of promoting smoking bans.



One common problem with many studies of smoking bans is that the time-span studied before and after a ban goes into effect is too small to accurately measure the ultimate impact of such bans. For example, long before state bans go into effect, many local governments have passed bans that affect business, and long before local governments pass bans many restaurants voluntarily ban smoking. For example, we obtained a copy of California Smoke-Free Cities Bulletin , October, 1993 which was developed with the support of the California Department of Health Services. The “Fact Sheet” summarizes that by the publication date, 8,668,235 Californians, or 27% of the population lived in an area whose local government had a 100% ban on smoking in restaurants. Further, 62 cities and nine counties had ordinances requiring 100% smoke-free restaurants, and 295 cities had ordinances restricting smoking. In addition, many more restaurants had voluntarily banned smoking in areas not covered by an ordinance. Long before the state restaurant smoking ban took effect, in 1995, many Californians did not have the option of dining in a smoking environment. Therefore, in this example, we would expect total California bar and restaurant revenue to decline years before the state ban took effect, and studies which typically only measured data collected one year before that state ban would not have measured the entire economic impact of the loss of smoking accommodations in California’s restaurants.



After a ban goes into effect, some establishments violate bans, others find ways to skirt bans, and some establishments are granted exemptions. Sometimes, bans are not immediately enforced by public officials. Some establishments raise prices to offset lost business which can temporarily mask the revenue effects of bans, and some smokers continue to patronize affected establishments until they adopt other socializing habits that don’t involve patronizing the affected establishments. For these reasons, measurements of the economic impact of smoking bans must also consider that some smoking accommodations can remain available after smoking bans take effect, and data must be collected longer than the one year after a ban takes effect in order to accurately measure the effect of a ban.



We further question why studies on both sides of the issue most often utilize data related to sales tax revenues collected from bars and restaurants, or employment data of those workers who work in bars and restaurants. We agree such data would be useful if the studies were exploring the relationship between smoking bans and tax revenues collected by various taxing authorities, or if they were exploring the relationship between smoking bans and employment in bars and restaurants. Very few studies actually utilize data of gross sales received by bars and restaurants in business before and after bans take place, which would , naturally, be of most concern to those who own bars and restaurants.


more http://www.smokersclubinc.com/economic.html

[ultraist]

110. Southern RED states: most smoker friendly

Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina had no restrictions on smoking in any category including bars and restaurants.

That's because they are big tobacco industry states. BIG CORP tobacco lobbiests have a lot of control over the local laws. Reputable medical research is ignored and the interests of the big corps are put first.

It's not just American research that has been published in the most reputable medical journals that show second hand smoke is toxic, all major countries have produced the same type research showing the dangers of second hand smoke.

excerpts
http://www.oma.org/phealth/2ndsmoke.htm

Second-hand smoke ranks third as a major preventable cause of death behind only active smoking and alcohol.1 Second-hand smoke is the smoke that individuals breathe when they are located in the same air space as smokers. Second-hand smoke is a mixture of exhaled mainstream smoke from the tobacco user, sidestream smoke emitted from the smoldering tobacco between puffs, contaminants emitted into the air during the puff, and contaminants that diffuse through the cigarette paper and mouth end between puffs.2 Second-hand smoke is a complex mix of over 4,000 substances, of which more than 42 individual mainstream components are known to cause cancer in humans and animals, and many of which are strong irritants.3 Sidestream smoke contains many of the same substances found in mainstream smoke, including a host of carcinogenic agents.4

Smokers themselves are compromised not only from the smoke directly inhaled from tobacco use, but by second-hand smoke as they breathe in both the sidestream and mainstream smoke.

There is a need to aggressively combat this health hazard. There are segments of the population which, despite the evolution of attitudes toward open recognition of this problem, continue to put others at risk and view the problem merely as a nuisance. However, second-hand smoke is one of the major environmental health risks that society faces today, and steps can and must be taken to prevent this health hazard.

[hollowdweller]

188. Yep! All those folks drawing SSI and sucking up the medicaid dollars from

Smoking related impairments, but voting for politicians who espouse "personal responsibility" Should we deny disability and medicaid for people who have COPD or Lung cancer due to smoking?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

102. Sorry asthma is not a flawed study. Cancer is far less worrisome than

the obvious. Smoking causes and aggravates asthma. I smoke. I can do it outside. It's not the end of the world.

The cancers associated with cigarettes and who gets them ARE debatable. The literature on pulmonary diseases is different. We KNOW smoking causes and aggravates asthma and can trigger allergies...no myths, no junk...just scientific fact.

[Susang]

163. Right, junk science

:eyes:

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/rapidpdf/bmj.38370.496632.8Fv3.pdf (PDF file)

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/497716?src=search

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/475258?src=search

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/491785?src=search

[UdoKier]

82. I disagree with smoking bans in bars too.

Restaurants are another story though. I know it's a heresy here, but I also think the Americans with Disabilities Act goes WAY too far. Businesses and buildings that cannot afford it are being forced to build elaborate ramps and elevators for very few if any people.

I'm all for it on businesses and buildings of a certain size, but existing buildings should have been grandfathered out of doing it. Sorry, but I just see it as terribly inefficient.

[mongo]

87. Man this thread PISSES ME OFF!

I think I'll go outside for a smoke - which, BTW is a rule made by ME in MY store. I didn't need a nanny state to decide that for me.

I could smoke all day long at my register if I wanted to. But it would stink up the lingerie and piss some customers off, SO I DON'T.

Our town doesn't have a smoking ban, yet there ARE NON SMOKING RESTURANTS AND BARS! All without government intervention.

Imagine that.

[ultraist]

89. Carcinogens settle in fabric

This is about WORKERS' RIGHTS to breathe clean air. Second hand smoke IS very unhealthy.

How can you possibly beleive that something as toxic as cig smoke, is not unhealthy to breathe?

[Warren DeMontague]

92. Maybe you should ask yourself WHY it would piss some people off.

Then consider that there are plenty of self-centered assholes who don't care if they piss people off, much less ruin other people's meals. Think fat guys who smoke cigars.

That's why these kinds of laws are needed.

[mongo]

96. You have every right to frequent any establishment you want

and if that establishment allows fat guys to smoke cigars, then you don't have to go there.

I'm sure that if this was left up to the market, then there would be plenty of places where you could enjoy a smoke-free environment.

[Warren DeMontague]

98. Bullshit.

What you end up with is a situation like many places in the midwest; restaurants with a "non-smoking section". (After all, what business owner wants to alienate a chunk of the customer base?) Yeah, that works real well. Mmmmmmmm, yummy.

Of course, since you're apparently a smoker, I'm sure that shit smells like roses to you.

[mongo]

114. Certainly some of the business owners here in town

thought that it would work - and from what I've heard the non-smoking bars in town have a booming business. And that's totally non-smoking.

[ultraist]

97. They should breathe second hand pot smoke and then say, second hand smoke

has no effect. LOL! YA RIGHT.

Companies are not regulated enough. They run ramshot over workers rights, expose them to all sorts of toxic chemicals, fuck them out of their overtime, pensions, & underpay them.

I'm sick of this pro corp climate. Democrats have traditionally stood up for workers' rights and envio concerns. This IS a liberal cause.

[seabeyond]

119. and the rational for no smoking outside

could it be cause you would be "looking" at a smoker. the issue is???????? give me some really good reason a person cant smoke outside.

[seabeyond]

126. dupe

[ultraist]

143. PUBLIC beaches and parks

I think there should be no smoking in PUBLIC park and beach/outdoor areas. Smoking creates a lot of excess clean up, that we PAY for and infringes on others' rights.

Here in NC, at the beach, we have to carefully choose a spot so that our kids are not breathing smoke. We've had to move our blanket to get away from smokers who set up after we do.

My daughter is asthmatic and she should have the right to breathe smokeless air when she goes to a PUBLIC beach or park area. And we shouldn't have our seagulls and fish eating cig butts. Some beaches are like one big ashtray. It's disgusting.


edited after I realized the post was not in response to mine!

[Warren DeMontague]

164. I don't have a problem with people smoking outside.

I think there is a distinct difference between regulating lighting up in an enclosed environment and outside.

Which is really the gist of why I can't understand the irrational rage this issue seems to provoke in smokers, at least when we're talking about laws like California's, which ban smoking in indoor public establishments. I really don't believe that asking people to go outside to smoke is such a massive inconvenience and/or infringement.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

103. Get piss off all you want but it's an irrational anger

What you or I put in our lungs is our business. What we put in other people's lungs is THEIR business. The causal connection between asthma and smoke is well established and it doesn't matter if it's cigarette smoke, barbeque smoke or incense smoke.

[mongo]

116. speaking of asthma -

my wife and I are particularly sensative to many perfumes - and it does trigger wheezing. Should the wearing of perfume be banned to accomodate us?

gotta go - closing store now - g'night

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

123. Actually it is at some venues. The Philharmonic asks people not to wear

strong colognes and I agree with that. Choking is choking no matter the cause.

[RITPTV]

109. Smoking in bars is a unique example

I think that bars should be able to allow smoking. If I own my own bar, why shouldn't I be able to permit smoking? I'm a smoker so I don't care and anyone can choose not to enter. Seems simple.

[ultraist]

111. What about your employees' right not to breathe smoke filled air?

[RITPTV]

113. I apologize, I meant to say

that I would be running the bar by myself, a neighborhood tavern. Shouldn't I be able to allow smoking.

At the same time, what if I sought to start the bar with friends who also smoke?

Wouldn't banning smoking in such an establishment be a gross violation of my rights?

[ultraist]

122. I said it should be banned in a workplace that has EMPLOYEES

Based on workers' right to breathe clean air.

Isn't forcing employees to breathe toxic second hand smoke in the workplace a gross violation of their rights?

[RITPTV]

125. Fine

So we agree that a complete ban on smoking in bars is not legitimate. So that issue is out of the way.

The tougher issue, couldn't I hire bartenders who smoke?

It's not as if there is a shortage of smokers who might need to make some money working in a bar.

[ultraist]

132. I haven't decided on that

I do feel strongly that employees' rights should be protected. BIG CORP tobacco lobbiests have gotten their way for far too long at the expense of people's health.

I'm not sure about allowing certain establishments to exempt out of the ban due to the employee issue. Perhaps a limited number per area for cigar or smoking bars should be allowed. They would essentially be like the opium dens or hashish bars.

[Behind the Aegis]

117. What about they know ahead of time.

They can choose not to work there! The same way I choose not to work for places that do not include sexual orientation in the non-discrimination clause of their business. The same way that women who feel "Hooter's" is exploitive of women choose not to work there or eat there. It is about a PRIVATE business having a choice and that business' customers having the CHOICE to go there or not.

[ultraist]

139. I think they should limit the number of bars that could exempt

To ensure it doesn't have a significant effect on someone finding employment elsewhere. Jobs are not abundant right now. Not everyone has the luxury of being so particular about taking employment, as you do. They have to take whatever is out there to feed their family.

Additionally, many smokers don't like breathing others' smoke. Even smokers have a right to breathe clean air in the workplace. Second hand smoke is toxic and being in a smokey bar is like chain smoking. The air is filthy.

But I would agree to allowing a limited number of smoking/cigar bars to be exempt. I think that's a good balance between protecting workers' rights and still allowing a few establishments to allow smoking.

[Behind the Aegis]

141. Middle ground

I have no issue with that, but I still think it should be the OWNER'S choice! Here in small town OK, we have several restaurants that do not allow smoking and some that do. I know when I go in a non-smoking one, what I am getting into. The same goes for going to a smoking one.

As for abundant jobs, I am WELL aware they are not out there!!! I have been unemployed for 22 months! So, I don't think it is a "luxury" but rather a choice. It severely limits my choices, but I know that and I CHOSE that. However, if the only requirement I had was a non-smoking environment, there are MANY more places like that, than places than protect gays! If I was in the position where I was in complete dire straits, then I would work in the pits of Hell, my choices would be out the window.

I am all for having non-smoking places, but let's be honest...it should be at the CHOICE of the owner, not the government!

[ultraist]

148. I'd rather error on the side of employees' rights than protect "owners"

I'm a pro union type person theoretically. Owners are notorious for running ramshot over employees' rights.

I'm a small business owner and I would not force my employees to breathe cig smoke. Owners have a LOT of room to skirt out of the laws. We are not over regulated by any stretch of the imagination.

I don't believe in a free market with no regulations. How many toxins would be allowed in the workplace if the owners were to decide? I'm pretty Naderish on this subject.

There are horrific cases of employees getting poisoned just to inflate the owners' bottom line. I read an article recently about how the fake butter they make to put on microwave popcorn produces a toxic fumes and there was an unusually high number of cancer cases amongst their employees. (These particular fumes do cause cancer). This type of thing happens frequently in the workplace. Have you ever driven by a cig factory? I don't know how those people can stand working amongst all of those pesticides and chemicals.

[Pepperbelly]

156. and if it runs off a substantial part of your business and ...

the bar shuts its doors, how does that help anyone?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

124. In California you can. If you are the only employee of your bar

you can allow smoking.

[ultraist]

140. That's a good approach but...

I think taking it a bit further would be ok too. Allowing a very limited number of bars in per region, to be exempt. This way, it doesn't impede on any one finding employment in a non smoking establishment. I'm sure an economist could calculate a reasonable number based on the number of bars and employment rates in that area. The number would have to be specific to that area.

[walldude]

112. Lotta panties in a bunch here..

As far as restaurants and bars, they should have the right to decide themselves whether or not to have a smoking section. Then people can decide whether or not to go there, kinda like changing the channel on the TV. Fact is that in most places, banning smoking has increased business. But places where people smoke who are likely to frequent should be able to make that choice. The smoker is portrayed as this evil person. Bullshit. Most smokers will put a cigarette out, and apologize, if you just ask them nicely. As far as banning smoking outside, until every one of you whiners stops driving your carbon-dioxide spewing cars, put a sock in it....

A couple funny smoking moments. I'm on a loading dock. I light up a smoke. Dockmaster comes to me, "No smoking on the dock." I look down the length of the dock, I see half a dozen trucks and at least 10 forklifts spewing copious amounts of smoke... Uh... sure... no smoking, I get it.

Another time I'm in the bathroom in a bar, there is a guy in the stall puking up his rancid dinner and drinks. The smell was so bad I lit a smoke just to drown it out. Guy walks in. "Put that stinky thing out, no smoking in here..." uh.. ok... whatever you say.. :)

[Behind the Aegis]

121. Preach on!!

Good examples. We are talking about private businesses being told what policy to have and that is getting into some messy precedent, IMO. I have no issue with government business, etc, because they are a business that has CHOSEN not to allow smoking, and I am cool with that.

I am usually pretty good about not smoking around those who don't smoke. I won't even smoke in my car or house if I have a guest who doesn't smoke. But that is just me. However, it really pisses me off though, that all these "holier-than-thou" types, that like to give me lectures every time I smoke. Hey asshole, I can read! PISS OFF and MIND YOUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS!

Great post!!!

[Warren DeMontague]

169. You can smoke all you fucking want

I will never stop fighting for the rights of consenting adults to do whatever they want, even stupid things, with their own bodies.

By all means. Sit in a chair and puff 12 packs a day. Knock yourself out.

But smoking in a small, enclosed public space isn't about "you", it's about "us". That's the gist of this thread. I could care less what you do outside or in the privacy of your own home.

[Behind the Aegis]

173. Why thank you..I was waiting for permission

Actually the thread is about the rights of OWNERS and what they should be able to be do with THEIR businesses! I have no issue with government offices banning it, as they are a business. What I do take issue with is government demanding that private business comply. It is the same with employment laws. Companies with less than 15 employees do not have to follow certain guidelines, and perhaps the same should apply here. I wouldn't even have an issue if, say, Applebee's corporate headquarters said all of their restaurants will be non-smoking. It should come from the business, not the government.

[Warren DeMontague]

174. Well, as someone who has lived a number of places

in this country, I can tell you from a quality of life standpoint, eating in restaurants and going to bars in California is a VASTLY different experience than, say, in the midwest, where "private businesses" all universally seem to feel that the best way to hedge their economic bets is to have a "smoking section", from whence the thick, nasty-ass smoke always seems to travel far enough to fuck up the meals of us non-smokers.

As far as making an establishment non-smoking... "the owners" NEVER make those kinds of calls.

Bitch about it all you want, moan, piss, rant... see if I fucking care. I know how much better life is with the smoking bans. If you come to California, you're going to have to go outside to smoke those vile things. Boo hoo.

[Behind the Aegis]

175. Well, as someone who has ALSO lived in a number of places

I have been to CA and I live in the Midwest, Oklahoma to be exact. And, here in this little podunk town, there are small restaurants, not corporately owned and..gasp...the owners have decided their restaurants (and two bars) will be NON-smoking! The horror!! :eyes: Incidentally, one of those NON-smoking restaurants is one of the most popular in this town.

Since you have seemed to miss the point, I will be kind and spell it out for you. I don't care if all restaurants and bars go non-smoking, I will smoke elsewhere. What I do care is that the government is telling them to do it! So, it seems the only one "bitching" here is YOU! If your delicate sensibilities are so offended, stay the fuck home or chose a non-smoking establishment. This is still the US, right? We still are allowed to make choices about where we eat and drink, aren't we?

[Warren DeMontague]

176. Yeah. My dad died of lung cancer. I Can't imagine why my sensibilities

might be so "delicate".

Typical smoker attitude. It's all about YOU and your "right" to smoke wherever you choose. Actually, we non-smokers are just jealous, you know. After all, you look so sexy and cool smoking... everyone is watching you with envy as you light up, so sophisticated...

Right.

If smoking didn't affect the air and the people around, you might have a point about the government. But it does, and you don't. You're the one missing the point- I think businesses that choose to go non-smoking are few and far between. Maybe in your corner of the "midwest" (Oklahoma- which is technically the south, I believe) that's not the case, but in Chicago it certainly is.

Yes, we are still allowed to make choices- and if you need so badly to smoke while eating, I would suggest you choose to stay out of California.

[Behind the Aegis]

178. And again..WOOSH..right over your head

I have lost three grandparents to lung cancer.

Typical attitude on your part. Because I CHOOSE to smoke, I must be "trash." I don't even smoke in my own house or car, if I am with a non-smoker! I respect their rights.

And I believe you are missing the point -- it is still a private business and should not have government declare its policies! And whether you think that business CHOOSE to go non-smoking is far and few between is irrelevant. It is still their choice and some clearly DO choose to go non-smoking!

And had you actually read my post, you would have no reason to say "...if you need so badly to smoke while eating, I would suggest you choose to stay out of California." I clearly stated: "I don't care if all restaurants and bars go non-smoking, I will smoke elsewhere." Therefore, I make my choice when I enter a non-smoking restaurant. I smoke elsewhere. Their smoking policy doesn't determine where I have my meal, just what I do at the end of it!

As for Oklahoma, there is a great debate about its location. I don't think it is the south, it favors more of the Midwest, besides being located smack-dab in the middle of the country, the culture is not what one would consider "Southern." I have seen it listed as both, but I see it as Midwestern.

On Edit: Spelling correction and the chance to offer the same sage advice...Since we agree that choices still exist, if you so desperately need to have a meal without all the "cool" people, you might choose to stay out of restaurants that say: "Would you prefer smoking or non-smoking!"

[Warren DeMontague]

181. Who said you were "trash"?

Most of my friends smoke. I'm pretty solidly libertarian on the subject of consenting adults, etc.

Where you and I disagree is whether there is a place for government to step in and say whether public indoor places should be smoke-free.

I happen to think there is, you don't.

I think there's a time and a place for everything. For example, I don't have a problem with porn; however, people shouldn't be reading YANK in the produce aisle at the supermarket.

It is my experience that, in places where smoking in restaurants is "allowed", it is ubiquitous. Even more so with bars. I never saw a "smoke free" bar in California until the law passed. Again, on a purely quality of life basis, the laws in California have been a god-send, in my non-smoking opinion.

[Behind the Aegis]

185. Disagreements

I took from your tone (and perhaps I read it wrong), that you were implying I was less than sophisticated because I choose to smoke. Sarcasm can be read so many ways.

I don't disagree with you about PUBLIC space, I disagree with PRIVATE space. I think you are mixing up the terms "public" and "public-access." They are not one and the same.

I agree that smoke in a restaurant, and definitely a bar, is all over. I have seen a few restaurants that have almost completely separate sections, including separate ventilation systems. However, that is VERY rare. I went to a restaurant like that in Boston.

I still stick to my guns that it should be the CHOICE of the owner! However, I have no issue with the government offering benefits or other perks to restaurants that have no smoking policies.

[tx_dem41]

180. But a restaurant is NOT a "public place". Its a private place owned..

by a private entity that you have CHOSEN to enter. So, if you don't like it, talk to the private owner about his/her policy. And, if that doesn't make you happy, then don't patronize his/her private establishment. Knock yourself out.

[Warren DeMontague]

182. So the government can't regulate restaurants at all?

Yeah, you know, if you want to eat in a rat-free restaurant, you have the right to choose one.

[tx_dem41]

183. The distinction, since I seem to have to point it out, is...

that I do not have access to the "policy" of food preparation in the restaurant. Thus, the government acts as an agent for me. On the other hand, I have a brain and eyes and can immediately detect the smoking policy of an establishment when I walk in. I don't need the government to hold my hand on that one. If you do need your hand held, knock yourself out.

[ultraist]

115. Harvard School of Public Heatlh study abstract/interview

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/may97/smoking_5-20.html

For years scientists published data showing a direct link between cigarette smoking and heart disease. But does second-hand cigarette smoke also cause heart disease. New research published in today’s issue of the journal Circulation strongly suggests that it does. Here to tell us about the link between second-hand smoke inhaled even by non-smokers and heart attacks is Dr. Ichiro Kawachi of the Harvard School of Public Health, the lead author of the new study published today.

DR. ICHIRO KAWACHI, Harvard School of Public Health: Good evening.

CHARLES KRAUSE: What are the principal findings of your study?

DR. ICHIRO KAWACHI: We followed a group of about 32,000 women over a period of 10 years to see whether passive smoking might increase the risk of heart attack. And basically we found that women who are regularly exposed in either the work or the home are at about double the risk for heart attack compared to those who are not exposed.

CHARLES KRAUSE: How did you find these women, and how did you monitor them?

DR. ICHIRO KAWACHI: Basically, we took advantage of a 20-year-long ongoing study of women, and about halfway through the study, we sent out a questionnaire asking them whether they were exposed to passive smoking in the home and in the workplace, and then we just sat and waited and saw what happened to them in terms of their heart attack rates.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Now how do your findings advance knowledge of the impact of second-hand smoke?

DR. ICHIRO KAWACHI: Well, there have been previous studies passing smoking and heart attack, but there have been two criticisms leveled at studies that have been done in the past. One is that they haven’t asked about exposure in the workplace, and the secsecond is that most studies have not adequately managed to take account of the whole range of other things that might otherwise explain the association. And we were able to address both of these weaknesses in our study

CHARLES KRAUSE: Explain for us, if you would, the connection, or the medical connection between this passive smoke and heart attacks.

DR. ICHIRO KAWACHI: It used to be said when I was in medical school that if you can understand the effects of tobacco smoke on the cardiovascular system, you pretty much understand the whole cardiovascular system because the cocktail of chemicals, about 2,000 chemicals in tobacco smoke, initially does everything to the cardiovascular system. It directly damages the lining of the lining of the arteries.

It reduces the capacity of the blood to carry oxygen to the tissues. It increases the stickiness of the blood, and so on and so forth, so we’re saying that virtually everything that we know active smoking does to the circulatory system probably the same thing is happening to the bodies of people who inhale second-hand smoke.

[solinvictus]

118. Gun control, proposed taxes on fast food...

"hate" speech laws, and other such initiatives. It comes across to an average American as hypocrisy. Even affirmative action: telling a poor white constituency that they have actively oppressed anyone is silly. They, like poor blacks, have little say in the process. It's a means of division.

[ultraist]

136. Leveling the playing field is hypocrisy?

Why are you mixing in racism into a discussion about clean air regulations?

What a s t r e t c h.

Affirmative Action is not even remotely related to this discussion.

[seabeyond]

137. the discussion isnt clean air, it is why we are nanny statis

and this affirmitive action is one of them. and i see the posters point. i get it all the time from right wing, my brother. but i tell you, i worked in companies that discriminate. we have recent studies that show just seeing a common black name keeps an applicant from being called. i agree with affirmitive action. but.......

this is another instance of why the repugs see dems as nanny

[ultraist]

145. Protecting employees' rights is nanny?

Well, then let's throw out OSHA too so that employees can breathe in more toxic fumes. Let the big corps have free reign so their profits increase.

[LiviaOlivia]

120. Am I my brother's keeper?

Brothers from the Bible's story of Cain and Abel.

After Cain had murdered his brother Abel, God asked him where his brother was. Cain answered, “I know not; am I my brother's keeper?”

Cain's words have come to symbolize people's unwillingness to accept responsibility for the welfare of their fellows — their “brothers” in the extended sense of the term. The tradition of Judaism and Christianity is that people do have this responsibility.

http://www.answers.com/topic/am-i-my-brother-s-keeper


Libertarian Christian...sounds like an oxymoron to me. No laws and no regulations. I guess I don't know what a Libertarian is. Don't they want to drink clean water and breathe clean air?

[seabeyond]

128. so now you use religion to tell me you are justified

in telling me to live my life your way, just as the right uses religion to tell me to live my life their way

well i tell you, after 43 years of doing a pretty damn good job living my life, i think i will stick to what works for me. responsibility is off your shoulders, i allow you to no longer feel responsible in telling me how to be. and i will trust you will be able to make your own decision for your own life

[LiviaOlivia]

161. I was asking a question and it was directed to the OP.

Not you.

The OP professes to be a Christian with Libertarian politics and uses "Nanny Statism", a British political term, in his opening. I believe that being a Libertarian is in conflict with being a Christian. And I curious to his response because I am neither.


Action to save lives is not nanny statism, says British Medical Association
09 Jul 2004

Barriers preventing people from making healthy choices must be tackled as a matter of urgency, the BMA says today (Friday 9 July). It argues that the government has a "moral duty" to ban smoking in public places, and warns there could be a serious epidemic if sexual health falls off the public agenda.

In its response to the 'Choosing Health' consultation, the BMA challenges the Prime Minister's recent suggestion that tackling public health crises such as obesity and passive smoking could lead to a "nanny state". Although individuals must have the power to decide their own lifestyle, the government has a responsibility to remove obstacles to healthy choices.

Dr Vivienne Nathanson, Head of Science and Ethics at the BMA, says: "It's hard for people to give up smoking without smoke-free public places, cycle to work without cycle lanes, or buy healthy foods if they're too expensive. In recent years, laws on drink-driving and safety belts have turned out to be both effective and popular, and it's time for the government to show the same leadership on smoking, obesity and sexual health."

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=10519#

[seabeyond]

127. sex education in the fourth grade

gun and drug fairs for kindergarten thru 6th grade
thumb and foot printing a kid cause may be kidnapped
no tolerance in school is absurd
MADD and law and punishment drinking and driving absurd
osha goes too far and hurts small business
enviromentalists tell lies so they can win against land owners creating an untrusting atmosphere

you guys cannot see it, because you believe in these things. it was asked what makes dems the nanny statis, but when you are told you validate and stick up for these things, and say how they are needed. yes this is what you beleive, and yes it is what pisses people off

kids have full house on nickolodean, talking about another damn commercial, by the time i walk in it is off, only to have a shampoo commercial. all these scanty clad girls dressed in lingerie sexy poses over furniture and shit, acting like a bunch of sluts. fuckin kids channel.

but anytime i as a parent say anything, everyone on the board goes into an uproar about no one is gonna mess with my tv. turn it off if you dont like. screw the kids

this is why people dont vote dem

a dem wants to teach young kids about homosexuality. parents havent even started talking sex yet, but now we are having tv and school teaching kids about homosexuals, cause you want us to. well, some parents dont want to at 5. but dems know best, fuck the parent making these decisions.

wear a seatbelt
wear a helmet
put helmet and pad on kids on bicycle
parent raises tone to child, child abuse
a spanking =beatings
then, yawl yell about keeping kids out of restaurant cause they are out of control

then we have the vaccinations
the add adhd bipolar and victimizing all the kids

i think it is the we know better fuck you making your own decisions

now, this is flamebait i am sure,..........but, i havent come up with much on dems cause they have been out of power a long time. and they are not abusing the system and their power right now. they dont have the power. the issue is the republican and their abuse of power. and the list of their abuses 5x the list of the dems

[Behind the Aegis]

129. Are you serious?!

You said: "a dem wants to teach young kids about homosexuality. parents havent even started talking sex yet, but now we are having tv and school teaching kids about homosexuals, cause you want us to. well, some parents dont want to at 5. but dems know best, fuck the parent making these decisions." Where is this happening?! Or are you talking about teaching children that it proper to RESPECT those different from you? Who is wanting to teach the mechanics of homosexual sex?

[seabeyond]

134. this one is not my issue

and on a lot of those i stated i see the point in them and validity of them, but it is also what is bothering republicans which was the whole point of the original post. about a decade ago, before the bush and falwell alliance, homosexuality was being presented to kids in school, not the mechanics. and it was promoted on children programming. i wasnt bothered or offended nor did i have children then.,

but,......it bothered a lot of people hence the battle we are having today.

my husband has two gay brothers, and my two children 7 and 9 dont know they are gay. we dont see them a lot, and when we do it is family get togethers. no one mentions they are gay, talk about it, they dont have partners with them. i told husband the other day, we need to tell boys. he didnt want to because he figured he would have to go into the mechanics. i told him not

he is one of those parents uncomfortable talking sex to boys. they talk to me about it all. i told him we wont need to, they already know. but he wasnt comfortable. that is his RIGHT as a parent to not be comfortable and talk about it yet. as much as you all want to disagree and say he is wrong,...........others dont get to decide for him. you just dont. i dont. i get to respect that him. my job as his wife, his mate, accepting him for who he is

gonna take the kids away.

are we going to as a group decide he is a bad father

[Behind the Aegis]

138. Now I understand what you are saying

I was really confused by your post. I can appreciate want to talk about sex to their own children in their own time. However, there is more to being gay than sex. Telling a child that a person is gay can be done without going into the mechanics of it. My brother is marrying a woman in May who has a 4yo son. I will be at the wedding with my partner. If he asks, it will be explained that my partner is like his mommy and her new husband. We love each other. There need not be any mention of sex. It is OK to be different. And that is what we will teach him. At four years old, I really doubt he will ask about sex!

To each their own. Even if the parent preaches hate, that is also their right. It will not be good for the child, but that is not for everyone to decide, even if it could be debated that it borders on abuse. It is the same as people who flip when a child is spanked (I am talking a pop on the tush, not a beating), screaming "child abuse."

Thanks for your explanation.

[seabeyond]

142. i agree

this is what pisses me off, i have waited for any of these visits for it to just be a part of the boys world. it would be accepted, nothing much would have to be said. but this family has hid it for almost a decade. for me that is too close to lying to the boys. i am not into that and now, i feel it is almost loud and unspoken

now we are going to san diego in apr and my boys will be meeting a gay friend of mine and i am sure his partner will be with him. and a simple smile and wink to boys, and in introduction, this is his partner, bruce,.............and i have no qualms what so ever.

[ultraist]

146. If those parents want to hide the facts from their kids

If parents want to hide that fact from their kids, then they should censor the books and tv themselves.

Freedom of speech (not over censoring tv and books) has nothing to do with protecting employees' rights to clean air in the workplace. Sweat shop days are over. Businesses should be regulated.

The fact is, MOST bars and restuarants are owned by big corps. People here usually tear into big corps but on this thread, some are protecting them from having to comply to maintaining a healthy work place.

What other toxins should be allowed in the workplace? Asbestos?

[RITPTV]

147. I'm not sure I agree with you

"The fact is, MOST bars and restuarants are owned by big corps."

Outside of fast food places, I would say it is the opposite of what you say. I know of very few bars and restuarants that are owned by big corporations.

[ultraist]

149. ALL of the chain resturaunts and bars are BIG CORPS

There are far more chain resturaunts than one owner resturants. The chains are running out the small business owner. Even so, most small business owners of bars or resturaunts have a HUGE profit margin. Selling liquor is very profitable.

I'll see if I can find any stats on that.

[tx_dem41]

162. In Dallas, the smoking ban is helping the big corp restaurants...

weed out the independently owned restaurants. The small ones are closing, the corp chains are surviving.

And, there are FAR more independently owned standalone bars than chain standalone bars. In fact, I can't think of one "chain" bar.

BTW, Hi Ultraist. :hi:

[mongo]

160. Uh, no

Most bars and restaurancts are not owned by big evvvvil corporations in this country. They are small individual business. Even the fast food joints are mostly franchises where an individual may own 1-5 restaurants.

[Stephanie]

144. You're on a roll!

I think women should be allowed to decide if they want to bear children, and two men should be allowed to decide if they want to marry, but that's just me, I guess. Smoke em if you got em!

[fujiyama]

152. This is honestly a tough one for me

I have some friends that don't smoke and we don't sit in smoking areas when we go to eat. I won't light up around them either because I respect their right not to have smoke blown around them.

But I have others that do, and I ocassionally do myself (usually if I'm with them or if I'm have a drink - so about once a week)...

So, ultimately I'd prefer that this was one of those things left to local communities to decide. I don't really have a problem with cities banning smoking in restaurants but I'd prefer that it was left to local municipalities to decide.

That's for restaurants though (where I understand if states want to ban it - kids are also in those areas), but I find smoking bans in bars kind of silly. After all, people are usually going there to drink and it's not as if drinking is a necessity. Plus children are not allowed as it is.

[Frumious B]

157. Generally speaking, I'm a "small government" liberal...

but I have no problem at all with public smoking bans, none, zero, zilch. It's not a personal freedom issue. It's a health issue that impacts every single person within lungshot of the smoker. That's one of the few things pending before my Republican controlled miserable excuse for a GA state legislature that I hope passes and is signed into law.

[Warren DeMontague]

165. It's interersting how most of the people who can't understand

why an large number of people might prefer a total smoking ban in establishments like bars are smokers, themselves.

I seriously don't think smokers can smell it. They don't notice it on their clothes, they don't notice it on the walls, they don't notice it in the air.

Like I said before, I used to pop into a bar for 10 minutes and I would need to wash my clothes. My jacket. My underwear. My SHOES, ferchrissakes. Because they would all reek of that nasty wet dog cigarette smoke stench.

Now, going to a bar in California is a completely different experience. And the poor, oppressed smokers have to go outside for five minutes. Boo fucking hoo.

This idea that "businesses will decide on their own" whether or not to allow smoking; maybe in some places, but from what I've seen it's absurd to think that is any kind of rational solution. There were NO non-smoking bars in California, that I knew of, before the ban. And when I go to Nevada, ALL the restaurants have "smoking sections". ALL the casinos allow smoking. There is no "choice". If you're not a smoker, you suck it up. Which is pretty much what the pro smokers "rights" advocates seem to want. Their convenience over our lungs.

[rman]

171. Liberal is not "nanny statism", but that's how RW-ers call it.

[HEyHEY]

172. No smoking law - isn't a liberal or conservative value

It IS possible to have an opion that is personal opinion rather than a political one.

[Warren DeMontague]

184. Is it a "rights" infringement to ask people to shit in the bathroom?

Well, you know, if you don't want to go to a restaurant with shit all over the kitchen floor, you have the option to choose one.

Really, I'm astounded that smokers are so bent out of shape because they have to go outside to smoke. Big deal.

[RITPTV]

186. I believe there may be places like that in Germany nt