Fuck the Nanny State

its not like most people decide to start smoking because they want a really slow form of suicide :expressionless:

Most people don’t start smoking because of the stress relief. Name one person who really enjoyed their first smoke. No, people smoke because it’s cool, or because people who they want to be around smoke and they want to fit in. Once they’re addicted, then yes, smoking relieves stress - but part of the stress is caused by the addiction in the first place.

It is the government’s business to protect its citizens. There shouldn’t be places where smoking is condoned, because there will always be people in those places and those people will be adversely affected by the smoke. Whether they choose to do that or not is irrelevant. Think of it more practically - do you know how much money smoking costs health care providers, and those paying for them, every year? Especially in places like Ontario, with government-sponsored health plans? Not only is it destructive to people’s health (both of the smoker and those around them) it costs a whole whack of cash, too.

Notwithstanding your ability to conceive utterly inapplicable hypothetical scenarios, I’m not asking for the unimpeded right to smoke where ever I please. I’m asking for the right to smoke on the property of privately owned businesses that determine whether or not they will allow it and to which people can decide whether or not they will go. No one is forced against their will to go the local diner where I often smoked of late. Except maybe for children whose parents make them. Again, this is a decision that parents can make for themselves without state interference.

The drafters of our Constitution decided that the republican form of government was preferrable in part to protect persecuted minorities.

Ah, but what if you have to work in them? Then you find another job in a restaurant that fills your needs, right? But wait, this is the real world, where people need money to live and getting a job isn’t that simple, especially if you are being picky about what jobs you take.

Last time I checked, America had won the Cold War, comrade.

Like I said before: you can support these statist policies, just please repudiate the Constitution of the United States before you do so. (Also, you might want to repudiate the ideas of free will and responsibility if you haven’t already.)

Free will means that I have the right to do whatever I want as long as it does not impinge on others’ rights. Your free will to smoke does not and cannot go against my right to be healthy. In fact, it’s not too much of a stretch to say that it goes against your right to be healthy. Healthy people are a resource of the US; unhealthy people bog down the hospitals and health care systems and contribute less to society. The government has every reason to try and get people to be as healthy as possible. Of course this isn’t always possible - but smoking is special, as an activity that has no actual positive gains whatsoever.

As has been said earlier, there are people working in these places, and telling them to get another job is far easier to say than to do. As far as I’m concerned, the only place smoking should be legal is in one’s own home - and even then, only if it isn’t an apartment building or condo, and only if you live alone.

The benefits of smoking are just as well documented as its medical hazards.

Name one person who really enjoyed their first smoke.

How about just about everyone who’s ever smoked? All my personal experiences with first time smokers have been quite positive.

haha my friend can’t smoke anywhere except his house.
It makes me laugh.
That means i’m laughing at you douchebag :smiley:

I surprised that no one has yet brought up those efforts to ban the sales of video games. (Or fine those who either buy or sell certain games.) Oh and yeah I guess I’ll go with the Non-Smokers on this one.

Kay, Sil, post those benefits would you? Please?

As for first time smoking, first time I tried, nearly threw up, not going there again. :slight_smile:

The only thing I find really strange about this law is that truckers aren’t allowed to smoke in their own vehicles. I don’t understand how anybody could argue that a law like that should be passed.

Since its not your right to smoke, its not other people’s responsibilities to have to avoid your smoke. Since it is obvious smokers will not inconvenience themselves to ensure they don’t smoke next to others, non -smokers require governmental intervention.

Blame the people, not the government.

Yes, I’ll agree with that. People shouldn’t be exposed to your smoke in restaurants, in workplaces, in bars, et cetera. But to smoke in your own vehicle when you’re alone? That’s getting to the point of being bizarre.

Also, why is it that cigarettes and alcohol are the two legal “pleasure” drugs when there are a myriad of other drugs that, while stupid to use, are much less dangerous than those two. Of course, I’m all for legalization of everything. If someone wants to do something that will make themselves die, then let them die.

The problem with smoking in vehicles is that any time you happen to lend your car out or give someone a ride (such as a family member), they’re introduced to not only secondhand smoke, but concentrated secondhand smoke, which seeps out of the very walls and air.

All my personal experiences with first time smokers have been quite positive.

Maybe they enjoyed the social experience of smoking. I’d wager to say none of them actually enjoyed the physical smoking sensation. Most of them were probably coughing their lungs out.

Video games, again, have positive aspects as entertainment media, and hurt no one (unless you believe the junk science and their wild claims that people who play them are somehow more likely to become murderers). Efforts to ban them will always meet strong opposition.

Alcohol does have positive aspects (it relaxes people and makes it easier to have a good time), and I personally have no problem with “light” drugs like marijuana being legal, either (especially considering it has medicinal purposes). It’s only when the drugs start making people dangerous that they really need to be monitored.

The main point to all this, as far as I can tell, is that most things a) have some positive aspects to them, and b) do not affect others adversely. Once these conditions are broken, it is the government’s responsibility to control or ban them.

Also, why is it that cigarettes and alcohol are the two legal “pleasure” drugs when there are a myriad of other drugs that, while stupid to use, are much less dangerous than those two.
This is why I want cigarettes treated like Marijuana. Marijuana is less dangerous and smells better. Why is it so prohibited while smoking is not? It doesn’t make a lot of sense. I don’t do either, but from a bystander’s pov, I’d rather have people blowing pot in my face than tobacco.

How about just about everyone who’s ever smoked? All my personal experiences with first time smokers have been quite positive.
Add one to your list of negatives.

true American.
Hate to break it to you, but the word American has no special meaning. No one who hears it has visions of majestic bald eagles drifting through the star-spangled heavens on the winds of god. I don’t know about the rest of the world, but here in the land of ice and snow, we pity you. We’re grievously embarrassed for you, your culture, your government, your leader… And we’re not stellar in those categories either. If I was an American in a foreign country and someone asked me if I was American, I’d deny it.

I guess my point is this: You’re not going to win anyone over by threatening their Americanity. Your argument fails because you think your sad, destructive habits should be handed to you in rueful ignorance of anyone else’s health and safety, and if there’s anything your country does right, it’s not putting up with that kind of shit. GG.

(No offense to any respectable human beings who happen to be living in America right now.)

Hey, it’s the [STRIKE]zombie[/STRIKE] smoking discussion again!

I support not being obliged to breathe smoke, unless one wants to. There are two points I disagree with though.

a) The moralising about saving people from themselves. Especially funny when it comes from Christians/Jews.
b) Forbidding people to choose for themselves. Why can’t the truckers smoke in their own trucks? Because I don’t want them to. edit: I don’t think the “give them a ride” argument stands. You are doing someone a favour there. If the smoke is that much of a problem call a cab. Also, you should never lend your car :stuck_out_tongue:

I don’t know if that goes for that specific law, however in some cases bars are considered by default non smoking areas with option to designate smoking areas. So the owner isn’t allowed to declare the whole bar as a smoking area. If consenting adults go there, what’s the fuss about?

edit: Hey look, there are respectable beings in a 300 million people country. Wouldn’t have guessed so. bangs head against the wall

A centuries old worldwide phenomenon did not emerge because everyone threw up and was addicted after their first puff. Many people enjoy the head buzz and the particular physical sensations smoking causes. Many people also enjoy the social aspects of smoking, which are very powerful. I suppose the bond of unity is strengthened in these hard times of oppression. Also, let’s not forget the tremendous effects tobacco has in elevating other kinds of introxication.

These are some dangerous arguments you’re putting forth. If the state can decide what is and is not allowed to go on in private places of business between consenting adults, there is little to preclude them from prohibiting the other things, like abortion and sex of various kinds, that also go on between private consenting citizens.

Also, many smokers will inconveinence themselves if other people don’t want smoke around them. Why don’t you try… you know, communicating with your fellow man before you go crying to state to legislate your will. It’s also a dangeous disregard of personal responsibility to concede one’s ability to decide the most basic things like where you’re going eat. If you can’t make the snap decision of whether you want to go to a smoke-free restaurant or not, are you even conscious enough to worry about your health?

Man and alcohol have a symbiotic relationship stretching back millenia. The consumption of alcohol is the most sacred rite known to man. (And that’s not just hyberbole, Christians.) Although the cause of great wonders, alcohol exacts its price. It takes as it gives.

Now for the sake of argument… (Bystanders, don’t take this too much to heart.)

Hate to break it to you, but the word American has no special meaning. No one who hears it has visions of majestic bald eagles drifting through the star-spangled heavens on the winds of god. I don’t know about the rest of the world, but here in the land of ice and snow, we pity you. We’re grievously embarrassed for you, your culture, your government, your leader… And we’re not stellar in those categories either. If I was an American in a foreign country and someone asked me if I was American, I’d deny it.

This strain of Canadian exceptionalism is probably the most ironic and pitiable form of national pride. I have a secret to share with you, Canadian: your country and citizens are popular around the world simply because you are inoffensive. As opposed to the muscular military, economic, and cultural superiority of the United States, Canada is merely a passive starveling in the eyes of other countries. You present no threat to anything, and you are tolerated accordingly, or even held up as a model for other countries (but never one’s own) to emulate, so as to make them weak.

The real test of so called “cultural superiority” is to look at what countries watch in their cinemas and listen to on their radios. Oh, sorry! Your country had to pass laws just to keep Canadian music from being drown out from the airwaves.

While I do feel bad for people who are smoking and can’t quit, I can’t say I sympathize with smokers. I’ve never smoked at all in my life nor do I intend to, but I see no problem with the anti-smoking laws. In Connecticut they’re tough as hell. No smoking anywhere in restaurants, any public places, and you’re usually not allowed to smoke in front of entrances to buildings. Here in D.C. they’re prevalent as well. You can’t smoke in front of the dorms or anywhere around them for that matter, and if you start smoking in the dorms…well, have fun being homeless. >.>

While I think refusing to allow people to smoke in their cars is certainly extreme, I think it’s disgusting to have to go into a restaurant even with a separate smoking section, because the smoke usually finds its way over to non-smoking. There is ultimately nothing good that comes from smoking. Drinking doesn’t necessary harm you if you keep it in moderation, but from the first cigarette you put to your lips you’re trashing your lungs and your body with almost no positive side effects. Social scene maybe, but that just means you’re fucking yourself over with other people.

Just my two cents and stuff.

Do you people honestly think it’s fair to ban smoking? You’re focusing on the “second-hand smoke hazard” aspect, but in many cases I don’t think that holds up.

In trucks, for instance. Somebody mentioned that you could lend your truck to somebody else and they’d have to deal with the smoke residue. First, I think a study should be done to determine how many health problems have been caused by smoke residue in other people’s trucks that you’re borrowing. I’m expecting between 0 and 5. Second, if somebody’s going to borrow <i>my</i> truck, he’d better be prepared for any “health hazards” it poses, whether in smoke residue, shitty breaks, an overly loud stereo, etc. What makes this ridiculous is that <i>driving the truck itself</i> is far and away the biggest health hazard to everyone. Banning smoking seems to miss the point.

Or in bars. One might argue that upstanding, healthy citizens would not be hanging out in bars to begin with – but let’s leave that aside. One might argue that <i>drinking</i> at a bar makes a person more dangerous to other people, and “second-hand drinking” consists of starting drunken fights, crashing into other people’s cars, and molesting drunk young virgins – but let’s leave <i>that</i> aside too. Let’s consider that there is no justification for going to a bar except <i>at best</i> as a slightly unhealthy pleasure activity – watching the game, eating chicken wings, drinking a beer. At worst, it consists of getting smashed and destroying innumerable brain cells. In short, there is no reason for a health-oriented person to go to a bar, ever! The people who care about getting second-hand smoke once a week, or whatever, can always go to Denny’s and save their lungs (and clog their arteries meanwhile, no matter what they buy. Why don’t we ban Denny’s?)

I’d even argue for restaurants. First, most family restaurants already ban smoking. No bad lungs for little Billy the asthmatic. Second, almost all restaurants that allow smoking have non-smoking sections. I go out to eat several times a week at various places, am always seated in the non-smoking section, and never have trouble with smoke. Essentially, smoking in restaurants has <i>no</i> effect on non-smoking customers. As for the waiters, it’s true that spending eight hours a day in second-hand smoke could cause some harm. The question, then, is why they chose to work at <i>that</i> restaurant, when there are hundreds of places that simply don’t allow smoking? “Societal forces made them,” “they need the money,” blah blah whatever – I find high-paying entry-level jobs every summer that don’t involve second-hand smoke. Find a non-smoking restaurant to work at, they’re everywhere. Or better yet, work at a factory! They take anyone at factories, the work is easy, and the pay is outstanding.

In short, I can’t think of any powerful reasons to eliminate smoking from trucks, bars, and restaurants. The health effects associated are either so minimal as to be unimportant, or clearly accepted as part of being there. There are always non-smoking alternatives – far more of them than there are smoking establishments! To ban smoking in this way strikes me as the majority bullying the minority because they won’t feel the effects. “It’s for their own good, and ours!” yeah, yeah. Is that what you’ll say when they prove that video games lead to self-degenerative and occasionally aggressive behavior, and ban them?

The moralising about saving people from themselves. Especially funny when it comes from Christians/Jews.

Again: this isn’t just a moral argument, but a practical one. Unhealthy people are a drain on society and on the health care system. Secondhand smoke is an important issue but not the only one - yes, I do think saving people from themselves is important. If the smoking ban saves ten lives a year who would otherwise succumb to lung cancer or other diseases, I think it’s worth it.

I don’t think the “give them a ride” argument stands. You are doing someone a favour there. If the smoke is that much of a problem call a cab. Also, you should never lend your car :stuck_out_tongue:

Perhaps I’ll allow you trucks. But if you’ve got a car, and you have a wife and/or small children who ride in that car often, your smoking will indeed be extremely detrimental to their health. One could even go so far as to argue that it’s a form of abuse (though I probably wouldn’t).

I have to admit I’d never heard of a “head buzz” when it comes to smoking, and yes, the vast majority of people I’ve queried about their first smoke did say it was awful. The social aspects are most probably the most important thing at this point - but the actual act of smoking itself is not beneficial. Even the minor ideas of “head buzz” and intoxicant amplification are far outweighed by the enormous health problems inherent in smoking (far worse than alcohol or marijuana).

Also, many smokers will inconveinence themselves if other people don’t want smoke around them.

The point of law is not to protect individuals from nice people - it’s to protect them from mean ones. As long as there’s a significant number of people who don’t care about non-smokers - and there is - the protection of these people from secondhand smoke should be considered.

If you can’t make the snap decision of whether you want to go to a smoke-free restaurant or not, are you even conscious enough to worry about your health?

Again, the problem isn’t really going to eat there, but the health of the workers at these places.

starveling

I don’t think that’s a word. It does sound impressive, though, which I guess is the most important criteria.

The real test of so called “cultural superiority” is to look at what countries watch in their cinemas and listen to on their radios. Oh, sorry! Your country had to pass laws just to keep Canadian music from being drown out from the airwaves.

That has more to do with the vast amounts of cash and media coverage available to American companies than the lack of Canadian talent or impact. There’s a huge number of American hitmakers who are actually Canadian (Celine Dion, Alanis Morissette, Barenaked Ladies, and Avril Lavigne come to mind).

In short, there is no reason for a health-oriented person to go to a bar, ever!

Unfortunately, for most people looking for a date, bars are apparently one of their only recourses. Wouldn’t know firsthand, though.

The question, then, is why they chose to work at that restaurant, when there are hundreds of places that simply don’t allow smoking?

Sometimes people have to take what they can get. It’s not like waitressing is a particularly in-demand job at any time where people can pick and choose their place of work.

Or better yet, work at a factory! They take anyone at factories, the work is easy, and the pay is outstanding.

I think people might argue against work being “easy” at factories - especially for women, who usually comprise a big chunk of restaurant/bar employees.

Is that what you’ll say when they prove that video games lead to self-degenerative and occasionally aggressive behavior, and ban them?

Again: the scientific evidence towards this is minimal, spotty, and won’t stand up to rigorousness. The evidence of the health risks of smoking are overwhelming and undeniable.

Good to know that you are not making a moral argument but I wasn’t talking specifically about you :wink: We disagree on the saving people from themselves issue - I’d advocate informing/teaching them even though that requires more effort. I agree that healthy people are better for the taxpayers’ wallet but I wouldn’t pass a law enforcing 30 mins of jogging per hour :stuck_out_tongue:

I think having children is one of the most common reasons for quitting smoking and rightfully so.

This strain of Canadian exceptionalism is probably the most ironic and pitiable form of national pride. I have a secret to share with you, Canadian: your country and citizens are popular around the world simply because you are inoffensive. As opposed to the muscular military, economic, and cultural superiority of the United States, Canada is merely a passive starveling in the eyes of other countries. You present no threat to anything, and you are tolerated accordingly, or even held up as a model for other countries (but never one’s own) to emulate, so as to make them weak.

The real test of so called “cultural superiority” is to look at what countries watch in their cinemas and listen to on their radios. Oh, sorry! Your country had to pass laws just to keep Canadian music from being drown out from the airwaves.
Hey Sil, maybe if you convince yourself Canada’s a shitty country, people will agree that smoking in public places and compromising the health of others should be legal because they’re true Americans and the Eagle God said it’s the right thing to do.

Or maybe you’re trying to disprove every little irrelevant piece of shit you find just because it’s there, without ever supporting your own points or even being consistent with yourself.

Don’t cry Silhoutte, smoking in public venues is banned in all of Europe and we still survived it. And I agree with Sinistral, you are affecting other people. When I’m around smokers I’m forced to inhale the fume which I certainly don’t want to but I have no choice. Smokers are by far the minority so they have to step down to protect the rest of us.