Either you are pro-choice or you are not

[The Straight Story]

Don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex. That is a choice you make. Well, that is what I hear anyway. But then I hear too that if you make the choice to engage in an activity that leads to pregnancy that is your business. And what you do with your body is your choice.

Don't want to be around smokers, don't go to a bar/restaurant that allows people there to smoke.

Don't want to work at a place that allows people to smoke at work, don't apply there.

Don't want to own a gun, don't buy one. I don't own one, was a personal choice. You want to buy one and go skeet shooting - good for you, not my business.

Don't want to eat meat and be a vegan, fine with me. It's your choice.

Don't want to go to church, be a Christian, or a Muslim, etc, that is fine with me. If you want to be an Amish style person, that is your choice. Want to be atheist, feel free to have that choice.

Choice in regards to your body and what you do with it is not just about abortion.

If you are pro-choice then be pro-choice across the board, or do you only think it applies to one issue?

Why remove choice unless you feel that people will make the 'wrong' choice according to your values?

Either you believe people have choice over their bodies and decisions or you don't.

Pro-Choice is a good thing to be. But it does not end with a woman and her right to choose when it comes to abortions. It is about us all being able to be ourselves, to have control over what we choose to do or where we go.

I don't want to restrict your right to choose, why do so many on the left though want to do so while complaining about the right when they want to do so?

Choice. Always felt it was a good thing. Maybe you don't. And if you don't, then how can you complain about others who want to limit your personal choices??

[LeftyMom]

1. Some choices impact others.

When that happens, others get to express their opinion about said choices. :shrug:

[The Straight Story]

3. Expressing an opinion is one thing

making laws about it is another.

One could say a woman having an abortion impacts the man she had sex with.

But does that matter??

[LeftyMom]

8. You're still oversimplifying.

Abortion is a woman's decision (in conjunction with her medical provider) because the primary consequences of pregnancy or termination of said pregnancy fall on her.

In many of the other cases you mentioned there are significant impacts which extend beyond the individual. For example restrictions on smoking in some places are needed to protect people who have breathing problems, or who would otherwise suffer adverse health effects from prolonged exposure.

This is why libertarianism doesn't work. Self-interest and individualism are often counter to the common interest or the needs of vulnerable individuals.

[The Straight Story]

15. I can make it real complex if you like :)

"For example restrictions on smoking in some places are needed to protect people who have breathing problems"

When it comes to bars and restaurants who is making them go to such places that allow smoking?

And one could make the case that a woman choosing abortion affects others - ie, the fetus who has no choice at all in the matter.

Earlier tonight I posted a thread about how people with Ipods and other such devices were impacting the environment by charging up such devices. And that affects me and many others.

Yet everyday people sit there with their laptops, posting on DU, using up electricity that may well be coal generated. They drive to work in cars that spew pollution, which affects me and those I love.

We are pro-choice when it suits our needs, we drop it quick though when it is something we don't like.

[LeftyMom]

24. You're using incorrect premises.

First, you're assuming that people with asthma and other breathing difficulties can be reasonably expected to opt out of public spaces where their right to breathe is not protected. This is just plain stupid. Naturally people with health difficulties (or who would simply like to avoid breathing in foul smelling carcinogens) have as much right to public spaces as everybody else. When two interests collide, the best alternative is to find a compromise, and it's much easier for smokers to wait a bit or go outside than for asthmatics to magically have healthy lungs for the course of their meal/flight/shopping trip/stay in rental housing/etc.

Second, you're assuming that a fetus has interests to be protected. Since most abortions occur well before there's significant neurological development, this is obviously not the case. Even if it were, the interests of the fetus would still be secondary to those of the adult woman on whom it is dependent- as the fetus is parasitic and dependent on the woman, the interests of the woman must be paramount.

As for your other examples: As a society we need to prioritize clean power generation. (Before you ask, I'm on solar.) Likewise we need to prioritize development of more sustainable communities to minimize private transportation, and develop clean and affordable technology for that transportation when it is needed. Neither is a case where your simplified Libertarian ranting about choice is a factor- I haven't seen any significant proposals (aside from the occasional internet cranks) to ban ipods or cars.

[The Straight Story]

26. What is a 'public' space?

"First, you're assuming that people with asthma and other breathing difficulties can be reasonably expected to opt out of public spaces where their right to breathe is not protected."

bars and restaurants? They already have a choice to opt of such places. Well...they had a choice.

"Second, you're assuming that a fetus has interests to be protected."

No, I think a woman has interests to be protected and should have a choice to do so if she wants. It is not up to me and my values. Her body, her choice as to what to do with it.

Just like if I decide to work at a bar that allows smoking, or go to one. Choice.

"Neither is a case where your simplified Libertarian ranting..."

So I am a libertarian when I promote choice? if I stand for a woman's right to choose, gay marriage, et al I am a progressive, but when I stand on the core value we have made when it comes to choice I am a libertarian?

[LeftyMom]

29. Do you support restrictions on smoking elsewhere?

And where do you get this idea that asthmatics and others who have a medical need (like oh, not wanting to die of cancer) to avoid breathing concentrated carcinogens can simply choose not to eat, or have social lives? Or that only bars and restaurants are places of concern?

The worst indoor cigarette haze I've personally encountered was at the airport in Las Vegas. Are asthmatics supposed to choose not to change planes now too?

[The Straight Story]

30. Good point, which goes to what I was talking about

No smoking in airports, fine with me. Hospitals? fine with me.

Talking about private businesses here where people choose to go, not need to go (airports people need to go to for business, hospitals, etc).

I am talking simply about places people CHOOSE to go to.

No one needs to go to a bar or a Mc Donald's.

[LeftyMom]

34. What about travelers?

They need to stop and eat, right? Get out of the car, stretch their legs, use the toilet...

They generally do that... in restaurants. Eating while traveling is a need.

So we have three choices- 1. asthmatics and others with breathing difficulties can suffer, make more ER visits and occasionally die, 2. they can live as shut-ins and avoid travel, social lives and employment, or 3. smokers can poison themselves outside.

[The Straight Story]

37. Well there is one more choice

You see an establishment allows smoking and you don't go there.

That is choice.

[LeftyMom]

43. So your "right" to smoke indoors trumps my right to not have an asthma attack and maybe die?

There's no conflict here. It is easy enough (most smokers do so anyhow because they realize the smell is revolting) for you and other smokers to go outside. It is not easy for me and other people who have medical needs (some of which may also limit mobility) to avoid exposure to cigarette smoke to navigate strange towns in order to locate a non-smoking establishment.

[The Straight Story]

45. It is not about a right to smoke

it is about a right for people to choose where they eat or drink.

Why do so many here keep wanting to limit such a choice???

We keep saying we are pro-choice, except when we are not.

[LeftyMom]

46. Yet there are health and safety restrictions on dining establishments.

Hands must be washed, food must be safe, cooked hot enough, refrigerated cold enough, dishes must be sanitized, etc. And in civilized states, that includes not filling the air with carcinogens and lung irritants. Some regulation is a good thing.

Now I've read about enough repetitive Paultard nonsense for the night.

[The Straight Story]

47. There are? And you trust them 100%?

Maybe you do, maybe you don't - but in the end you choose where to eat.

And that is all I am saying - you have a freedom to choose.

How is that bad???

Don't want to be around smoke? Don't go. How much more simple can it be than that?

[DireStrike]

98. It clearly is though.

You can eat or drink wherever you want. And then smoke outside.

[ejpoeta]

105. so you are making the assumption that all establishments would allow smoking.

i believe the op is talking about the private establishments making the choice. so those who want smoking facilities or non smoking facilities should choose corresponding private establishments. establishments that want more people there would probably not allow smoking. though, there is the ability to install rooms that would keep the smoke away from non smoking patrons... at the owners expense, they should be able to have that option.

your point makes no sense. you are trying to say that the options are for asthmatics to either have the ability to go to an establishment or not... i don't think the OP was really talkinga bout restaurants as much as bars. i tend to agree with the op regarding bars... my general recollection of my going to a bar was that most folks there weren't that concerned about their health... since they were drinking... and i felt that someone could open a bar with non smoking and let 'competition' decide. but that's me. as far as restaurants, i personally never smoked while eating and wasn't worried about needing to smoke in a restaurant. especially somewhere where kids were. i saw a woman holding her kid on her lap and smoking... i didn't like that. but that's me.

i think you are trying to turn what the op is saying into something else entirely. as most folks do who are against smoking anywhere seem to want to say that it should be all or nothing. i am all for no smoking in public buildings, restaurants.... anywhere where kids could be. but bars....i think that bars should be able to make that choice, as you have to be 21 to go into a bar anyway.

[varelse]

74. The employees have to go

or lose their jobs.

[ThomWV]

71. All choices impact others - no man is an island.

[Warpy]

2. You lost me with the smokers

because that kind of thinking put me under house arrest for most of my adult life.

Smoke that shit outside.

When you smoke in an enclosed area, you are forcing everyone to smoke.

That isn't a choice, pal.

[The Straight Story]

4. So you are saying you don't have a choice to be around smokers?

Like which bar to go to?

And this is not about smoking to me, it is about respecting freedom to choose where you go and such.

Don't want to be around people not like you, well no one is forcing you to.

[Warpy]

6. No, Sparky

Smokers deprive me of my "choice" to BREATHE.

Now go outside and take that thing with you.

[The Straight Story]

10. Who is forcing you to be around smokers?

Me? The government? Business owners?

You have a choice where to work, drink, eat, live.

[LeftyMom]

13. In this economy?

No, a lot of people do not have the choice of where to work or live.

[The Straight Story]

22. Well then there is a whole different problem to address then

Let's deal with it, but in doing so we don't have to limit the choices people have. Instead let's work to increase their choices.

[LeftyMom]

27. We're not talking about theoretical people suffering theoretical consequences while you do whatever

magic you need to do to improve their choices.

Here in the real world, there are 5,000 asthma related deaths every year in the US, millions of ER visits and untold millions of rescue inhaler uses. A lot of them are probably caused by your favorite indoor pollutant.

Since I damn near became one of those statistics because some self-interested fuckstain decided to illegally light up in a crowded public place last year, I'd rather you keep your free market Paultard bullshit the fuck away from my easily irritated lungs.

Choice does not grant the right to kill me through selfishness or negligence. Breathing is not an optional activity on my part.

Thanks.

[The Straight Story]

32. My X has Parkinson's, Asthma, and a plethora of health issues

I am all for banning smoking in public places that people have to go to on a regular basis (airports for example). But when it comes to a private business where people have a choice to go to I don't see the need to limit choices.

Don't want to be exposed, don't go. Simple as that.

[LeftyMom]

35. I addressed this in post 34.

[Taitertots]

16. If you don't like it you don't have to go there

You can choose to stay and breathe the smoke or you can leave. If you don't want to breathe in smoke don't go to a bar or place with smokers.

[Sebastian Doyle]

9. Guess you haven't read any of his other threads?

They're ALL about smokers "rights" regardless of what the title of the OP says.

Seriously, there are dozens of paid lobbyists on DU, but none as blatantly obvious.

[Warpy]

12. Gotcha.

Well, he's not going to have any more threads appear on my screen.

Thanks.

[The Straight Story]

23. No, not about smokers - but if that makes you feel better....

It is about people having the right to choose. Including business owners and patrons.

But then, perhaps, you are not pro-choice.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

38. That may or may not be the case,

but he just used smoking as one item in his list. Someone else made it the center of the discussion here, not the OP.

So, that's not really fair, is it?

I happen to agree with him, and, honestly, I'm almost positive I'm not a lobbyist for anyone.

Except for a large group of pussycats who are demanding the right to drink beer in pubs.

[Sebastian Doyle]

40. Hey, if the kitteh can pay for the beer, let 'em drink.

It's not like cats drive or anything. (Except for that one on Saturday Night Live a few years back)

[Tangerine LaBamba]

42. That's our next campaign ...........

First, we need to get those carpeted steering wheels.

After that, look out.....................

[Dr.Phool]

62. My dog loves beer.

But the prick makes me buy.

I used to take him to the saloon with me on Saturdays. As soon as he walked in, there was a draft and a taco on the floor waiting for him. On the house.

[proteus_lives]

61. I'm paid member of the pizza lobby.

Everytime someone asks me, "What should eat tonight?" I say, "let's get some pizza."

Except two or times a month when I'm working for this great Indian buffet place four blocks down.

:-)

[MADem]

60. There are dozens of paid lobbyists on DU? Are you joking?

This ain't that big a forum! What idiots would pay people to lobby here, in the left wing of the big tent?

And what's the going rate?

:rofl:

[obliviously]

5. You no where you stand.

Straight forward and pragmatic you are a very logical person. That will work for you in most situations but every now and then you will be thrown a curve ball.

[The Straight Story]

7. I stand on a very simple progressive ideal

Your body, your choice.

If we start deciding that your body and your choice impacts me then we start to slip down the path that the right to have an abortion is not so clear cut because we can find ways to link such a choice to others and how that impacts them.

[Sebastian Doyle]

11. Yeah, nothing as "progressive" as shilling for the Republican party's biggest cash cow.

You probably get more Phillip Morris checks than John Boner.

[The Straight Story]

18. Trying to find an out when it comes to choice?

Attacking me and making baseless claims does not address what I was saying. But then you knew that I am sure.

You want to stop people from having choice, well I see that as a RW thing.

Your body, your choice. But you just can't handle that such a thing applies to others with whom you don't agree.

NO ONE makes people go to a bar that allows smoking. And no one makes anyone have an abortion or choose to keep a child.

Some folks though seem to forget that simple idea of choice.

I don't. And calling me names or insinuating that I am a paid shill does not detract from that fact.

Be anti-choice if you want.

At least I am consistent in my beliefs.

You sound more like a rw'er who wants to limit choice.

[Warpy]

14. What's progressive about forcing other people's bodies

to accept your choice?

I hope Netvocates or some other outfit is paying you well for this, Sparky, because I'm done with you.

[The Straight Story]

20. tell me how they force anyone to accept such a choice?

Anyone forcing you to go somewhere that people smoke?

I didn't think so.

[flvegan]

17. I love it when pro-choice, smoking and veganism is all mixed in

in some shit-swirl of nonsense.

[The Straight Story]

21. yeah, well I tend to be really pro-choice

And not cherry pick choice.

But that is just how I roll.

[flvegan]

25. That you lump "choice" together like that...

in that being "pro-choice" in regards to abortion is like choosing to be vegan (or not drive an H2 or not go to a bar where *egads* people may smoke) is laughable, and demeaning to women's rights.

Roll that.

[The Straight Story]

28. So when do we decide that freedom of choice is wrong and needs us to intervene?

When do we tell people that they are not free to choose because we can map it back to how it impacts others?

[flvegan]

31. Again, your choice of "choice" is embarrassing.

"they are not free to choose because we can map it back to how it impacts others" isn't an issue with the pro-choice movement. It's about rights, not choice.

And "intervene" is just crass. Army of God crass.

[The Straight Story]

36. And you don't think people have the right to choose where they drink?

Or is someone forcing them to go to a bar that allows smoking?

Want to invest in a no-smoking bar, good for you.

Want to invest in one that allows people to smoke, good for you as well.

Choice. I thought it was a good thing?

[flvegan]

39. You know what

I'm not going to do this any further. You equating "choice" in women's right to going to one of a thousand bars that may or may not allow smoking is just stupid.

I realize that it's late, and that means it is indeed time for TSS to try to get all deep and philosophical to school DU, but this is fucking weak.

Have a good one.

[shimmergal]

86. The thing is. . .

in the absence of any legislation to the contrary, almost all bars will be smoking bars.

Because most people have bought into the groupthink that says most drinkers want to smoke at the same time. Whihc is not necessarily true.

Same thing here in Nevada re casinos. The "conventional wisdom" says most gamblers want to smoke at the same time. Again, there's no solid proof of it, but oh well...

Actually, I could accept your argument to the extent of licensing a certain percentage of bars and/or restaurants to allow smoking. Say, equal to the percentage of smokers in the community or general population. But leaving it up to the proprietors, there's NOT going to be a percentage that allows free choices.

[SidDithers]

97. +1..nt

Sid

[obliviously]

19. Hmmm?

Perhaps you shouldn't yell theater in a crowded fire.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.

[Warren DeMontague]

41. You can't have an abortion inside most bars and restaurants, either.

Sorry. Comparing the indignity of smokers being forced (waaaaah! oh no!) to step outside before lighting a cigarette to a woman's control of her own reproductive system is a beyond bullshit analogy.

[The Straight Story]

44. uh no, you are removing the core values

That being people are free to make a choice.

Women when it comes to their bodies - and the rest of us being able to do the same when it comes to where we go to for a drink.

Funny how so many dems become anti-choice when it comes to their own personal 'religion' and those they see as sinners.

Choice is a pain in the ass sometimes, either you support it or you don't.

[Warren DeMontague]

57. No, there is a fundamental difference between a state/municipality requiring that smokers STEP OUT

of an enclosed, indoor public establishment, onto the sidewalk before lighting up, and the state forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will.

HUGE difference.

You saying that any support for smoking regulations and limitations amount to one being "anti-choice" doesn't make it so. You can say it a million times, it doesn't make it so.

Look at it this way- I support the right of people to control their own bodies; I think the drug war, for instance, is a joke and a cruel sham. I think pot should be legal, regulated, and taxed- locking up (not forcing them to step to the curb) millions of pot smokers every year IS a travesty against notions of personal 'choice' and self-determination.

But just because I think pot should be legal does NOT mean I think pot smokers should be allowed to light up any damn well place they choose. And I think most pot smokers would be fucking ecstatic if they could freely light up in the privacy of their own homes, much less on sidewalks or curbs or open spaces across the country.

That same situation for cigarette smokers, however, amounts to "fascism". :eyes:

I know I've asked this before, in these threads, but here we go again-- if it is 'anti-choice' to support ANY kind of restrictions on public, indoor smoking, then where does it stop? Is it 'anti-choice' to tell people they can't light up in preschools? at gas stations? The hospital ICU?

You know, the fucking whining on this issue- from smokers- it just goes beyond all proportion to the issue at hand. No one is taking away your smokes, no one is throwing you in jail-- most places, most states, however, ask that smokers GO OUTSIDE the bar or restaurant before lighting up. Big fucking deal.

I watched my dad die of lung cancer. I know there is a real, legitimate vested public interest in protecting the air for everyone in enclosed public spaces. So you go outside to smoke. The time spent whining about it could be spent sucking on a Marlboro.

No, you're not going to change my mind about it, and no, it doesn't make me "anti-choice".

[Odin2005]

48. If there is no smoking bans finding a smoke-free resauraunt or bar is almost impossible.

And for someone, like myself, who is EXTREMELY sensitive to things like cigarette smoke because of Asperger's Syndrome that really limits the quality of my life. You have no right to keep me from going to public places just to satisfy your addiction.

[The Straight Story]

49. So a bar is a public place to you?

I live in Columbus, Ohio - and there are a TON of bars here - and no one makes anyone go to any of them. In fact I don't go to them.

Airports, etc and so on, I can see and agree with. But a bar???

Don't want to be around smoking at one, you have the choice to not do so. Why limit the choice of those that want to do so??

[Odin2005]

55. In the little hick town I grew up there were 2 bars, and both were filled with cigarette smoke.

Until Minnesota passed the smoking ban I could enter neither, the smell of smoke would send me into a sensory meltdown and turn me into a body-rocking, hand-flapping mental wreck.

[Dr.Phool]

63. A few years ago, they forced all the smokers in Florida outside.

It wasn't a month before all the LTTE's in the paper were bitching about the smokers getting all the best seats. Outside.

You just can't please some people.

[Maru Kitteh]

93. Should a bar be forced to serve blacks, Jews and women? Should they be allowed to use the front door

I mean, after all, those blacks and Jews and women can just CHOOSE to go to a black, Jewish women's bar right? It's not up for the state to decide how the bar owner runs their business, right? It's their CHOICE.


Oh. You say they DO have to admit and serve blacks, Jews. and women? Well then, I guess it IS a public place after all, isn't it genius?

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[uppityperson]

50. Pro-choice to me is being able to chose a legal abortion rather than an unhygienic back alley one

That is the choice I am fighting for. To be able to have that choice, EVEN if you are not rich and/or famous as they can always get a hygienic abortion.

I doesn't have anything to do with smoking, or diet, or any of that.

[The Straight Story]

52. So you are fighting for choice?

When does that choice end?

When it is something you don't like?

[uppityperson]

53. I am fighting to keep the option of a legal abortion legal, rather than having no choice

The choice is:
safe, legal, hygienic abortion OR back alley one

If you have enough money/power, you always have that choice. For the rest of us, fighting to keep it a choice.

[magellan]

51. I agree with you, Straight Story

And on the smoking issue, I see no harm in letting counties grant licenses to bar and restaurant owners to run "smoking" establishments if they want, the way they do liquor licenses (only more restricted in number). That way everyone gets a choice.

[The Straight Story]

54. Sadly some don't like choice

When it comes to a choice they don't like.

Folks become sinners and need to be saved on such issues.

We embrace choice when it is easy for us and we can force others to act like we desire them to, and yet we rail against the rw when they try to limit our choices when it comes to abortion.

Either we are for choice or we are not.

And I am for choice, which makes me looks bad I suppose in the eyes of some on the left.

Go figure.

[StarryNite]

56. Things have changed

Not so many years ago smoking was allowed practically everywhere. I remember people smoking in grocery stores. Cigarette butts laying in the isles and ashes on the produce. It was gross. And all restaurants allowed smoking. There was no getting away from it. Where was the choice for nonsmokers back in those days? Frankly, I'm glad those days are over. You can only hold your breath for so long while your shopping.

[Mythsaje]

58. You're wasting your breath on this one...

Personally I can accept smoking bans just about anywhere EXCEPT bars. Puhleeze... Oh, bars are smoke-filled pits of despair? No shit? What first clued you in?

Of course, 'round these parts if you want to have a smoke with your drink, you just toddle on down to the Rez and the multi-million dollar casino and feed the tribes. They'll sell you the cigs, the booze, and let you gamble to your heart's content while drinking and smoking like a blazing chimney. They'll even throw in coffee, pop, and hot chocolate for free.

Go non-smoking? They're like "Fuck you, white man. You destroyed US with booze and tobacco and now we're returning the favor." They KNOW how much business the smoking ban is driving their way. The Gov asked them to join in the ban and they were saying "we'll think about it." That's apparently Native for "Fuck you very much. We don't have to and you can't make us."

Despite the fact I'm on my final three weeks of smoking, I'd like to thank all the long-nosed motherfuckers responsible for the ban in the bars around here. People are now standing out in the rain to protect the sensibilities of thousands of people who will NEVER walk into the bar they frequent. Or did, before it made more sense just to buy their booze and drink at home where no one can tell them they can't smoke. Business has been gangbusters for the local taverns that saw one or three strangers a week and didn't need reigned in. Thanks for screwing over the small business owners, folks. Love ya! Just gotta save everyone, even the bartender and wait staff WHO SMOKE TOO. All for the sake of the casual customer who decides to stop by for a beer on his way home from work and might get offended while sitting there already planning to drink and drive.

Yeah, sure. I know. For the greater good.

If we didn't have so many people looking out for our bodies and souls, we'd be sliding right into hell with a cigarette in one hand and a glass of Beam Red Label in the other and wondering where the hell we went wrong.

[proteus_lives]

59. I'm Pro-Choice.

Abortion makes me emotionally sad, I wish there didn't have to be such things. But I understand the need for it. I would never try and prevent someone from having a legal abortion.

I do believe there can be a gray area in the morals behind abortions. Like gender-based abortion. I think it morally disgusting but in some countries it's legal. So be it. When it gets into the area of "building the perfect baby" that's the only thing that I would restrict.

[Maru Kitteh]

96. "Building the perfect baby" is a total myth perpetuated by fundies who hate science

and prey upon the general lack of education and understanding of genetic testing. PGD can't select for traits that wouldn't have already been present to begin with.

Off topic, I know.

[moez]

65. Straight Story, I can't tell you how much I love this thread

I completely agree - if you say you're for choice, be for choice.

It's hilarious to see the same posters go through the same tortured logic to try to get around your basic points (i.e. "so you're saying you should be able to smoke in preschools/ICU/whatever", etc.). I love it.

At one point in the past I suggested that seat belts and motorcycle helmets are also choices that adults should be able to make for themselves. Again, it was interesting to watch the "pro-choice" DU-ers pounce.

You're exactly right - choice seems to be great, until it's something that they disagree with....

Great post!

[Warren DeMontague]

67. Actually, I'd like an answer to that.

Funny, I never get one.

Because the central thesis here: "choice"-- is that it is anti-choice to support any sort of restrictions on WHERE people can smoke.

Remember, we're not talking about whether people can smoke-- no one is taking away cigarettes or throwing smokers in jail.. we're talking about laws, passed by states and municipalities, saying smokers have to step outside of enclosed, indoor spaces like bars and restaurants, and THEN they can light up.

So, if it's "anti-choice" to support that, then aren't ALL limitations on where smokers can smoke equally unfair and "anti-choice"? After all, if you want your kid to go to a preschool without smoke, you can choose one where people aren't smoking.

Right?

Want a gas station or an ICU full of oxygen tanks that won't explode? Let the business owners decide.

(I love this argument.. yeah, people should be able to shit on the tables at restaurants, too. If you want a shit free restaurant, choose one where they don't do that, right?)

Since you're yammering on about my post without enough bravado to confront me directly, and then conflating me with some other DU people you may have argued with, let me say this: I don't give a shit if you don't want to wear a motorcycle helmet or a seat belt. And I don't give a shit if you want to fill YOUR lungs with cigarette smoke. I watched my dad die from lung cancer and I watched one of my best friends die from head trauma... but it's your body and your choice-- 100%. Freedom of choice means the freedom to make dumb-ass choices, too.

It's only when those choices impact others; like, when you're too selfish to go outside the restaurant before lighting up a cigarette- that it is legitimate to limit YOUR personal choice.

[The Straight Story]

68. Maybe you missed some of my posts upthread addressing your concerns

Hospitals, etc and so on where people need to go I am fine with smoking bans. No one needs to go to a bar, they choose to. Grocery stores? People need to go there. Need to get your driving license renewed? well you need to go there too.

I don't have any needs to go to a bar. I don't need to go to a restaurant. And if I decide to go to one shouldn't it be up the people who own those places what legal activities they allow there? I would have a choice to go to one that allowed smoking or one that didn't.

I don't get why so many otherwise pro-choice people don't value that same logic when it comes to choosing where we go to enjoy ourselves. My values and yours may well be different, but it is nice to have a choice in them without forcing others to conform to our own.

[Warren DeMontague]

72. Because when you light up inside, in a public place, it's not just about YOUR choice anymore.

Let someone invent a big plastic helmet that can go over smokers' heads, then.

I think we're both old enough to remember the way things used to be. There were no "non-smoking" restuarants, much less bars, back in the day. You wanted to eat out, you sucked in a restaurant full of cigarette smoke over your meal. You wanted to go out for a drink, you had to come home with your clothes smelling like dog ass. Every time.

I remember when the law about bars passed in California; most of my friends were smokers, and there was great wailing and gnashing of teeth, along with threats (the bars will all close!) same shit you see, invariably, in these threads. Well, the bar and restaurant biz in CA is fine, at least as fine as any other sector in this economy. And less than a week after the ban taking effect, all my friends (the ones who swore up and down they'd never stand for it, and boycott, etc.) were out there on the sidewalk, smoking and chatting and somehow managing to survive the indignity.

It's not about "forcing others to conform"- no one is stopping you from smoking. You just have to go outside to do it.

[The Straight Story]

75. I was in CA at the same time, Tehachapi

And people were still smoking in the bars, they just did not have ashtrays but used beer bottles.

Same with here in Ohio. I can go to the bar about a mile from my house and folks will be smoking in it. And even in CA, in Bakersfield, there are bars with smoking rooms in them.

And yes,I remember those days where people smoked everywhere. Even at Mcd's. But to me it is about the choice of the business owner to decide. Not me, or you, or the government.

And you should have the choice to not go to places that allow smoking. And I should have the choice to go to places that allow it.

If there is such a huge demand for smoke free places then why don't people just open up establishments to cater to such?

Why shouldn't you have the choice to have a smoke free place to go? You should. And people who smoke should have a choice to be around people like them as well.

Unless, of course, some don't think choice is important.

I, for one, do think choice is important.

Don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex some would say. But if you do and get pregnant you should have the choice to abort.

Don't want to be around smokers, don't go to places that allow it.

Why does the left feel the need to control people so much? what is it they fear about choice?

Maybe the left is not so far different than the right when it comes to the topic of choice.

You can choose, as long as it is only a choice I would make and I approve of.

[Warren DeMontague]

78. There is obviously a huge demand for smoke free establishments, because these laws keep passing.

And no amount of pleading or whining or tortured logic on the part of oppressed smokerdom is going to change it. 'Nite.

[The Straight Story]

80. ROFL

There is a HUGE demand for smoke free places? Then why don't we let the market decide it??

Open a non-smoking place there. You are free to do so....Oh well, you were free to do so at one point. Now you are not.

Seems like some on the left want to force others to follow their religion, err beliefs.

How is that working out for you?

Oh, I forgot, it works out great for folks on the left when they force others to live their lives as they see fit to please their 'god'.

Choice. It is only something we support when we control it.

I didn't buy it when the right did it, and I won't buy it when you do it either.

[Warren DeMontague]

87. If I wanted to force you to live your life some way, then wouldn't it stand to reason

that I would be telling you not to smoke AT ALL?

I'm not. I've said very clearly, repeatedly, that I don't give a shit what you want to put into YOUR lungs. Now, I watched my dad die of lung cancer. I wouldn't wish on anyone what the Marlboro Man did to my dad. It's fucking ugly. But, it's your choice. Your body. Honestly, I'm not interested in stopping you from smoking. Not one little, itsy, bitsy, tiny bit. Your call. Your business.

However, when we're talking about enclosed, indoor public spaces, it becomes about everyone's air, not just yours.

And like I said, you can whine, piss and moan all you want, but these laws aren't going away.

Sorry.

[BzaDem]

92. I don't think the OP is arguing that the laws are going to go away.

That is more of a political question. The OP is talking about whether the laws are right or wrong, not whether or not they will be repealed.

[OHDEM]

109. Our choices are obviously affected by their impact on others.

A woman's abortion doesn't affect you. It's her CHOICE. However, in other matters our choices affect those around us and obviously we have to determine the best course of action. For what it's worth, except in the case of children, I'm against seatbelt and helmet laws. If people want to be stupid and not wear them, it's their choice.

You are free to make the CHOICE to smoke, but my son has asthma and he didn't choose that. Before the smoking ban here in Ohio, we basically couldn't go to any restaurants because most of them allowed smoking and their "non-smoking" section meant that you were 2 rows away. We couldn't risk it. Why should my son's choices be limited by your choices?

I'm a former smoker, BTW and I understand that 1. You're addicted. and 2. You want/need to smoke all the time. I was the same way so I get it. However, your needs don't trump everyone else's needs and here in Ohio, the voters decided that you can smoke outside. I realize it's a bummer - especially in the cold months, but that's the choice you've made!

[noamnety]

66. Want to dump toxins into public waterways?

Hey, it's your choice - and totally the same thing as making your own medical decisions about your own body.

:sarcasm:

[tabbycat31]

69. I take issue with this part

<<Don't want to be around smokers, don't go to a bar/restaurant that allows people there to smoke.>>

Smoking in bars and restaurants is illegal here. And I am very happy for the fact. That dosen't make me avoid smoke. When I go into the building at school where my classes are, there is about 20-30 smokers at every entrance. You can't enter the building without avoiding smoke.

And what about people in service industry jobs who have to deal with customers who smell like ashtrays? What about people with a friends/family who smoke?

Sorry, but easier said than done. Come back when you have sensitivities to smoke.

[bluestateguy]

70. Gun grabbers and porno prohibitionists take note

Excellent points.

[Warren DeMontague]

73. You can't wave a gun around or masturbate to a hustler inside most restaurants, either.

what is the fundamental difference between restricting where you can do something and outlawing it entirely, that you're unwilling to grasp?

[The Straight Story]

76. And what part of choice is it you don't understand?

If a bar allowed everyone there to carry a gun, walk around naked, crap on the tables, and so forth I would not go there. But if some people liked that and went there, who am I to tell them they cannot?

Freedom of association - you may not like it, but then no one is forcing you to do it.

Choice may suck at times when it is something we don't like, but that does not mean we should make others make the same choice we do.

[Warren DeMontague]

77. Right. Go ahead and continue to pretend this is a grand Jeffersonian battle for freedom.

The truth is, it's about other people's health being less important than your own personal inconvenience at having to step outside to light a goddamn cigarette.

[The Straight Story]

79. Still can't explain to folks why

You are not in favor of folks having a choice of where to go?

Freedom of choice in where to go and drink, eat, etc is something you seem to be against. Why? Your body, your choice. Their body, their choice. What part of choice are you refusing to acknowledge?

Tell me who is forcing you to go to a place that allows smoking?

[Warren DeMontague]

88. You keep trying to make this about something it's not.

What it IS about is smoking in enclosed, indoor, public establishments. It is about other people's health versus "oh, man, you make me go out to the street to smoke a cigarette! Waaaaaaaah. No Fair."

[OHDEM]

113. Choose whatever you want for YOUR body.

"You are not in favor of folks having a choice of where to go?"

No, YOU are not in favor of folks having a choice of where to go. I speak from experience - before there was a law in Ohio, most if not all restaurants allowed smoking. We couldn't make the choice to eat out because of other people's choice to smoke in the restaurants.

Your twisting things up. We weren't being forced to go to a place that allows smoking, we were being forced to stay home. Without the ban, restaurants didn't want to piss off customers by telling them to go outside. The ban gives them cover.

And even though you don't like it, my fellow Ohioan, the voters here decided that you have every right to choose to smoke...out on the sidewalk NOT in the restaurants.

[spoony]

83. Geez, you eat at some hoity-toity places!

Seriously, though, you're quite right. Supporting people's choices doesn't mean they're appropriate everywhere, all the time.

[Warren DeMontague]

89. "Eat, Smoke, Masturbate, and Wave your gun around like a madman at Joe's."

Actually, that might be sort of cool. :rofl:

[Mind_your_head]

81. Nobody wants to get pregnant ....unintellially (sp?)....c'mon

BUT OMG......what's a guy gonna "do" about it?!?!?!

Oh wait.....it's not a "guy" problem is it? Unless the 'guy' so chooses to be particarly involved and owns up to his reponsibility.......OTHERWISE, it's the 'single mom' ..... which society DOES NOT EVER SUPPORT :angry: :mad: :angry: :mad:

[Mind_your_head]

82. A 'dad' can disappear/be no influence on a child's life, yet when a child

doesn't have a good, caring, loving mom.....or when a child has an absent/abusive mom.....WOW! 'everyone' can 'understand' why the abuser/malcontent 'turned out that way'.....it has "roots" with a 'bad mom'.

Why isn't there more support for women? Oh, yeah, I forgot that men 'rule everything'....and they are OBVIOUSLY the 'weaker sex' b/c they need to take (and do take) EVERY advantage.

[beevul]

84. The Straight Story...

You are spot on. As evidenced by the hyperbolie and those pushing the ignore button, you have clearly struck a nerve. The truth hurts sometimes, I say. The simple matter, is that some people don't stop at having a place where they can go in which they will not encounter smoke for example. That just isn't enough. They want YOU out of wherever you are. Because your a sinner, according to thier own personal "religion" - whether it be smoking or any other issue. You'll not find a single one of them that are sorry, or regretful about limiting the choices of others. They're eager to do so. And that right there says it all. That fact strips away any illusion of truth that thier contrivances and justifications might attempt to prop up.


Its about control.


For some, its just not enough to have relative control over thier own lives. Some just aren't happy until they control YOURS too. Fanatics all. Under the guise of "whats good for you" or "good for society", of course. There is no reasoning with them, anymore than there is reasoning with the intelligent design crowd. They will contrive justification on top of justification, yet in the end, those justifications do not change the fact:


"Choice for me but not for thee"

No matter how they disguise it, justify it, or spin it...It is what it is. Bothers me too, but theres just no getting through to them. In thier own little narrow minds, thats the correct way to be. And predictably, when the shoe is on the other foot, they are always the first to scream "leave me alone!!!" and they give no thought to how thier own paradigm of choice can and will be used against them or more importantly others, in the future.

There are words and phrases to describe such a thing, but repeating them will acomplish nothing, unfortunately.


In the end, the only choice one may have when dealing with them, is to move yourself far far away from thier influence.

Unfortunately not everyone has that choice, and even if they did, I suspect that THEY (the control fanatics) would follow in order to exert the control they need to feel they have over others.

Thats what fanatics do.

The term "control freak" didn't just appear out of thin air.

I'm reminded of the lawyer Donald Gennaro in the jurassic park movie...




"You can't do that"

[Warren DeMontague]

90. Then why is it about having people go outside, and not outlawing smoking entirely?

I've never seen anyone here advocate outlawing smoking. If they did, it would clearly be a minority position.

If it was about this fetishistic need to "control" what other people DO, then wouldn't we all be obsessing just as equally over the smokers on the sidewalk?

Yeah. But it's not. It's about other people's right to breathe clean air in indoor, public spaces. It's such a common conceit with smokers that we're all so focused on those little sticks in your mouths. We're not. We don't think they're "sexy", and we also don't think they're "cool", but we also don't really give a shit if you want to smoke 5 packs of 'em a day, as long as we don't have to breathe it in TOO.

This is what smokers don't seem to get, presumably because to them, it smells like chocolate and roses.

It's not about 'control'. It's about 'take the damn thing outside... and then smoke yourself silly, Jack.'

[beevul]

106. As another poster said...

"just smoke away in a place where your smoking doesn't affect anyone else."

The reverse is equally true.

If you don't smoke, don't complain when YOU CHOOSE to put YOURSELF where you simply KNOW you will be exposed to smoke.

If you smoke, don't complain when YOU CHOOSE to put YOURSELF where you simply KNOW you can not smoke.


Don't like the fact that you can't smoke here - too fn bad.

Don't like that fact that place X across the street is some place you can't breathe smoke free air, too fn bad.

That there is called equity and fairness, and I'm surprised that I should have to illustrate it for anyone hereabouts.

But certain people just can't see it that way. They want all of one and none of the other.


"I've never seen anyone here advocate outlawing smoking."

Then you sir, have missed it.

"If it was about this fetishistic need to "control" what other people DO, then wouldn't we all be obsessing just as equally over the smokers on the sidewalk?"


I never said that YOU were among those that feel the need to control - though the last statement in your post may lead one to believe otherwise. And yes, I HAVE seen people obsessing about those smoking on the sidewalk. Furthermore, you say "we all" as if everyone that wishes to place controls on smoking is the same. I certainly never claimed that they were.


"It's not about 'control'. It's about 'take the damn thing outside... and then smoke yourself silly, Jack."

Yep. Like I said. All of one and none of the other.


You want all priority given to non-smokers rights, and NONE to smokers rights. You said so yourself. "take the damn thing outside... and then smoke yourself silly, Jack."


This is much less about smoking, than it is one group trying to get its own rights given priority over the rights of others.

When one group pushes for that priority, well, its most certainly about control, for those doing the pushing - by definition.


Own it.

[Warren DeMontague]

107. Bullshit it's not about smoking.

Let me guess... you don't even smoke, right? :eyes:

Anyway, I don't know how old you are, but I am old enough to remember when businesses were "free to decide". You couldn't fucking escape cigarette smoke. Anywhere. "Non-smoking" restaurants didn't EXIST until laws started getting passed. And now, guess what? If you're incapable of enjoying your breakfast without blowing burning turd all over someone else's pancakes, you're shit outta luck, in most states.

Waaaaaah.

Okay, if you insist, it's about control, then. We win, you lose. And it's not changing. Ever. See you on the sidewalk.

[OHDEM]

110. I've worked at places where you could smoke....

...once upon a time. Walking thru the sales area, which I had to do to get to my work area, was like being in a bar! No way to avoid it either. I always felt bad for the non-smokers who had to stay in there.

[beevul]

112. Hahahaha.

Way to show the entire world exactly what I and the poster of the OP are talking about.

Refute...nay...even mention...not a single thing I have said. I mean...you actually have to mention it, if you expect to refute it.

Telling it is...that you don't.

You just can't help but stand up and identify yourself, can you.

"Let me guess... you don't even smoke, right?"

As a matter of fact I do. And you know what? I hate it. I hate the way it makes me breathe. I hate the fact that IT controls ME. I hate how much it costs, thanks much in part to people with attitudes like YOURS. HOWEVER, someone else from YOUR camp made this about smoking. Go ahead, scroll up and see for yourself, if you dare. I simply used it as an example.

And a perfect example it is. And you are.

This originally was a thread about people who are all about choice, until someone else makes a choice they disagree with. It applies to smoking, guns, abortion, what one chooses to do with ones own bodies having nothing at all to do with reproduction, and a host of other things.



"Non-smoking" restaurants didn't EXIST until laws started getting passed."

Yeah, now you want them all that way. Like I said, you want all of one and none of the other. You acknowledged as much, and basically outed yourself.

Don't get mad at me, You did it to yourself.

That is in fact the best part of pegging the "all for me and none for thee" crowd, you can't help yourselves, and admit as much whether the topic be smoking or anything else. And usually follow it up with every contrivance of an excuse you can why things can't be any other way except YOURS. Such strong beliefs that there can't even be a pretense of reasonability. A compulsion, really.


"Okay, if you insist, it's about control, then. We win, you lose. And it's not changing. Ever. See you on the sidewalk."


Not likely, unless your "sidewalk" happens to be a corn field.

I moved to a place some time ago, where my actions will effect you not, and your need for control will effect me not, where the topic is smoking, and probably a few other things too.

Something I very much doubt you would do for...anyone...or anything.

[steven johnson]

85. I am adamently 'none of the above' and prefer not to chose- nt

[wuushew]

91. Still haven't quit yet huh

The high of your persecution complex must be even greater than that of smoking.

[sutz12]

94. There are two kinds of people in the world...

Those who divide people into two groups, and those who do not.

;)

[SidDithers]

95. Want to smoke? Fine...

just smoke away in a place where your smoking doesn't affect anyone else.

The default position should be smoke-free air for everyone, not dirty, smoky air that non-smokers must "choose" to avoid.

Sid

[onenote]

99. I don't "have to" go to a bar or restaurant.

But when I do, I believe I'm entitled to have an expectation, backed up by law, that I will be entering a safe environment. One in which the other patrons and employees are not entitled to put my health at risk by carrying concealed weapons, serving tainted food, shitting on the floor. I expect the goverment to mandate and enforce provisions aimed at ensuring the safety of the people who enter these establishments, whether its requiring smoke detectors, requiring operating fire exits, or simply banning smoking.

[Javaman]

100. My dear friend Straight, I usually enjoy your insight and your posts, but...

lumping together the concept of a woman's choice over her body with the choice of an individual over whether or not they wish to smoke is...odd.

Considering when smoking has been linked to be addictive behavior. I have yet to read a story of a woman that is addicted to abortions.

[Midlodemocrat]

101. This is a very odd thread.

[Javaman]

102. I know. it is very odd. nt

[moez]

104. The only odd thing

is the complete lack of cognitive dissonance among many of the posters.

[Withywindle]

108. I know. It's really not what I thought it was going to be about.

I thought it was going to be about people who say, "Well, I'm pro-life because I could never personally have an abortion but I can't force that decision on other people..." Well, then you're pro-choice, skippy!

[Tommy_Carcetti]

103. "Choice" and "Life" are simply empty rhetorical devices usurped by two sides on the abortion debate

People like life. People like choice. But there are other lives than the life of a fetus, and other choices than to have an abortion.

"Pro-Life" and "pro-choice" are about as logical and sensical as "pro-sunshine" and "pro-puppy". Feel good bumper sticker slogans that do nothing to contribute to the dialogue of the issue. Plus, it gives each respective side the opportunity to demonize their opponents as "anti-life" and "anti-choice."

In reality, the terminology is as such: "Anti-abortion"--for those who oppose the act of abortion as a legal right. "Pro-abortion rights"--for those who favor maintaining abortion as a legal option, regardless of whether or not they actually view abortion as being a good thing or would ever have an abortion themselves.

[OHDEM]

111. Being pro-choice is more than pro-abortion rights.

A more accurate term might be "pro-reproductive rights". The "pro-life" groups would perhaps be better defined as "anti-reproductive rights".

[stewartcolbert08]

114. here is my take

I am totally pro-choice! Note: This does not make me "pro abortion". Would I have an abortion, highly doubtful! If I were raped, very likely that I would have an abortion. This is not one of those issues that you can just make black and white. I agree that it is your CHOICE to do what you choose which is what makes me pro choice. However, I don't think that using abortion as a birth control method is acceptable especially when you take into account how hard that is on a womans body and her spirit! How people feel about these types of issues is their own opinion. You may not like my opinion on it and I may not like yours but we all have to respect each others points of view. Can I ask where this rant came from in the first place? :shrugging: