Public Smoking Bans - Creeping Totalitarianism / Bull****! Second Hand Smoke
Submitted by RonPaulWillNeverDie on Thu, 04/01/2010 - 11:09(These 2 links go together so I thought I would post them together.Please take some time and read and watch. Eye opening.)
"In the past decade, public smoking bans in America have become increasingly commonplace; governmental efforts to institute such bans often prove successful, primarily because the majority of Americans do not smoke. In other words, the majority can only gain from such legislation. Supporters reason that they should not have to inhale second-hand smoke every time they patronize the local bar. This argument is seemingly sound; most ban backers this author has encountered do indeed provide this justification when endeavoring to legitimize their views. Once effective counterarguments are rendered, however, supporters often change the foundation in which their ban advocacy initially appeared to be rooted. They then contend that employers have a responsibility to provide a smoke-free environment for their employees. Neither justification is well-reasoned. Moreover, it is unambiguous that public smoking bans are incompatible with private property rights.
If one does not wish to inhale cigarette smoke when he goes for a weekend outing, then that individual can opt to visit a non-smoking establishment. A private business, contrary to popular opinion, is private property. The owner of the business is entitled to run it in any manner she desires. It seems many believe that because a private business caters to the “public,” the business is public property (i.e., the property of government oligarchs). Accordingly, they think, it is appropriate for the authorities to institute and enforce public smoking bans. Since when does setting foot on private premises render you the owner of those premises?
No one is forced to visit a particular bar, restaurant, club, etc. Many counter that they wish to patronize a town watering hole, but all local holes permit smoking. These irrationalists fail to appreciate the simple fact that the very existence of these businesses is merely a side effect of the business owners pursuing their self-interest. That is, they aren’t selling you those Bud Lights to make you happy, but rather to get your money. The business owner, given that she is a maximizer of profit (evil capitalist!), will implement a smoking ban if economic conditions are such that it is profitable to do so. The absence of such a ban should illuminate the fact that it is nothing of the sort. Top-down public smoking bans are a blatant violation of business owners’ property rights, allowing the masses (non-smokers) to essentially seize control over private property. If smoking is occurring in a bar and you voluntarily enter that bar, then you should accept the obvious consequence of doing so: breathing smoke. Your desire not to, even if the vast majority of your fellow citizens feel similarly, does not constitute a valid justification for government encroachment upon private property rights.
The other contention, that employees are entitled to a smoke-free workplace, occasions similar counterarguments. No individual is forced to work at any specific business. When one applies for a job at a smoking establishment, he should be prepared to inhale smoke when on the job. If he does not like it, he is free to seek employment elsewhere.
At this point some assert that every individual is entitled to a smoke-free workplace regardless of where he opts to work. A slight smile crosses this author’s face when one plays this card. As a consequence of one’s advocacy of this notion, one must support banning smoking in private households. After all, the plumber, the painter, and the interior designer who make house calls are entitled to a smoke-free environment. “That’s ridiculous, we don’t want that!”, they shoot back. On the contrary: the logical policy implication of this argument would in fact be a ban on smoking in every place where individuals work: private residences, parks, city streets, etc. In other words: a universal smoking ban. Is that compatible with the principles of a free society?
The lesson to be drawn from this phenomenon is profound. It seems to this author that his fellow citizenry is all too ready to accept governmental usurpation of private property as long as they benefit from it. Such support, however, opens the floodgates to further controls. Many of these will inevitably be measures that smoking ban supporters are not particularly fond of. The principle that legitimizes public smoking bans in supporters’ eyes, however, is as follows: governmental encroachment upon private property rights is valid if it makes me happy. One’s acceptance of this principle constitutes forfeiture of one’s right to protest increasingly invasive and decreasingly popular legislation.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/creeping-totalitarianism
Penn & Teller Bull****! - Second Hand Smoke
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AjXwSJtxGc
part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAfKYWianso&feature=related
Coercion or Freedom: Make Your Choice
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/130919
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
As the Palaces Burn(click below video)
http://www.youtube.com/watchv=wfj2OWBocAc&feature=related
Check out this anti-smoking hero...Hitler
Interesting read...
"Today's anti-smoking purge is borrowed from the Nazis"
http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/smoking_ban_todays_smoki...
- The Nazis banned smoking in government offices, civic transport, university campuses, rest homes, post offices, many restaurants and bars, hospital grounds and workplaces, and Hitler gave awards to associates who quit the habit.
- A ban on smoking in private vehicles was called for.
- The Nazi Reich Health Office warned that smoking caused impotence and produced posters depicting smoking as a dirty habit of Jews, Gypsies, blacks, intellectuals and Indians.
Anti-smokers are in great company.
they choose to be healthy
what a ridiculous non sequitur, if you are a non smoker you must be like Hitler. Yea, that makes sense.
Heh
I'd rather deal with second-hand smoke than second-hand fascism :)
Hamburgers should be outlawed!
I detest Hamburgers it makes me sick to watch someone eat one,Makes me want to puke right there on the floor.So I think the government should outlaw Hamburgers,They are nasty,Filthy,and not good for you,I have had Hamburger juice splashed on me from other tables next to me,Disgusting!They should not be legal so I don't have to deal with them.
Anyone on my side with this?
"They used to come get you and lock you up because you were insane, Now they come get you and lock you up because you are sane"
Not only that...
scientist are now discovering that obesity is contagious...
we're gonna have to do something about this epidemic...
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1646997,00.ht...
this silliness
is a joke. hamburgers don't give you cancer by being exposed to someone else eating one. At least have a comparison that works.
I have truly became very ill
and lost an unhealthy amount of weight,because it made me sick to think of about it.It was very detrimental to my health.
But wait,I finally found out how to cure it,I just stayed out of Hamburger joints altogether I am now much better.
"They used to come get you and lock you up because you were insane, Now they come get you and lock you up because you are sane"
Oy
and nobody cared because you inflicted it on your own body and didn't infringe on anyone elses rights.
No I went where I wanted too
and they exposed me to it with no respect that it is not good for them or myself to eat hamburgers,so at that point they were exposing something to me that I did not want but I liked going there for other foods,So they should have in reality stopped allowing Hamburgers so that my Liberal self could go there and eat the other foods,It is my right as a free person.
I am right,they are wrong.
Right?
You know what though?It was my choice to not go there also wasn't it?
"They used to come get you and lock you up because you were insane, Now they come get you and lock you up because you are sane"
they exposed you to it?
Did they drive you to the restaurant, put a gun to your back and made you walk in and order? And did they take money out of your wallet to pay for it? Did they at least loosen your straight jacket to let you eat in comfort?
We don't live in a utopia
yes if the government got out of our lives and we had free markets and choice and competition then of course every owner should be allowed to do whatever they want. But we don't live in that world. We live in an over taxed over regulated society that dictates everything and tries to make everything fair. When we can get people to understand what it means to be free, then we can talk about smoking and non smoking bars. I guess I mean to say my argument is in the context of current society yours in some utopia that we don't live in. The principles are spot on, but in a free society not this one. If a shop owner wanted to offer smoking and one wanted no smoking both would get sued by people who wanted in because they felt it their right but didn't do whatever was being denied. So I guess I should say be realistic, talk about how it would work in this society not a dream one we are light years away from. I kept reading the comments and then I realized what you wanted was unrealistic because we have much bigger changes to make before we can allow smoking establishments along with non smoking establishments. I was thinking from first hand experience. We went from all smoking to none smoking. I had no choices now I have all the choices. I prefer the current if it must be all or nothing. For now the bans are necessary because you have the mindset you should be able to do whatever you want as in a free society but health codes and licensing and rules exist so you would have to scrap the whole system which isn't going to happen nor is it realistic. In the confines of the world we live in now what's the work around?
the only clear work around
was smoking bans, all or nothing. black or white either all smoking or none smoking and since smoking is a health hazard. easy solution.
Stop taking your baby into ... Strip Clubs!
In response to Boscovius:
lol
No really in all seriousness, are you exposing your baby to "second hand smoke!"
Clearly I have no choice now than report you to C.P.S.
I remember getting into the
I remember getting into the smoking ban fray once before. I still think that if my state or local community votes in a ban that allows me to visit any public restaurant of my choosing and not have somebody blowing smoke in my baby's face, then I'm all for it. I might as well add that I'm a reformed smoker, and I know how it is to get so accustomed to the stink that you erroneously conclude it shouldn't bother anyone. Smoker's, how wrong you are! It is backwards and rude to smoke indoors. Period!
Things are only impossible until they are not.
-- Jean Luc Picard
While I personally agree it
While I personally agree it is, if not rude, at least disgusting to smoke indoors, government does not exist to empower me to ram my views on what is disgusting down anybody's throat.
On private property in a free country, what is acceptable behavior is up to the property owner. If I own a crack house, it is simply no business of government to tell me I can't let people smoke crack there. If people are bothered by crack smoke, they can see if some other business owner, happens to have started a business with rules for behavior more to their liking. And if not, they can start their own. Or not. Either way, no legitimate government has any business getting involved.
"any public restaurant"
Does the government own restaurants?
I don't smoke, never did, had people in my family possibly die from it, but it would be far worse for me to use that to promote government force than to protect the rights of business owners whose only job in the first place is to satisfy their customers. I don't think I've ever been as disappointed with the responses in a thread as some of what I have read here. Even among those supposedly awake, private property rights are tossed aside to "protect the children" ultimately dooming us all. No one will be happy until they make the matrix a reality.
"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com
There do exist private
There do exist private membership clubs where patrons pay a membership fee for the privilege of using the establishment. Anything outside of that I consider to be a public place. You wanna blow smoke in my air, I'll piss in your drinking water.
Things are only impossible until they are not.
-- Jean Luc Picard
?
If a business is owned by someone other than government it is private, if owned by government...public. I'll disregard the other comment for the sake of this site.
"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com
Ahhhh.... you see?
It is the days and days of responses to this thread that convince me that society is not yet ready for a LIBERTY Revolution. If revolt happens tomorrow..... the rebuilding will be done by those who agree with liberty ...."EXCEPT FOR ________"
The bad guys have ingrained too much of an addiction to power among the people and have divided us so well, that even if they go down.... mankind will merely chose a NEW master that will give THEM what THEY want.... and they will call that "freedom".
Thomas Jefferson: “Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."
Viva La Revolucion!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmaTNf4YhEs
We are so ready for liberty
it just doesn't mean we're going to allow smokers to dictate what's in the air we breathe. You see freedom as being able to light up anywhere you choose. I see freedom as you being able to light up anywhere I'm not. If smokers were respectful this would never have had to be legislated. It's a no brainer. You don't get to pollute the air unless you are at home. Then that's your air, not the public's air.
Liberty requires letting
Liberty requires letting property owners decide what is and is not allowed on their property. Whether that be smoking, paint huffing, farting, striptease, prostitution or drinking crank case oil while listening to death metal.
Once government, egged on by ignorant masses, interferes with property owners' right to do this, there is no longer liberty, but simply degrees of tyranny.
private property
rights. That's what I'm talking about smoke at home.
I work from home. My home is
I work from home. My home is also my business. Haven't gone public yet, and probably never will, unless I start spending more time working, and less on DP. But if I do, that still does not mean government suddenly has some right to come snooping around telling me and my clients and employees what we can and cannot do.
I have found a good rule of thumb for deciding what government has any business being involved in, is to ask whether they were involved or not when Jefferson was president. He knew a thing or two about liberty. One can do a lot worse than outsourcing decisions to him.
I hear you.
To think that some of these people actually think that they believe in liberty, but have no qualms with the government telling business owners what they may and may not allow is baffling.
This thread is very weak...
The states have passed smoking bans in public places. The fed gov't is not the source of the smoking ban. If you wanna smoke do it at home and let your family members enjoy it with you. Or let them complain to you how disgusting and unhealthy it is. The rest of us say no thanks to smoking in public places.
If you are a private business owner that serves the PUBLIC you have no right to decide that smoking is ok for your customers. If you have a private club that is not open to the public and never will be, smoke your heads off!
There is no reason why anyone should have to put up with it in a public place. And it's more than just farting..because it IS unhealthy..and it is disgusting to a non-smoker. Also, if you're smoking near me in a restaurant or drinking establishment, my only recourse is to have you put your cigarette out or leave. What's the likelihood of you putting out your butt if I ask you to? ZERO! And it's bullshit. This argument is beyond absurd and the smoking ban is entirely needed and absolutely within state lawmakers boundaries. Can we find topics that really need the attention of DP folks??? This one is a foolish distraction.
And if you're a "private
And if you're a "private business owner that serves the PUBLIC, you have no right to decide that" inhaling cat allergens "is OK for your customers" either, I presume...
Never mind your shop being a pet store. Pet your cat at home, I guess. While praising the baby kissers who gives us this great freedom from cat hair, out of the benevolence of their hearts, no doubt.
It's funny
"If you are a private business owner that serves the PUBLIC you have no right to decide that smoking is ok for your customers. If you have a private club that is not open to the public and never will be, smoke your heads off!"
How private becomes "public" when it suits the needs of those looking to impose their will on privately owned businesses....and soon into private homes. Orwell? Marx? No, America...post Constitution.
"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com
This thread is still active ...
because it is exposing people's REAL stance on personal liberty over societal "rights."
Man, can't believe this
Man, can't believe this thread is still active.
In a free world, whether smoking is allowed in a privately owned space, is up to the property owner. Just like whether farting is. Or having bad breath. Or not showering for a few weeks and stinking up the place.
Whether the place is nominally "open to the public" is utterly irrelevant. A private place is still a private place. What criteria the owner decides to use to determine who has access, is of no concern to anyone but him.
And I can't even imagine the sheer twistedness of logic required to argue people are somehow more free because some government stooge claims the right to insert themselves into relations between two sovereign individuals. And the two are not the smoker and the non smoker. They are the non smoker and the property owner. Whether such a thing as a smoker even exist, is irrelevant in determining who has the right to decide what is, and what is not, acceptable conduct on his own property, as long as the conduct is limited to his property. If a smoking room owner decides to vent out his spot by blowing the smoke into someone elses house next door, that would, of course be entirely different.
Government has no more right to ban me from allowing smoking in my restaurant because you don't like it, than they have banning you from allowing cats in your pet shop because I'm allergic to them.
Madness, I tell you.....