Comments on: When Smoke Gets In Your Eyes, Make a Choice

By: Robert-NW Side

Robert-NW Side — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 09:55:08 +0000

Government won’t ban all tobacco products. Otherwise, it would lose over $350 million per year in tax revenue.
-
California has ‘clean air’. Well, I’m sure that there are some places in Cali that have ‘clean air’.
-
I don’t think I would include Los Angeles in that category.
-
I don’t see the ’smoke-Nazis’ screeching about the smog. How about our “No-Zone” action days…the old, young, and those with breathing problems suffer on those days…where is the screeching of ‘death-camps’ about that ???
-
It’s all about baby-steps. During the debates before the last ‘ban’ was imposed, the smoke-Nazi’s said that their goal was NOT a complete ban.
-
Of course, this was a lie. Same thing happens with firearms, etc. Chip away at it in small bits…get the People used to the new ‘restrictions’, then go for more restrictions.
-
Repeat until ultimate goal is achieved.

By: ChicagoMatt

ChicagoMatt — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 00:18:38 +0000

Well I live in the suburbs of Chicago where they have banned smoking in just about every place besides your bathroom, in the dark, under the blanket with the fan on. Does anybody know of a place near the Indiana/Illinois border off of I-80 where I can get a cup of coffe and smoke. I would REALLY appreciate it!

I have great admiration towards the people of Indiana for “keeping it real” on many fronts and issues as it affects individual liberties. I am a veteran that has served over 2 years oversees during wartime. As a general rule I have noticed that in all countries on all issues that all attempts to regulate the “individual” behaviors of a population through law, most always leads to a “slippery slope” effect on all individual liberties that progresses over time.

It make take years for them to “pull the wool” totally over our eyes but I promise you it will happen at this rate. Hilter achieved this control by slowly reducing the rights and liberties of one group at a time as to avoid widespread revolt. The unaffected groups could care less seeing as it “wasnt them”…and well we all know how that story ended…enentually nobody had rights! Traffic cameras, illegal phone monitoring, personal data collection, seat belt laws, smoking bans, gun control…..these are all mean to an end.

Keep “keeping it real” Indiana. Dont forget to help me on my question from the top.

By: buer37

buer37 — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 14:55:46 +0000

Excuse me. But if smoking is so darn harmful that it needs laws to protect individuals from their own choices to partake therein, than why not focus resources on shutting down the whole darn industry?
For all the federal warnings on product packaging, all the government sponsored (paid for by taxes)smoking cessation programs, all the funds for production/ free air time given to anti-smoking public service announcements, SMOKING IS STILL LEGAL! If a majority of people want to take the choice of risk away from a non majority of people, then take the big step to make it an illegal substance.

My guess is that many of the same folks fighting against the dangers of smoking, wish that marijuana could be legalized, so they don’t have to hide in their mary jane smoke filled homes.

AND…..if we’re so worried about harm brought to others by imposing our “dirty” habits on others, why not ban alcohol being sold in public places. Drunk drivers kill, drunk dirty old men grope, drunk women lose control, have sex, and then cry “rape”.

Again, if smoking is that harmful, ban it altogether. It wouldn’t be the first time the government banned a harmful substance.

By: John Doe

John Doe — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 11:47:42 +0000

“Your home is not above the law. Murders happen in homes, child abuse happens in homes. Theft happens and rape happens in homes. Yes, there are penalties for thinking you are above the law, even in your home. You are responsible for your actions even in your own home on your own property. If you disagree, take it up with the lawmakers.”

The waitress/waiter/bartender who works in a smoking place is there of their own free will. So while their business is not above the law, they are making their own choice. In your example, are you telling us the rape victim choose to be raped? The murder victim willing decided to be murdered? That the theft victim willingly allow their stuff to be stolen?

Also, to me, if we are going to ban smoking, we should ban all engines ran by fuels. If you sit in a garage with people smoking, you won’t die within hours. If you sit in your garage with a car running, you will die within hours. Which is more deadly?

By: TJ

TJ — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 01:56:57 +0000

Thank God there is an organization that is fighting the good fight for the mute servers and other restaurant workers! They must be retarded as well to work in such horrible conditions. I’d rather work at Chernobyl, then wading through the sea of toxic fumes that I may overdose off of before I finish my pint of beer, or two, or three. It’s not like there are any restaurant staff members that SMOKE either. They are all SMOKE FREE themselves and should never be subjected to free choice of employment. It’s not like they decided, on their own free will, to work at a smoking establishment. We all know they were forced, by big bad tobacco companies, to work at these smoking locations. I don’t think restaurant owners should be able to decide who their market is either. I mean, that’s just silly! We should do our best to eliminate competition in the market place. I would go one step further in these bars and restaurants. I think the State should completely regulate the music on the establishment’s jukeboxes as well. I’m sure there are plenty of staff that are close to having their ears bleed the next time someone plays Journey for the 30th time that night. I know mine always are when I go out. Can we also work on banning fat chicks from the dance floor? One, it’s just too much jelly shaking and two, the resulting dancing causes way too much seismic activity and I’m constantly spilling my drinks. Not cool.

By: patriot paul

patriot paul — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 01:47:35 +0000

To: Daw-g

Guess I thought they were my friends. I applaud your example and is a good model to follow. I’ll use it next time (if there is a next time) as well as examine those who claim to be friends.

By: Daw-g

Daw-g — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:35:57 +0000

Patriot Paul: The toxic fumes must not have been so bad. You stayed there long enough for it to drench your clothes to the point they needed to be dry cleaned. How smart was that? Exactly how important is this meeting that you WILLINGLY subjected yourself to the noxious 2nd hand smoke?
.
No were it me, I would have left the moment I got irritated. In fact my wife and I visited an eatery last year where smoking was allowed. We walked in and was immediately assaulted by smoke. The hostess came to seat us in the “non-smoking” section. We politely thanked her and left. We didn’t go subject ourselves to smoke and then complain about it. That’s not very bright.

By: patriot paul

patriot paul — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:32:22 +0000

Mike, fyi..
as an aside, the story in #5 came from a Libertarian meet-up that emailed the invitation with the restaurant’s website link in advance. Putting aside all other issues, several in the group lit up cigs.and cigars as people next to them ate food at the same table. No smoker asked me ‘do you mind if I smoke?’ or ‘will this bother you?’ or shared any other concern or common courtesy for other’s well-being, than their self indulgence. Considering the mantra of not trampling on the rights of others, I am amazed at the self-indulgence and total lack of respect. And this coming from the Party of Principle that supposed to be aware of others.

By: patriot paul

patriot paul — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:10:12 +0000

Your home is not above the law. Murders happen in homes, child abuse happens in homes. Theft happens and rape happens in homes. Yes, there are penalties for thinking you are above the law, even in your home. You are responsible for your actions even in your own home on your own property. If you disagree, take it up with the lawmakers.

By: Mike Kole

Mike Kole — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:19:46 +0000

Paul, where is the ‘aggression’? Is a business owner forcing a patron to be there? An employee?

The real aggression is when government says, ‘this is your property, but we’ll tell you how to operate it’.