Let’s Really Go Smoke Free
“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
- C.S. Lewis
I’ve always preferred robber barons to busy bodies. The robber barons are motivated by greed, busy bodies tend t be motivated by some rather annoying streak of morality and self-righteousness.
The anti-smoking forces are back with a vengeance and are pushing (as we told you first) for a total ban on smoking in public places in Marion County. They want to eliminate all exemptions from the current smoking ban. It gets old fighting these guys so I figure if you can’t beat them, join them.
I will gladly support a total smoking ban in public places in Marion County if the Smoke Free Indy people agree to the following…
- A ban on smoking in homes and apartments where children are present.
- A ban on smoking in homes and apartments when guests and visitors are present.
- A ban on drive thru windows at restaurants so that workers are not exposed to dangerous exhaust fumes from automobiles.
- A ban on congested traffic in downtown Indianapolis because it harms the air quality.
That’s just a start. Feel free to add anything to the list.
October 2nd, 2009 at 8:04 am
And dont forget smoking in cars with kids. And while were at it.. no smoking around pets either.
October 2nd, 2009 at 8:11 am
Ban smoking on sidewalks, streets or less than 1,000 feet from any person anywhere.
Ban the use of I-69 in Marion County due to congestion and pollution. I-69 is killing people!
October 2nd, 2009 at 8:15 am
Sure it's tongue in cheek, but I'd just like to say “ditto.”
October 2nd, 2009 at 8:19 am
How about a ban on stinky people. And the nasty perfume they try to cover their smell up with. lol
October 2nd, 2009 at 9:04 am
Lewis introduces a conflict; conscience vs. con-science.
“Oh, the inanity!” Fake 'n make… work? Never mind the apparent, or proportion of real world problems.
Why not “Free Indy,” liberating citizens from overtaxation, devaluation, intrusive & abusive government?
October 2nd, 2009 at 9:05 am
Really? Burning tobacco is such a precious thing that being deprived of the ability to smoke it in proximity to others is tyranny?
Not being a smoker myself and having been subjected to it as a child, my bias is clear. Smokers are insisting on the right to foul the air others breath. Why do they hold this right to pollute more dear than others? Is it the addiction talking? Is it a culture war of some sort?
Why is the ability to burn tobacco in the proximity of others more dear than the ability to burn, say, styrofoam?
October 2nd, 2009 at 9:19 am
That is a GREAT quote. I'll have to remember it.
October 2nd, 2009 at 10:02 am
Doug, this debate has ZERO to do with smoker's rights. I don't think anyone has ever argued that smokers have some sort of right to light up on private property that is a business. It is the non-smokers who claim they have a right to dictate to private business owners what legal activity should or should not be allowed on that property.
October 2nd, 2009 at 10:14 am
Paul, your argument, and Abdul's and many others, would work IF the businesses were truly “private.”
But our government exercises certain control over business activity, for the purposes of collection of taxes, data, and for safety of workers and the public. Almost all businesses need retail merchant's certificates, or local business licenses, plus zoning and sometimes health code compliance. There are precious few businesses which can operate totally away from government purview.
So long as the government has that responsibility, it is their duty to seek out and ban products that knowingly cause harm. Tobacco smoke is absolutely one of those. There is no question about that.
And Abdul, are you sure you want to hitch your wagon to CS Lewis? Google the guy–you can pick your quote, but he was a certifiable loon. Albeit a smart one.
Oh yeah, just so my English degree gets a good workout today–busybody is one word.
Their you go.
October 2nd, 2009 at 10:45 am
Did you get your English degree at Sears? “Their you go” should really be “There you go.”
October 2nd, 2009 at 11:04 am
In the Navy enlisted men and officers had “smoking areas”. These were areas located where fire & smoke wouldn't create a hazard towards Government property or non-smoking personal.
I'm not a smoker and I'm not promoting smoking however, I don't understand why a business owner can't light up in their own building or why a bar can't cater to the smokers in our society.
October 2nd, 2009 at 11:06 am
TA don't I recall you correcting my grammar on more than one occasion?
October 2nd, 2009 at 11:18 am
Again, I say if it is truely a health concern why are we not baning alcohol (spelling?) which kills 26000 people in car accidents alone. What about over weight people, should be ban large food portions or food that is bad for us in general. Should we ban rock concerts because the loud music damages ears?? Just curious….
October 2nd, 2009 at 11:19 am
Oh oh can we ban stupidity….its the biggest killer of them all!!!
October 2nd, 2009 at 11:46 am
Attack, you took the bait. IT WAS A JOKE. For cryin' out loud. I knew it should be “there.”
Did you get your sense of humor at KMart? LMAO
Randy, we don't ban alcohol, but we severely regulate it. That's all that's being done with smoking ordinances–regulating where you can use it. As it should be.
October 2nd, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Touché, my good sir!
October 2nd, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Wow, Think Again, that's a great joke. You spend so much time on here correcting the grammar of others' posts, you deserve to have any error you make shoved down your throat. You're a pompous ass!
October 2nd, 2009 at 12:56 pm
LOL
October 2nd, 2009 at 1:09 pm
PETA, ELF, and all the 'global warming' nutcases must SURELY be behind these no smoking efforts for all the adversity imposed on the various things they attempt to 'protect.
Can you trade cigar ashes for carbon credits yet?
October 2nd, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Property owners have the right to decide whether or not to allow smoking on their property. If you don't want to breath in smoke – don't go into those establishments. I am a non-smoker and I will patronize establishments that don't allow smoking. That is my choice. But business owners should be allowed to decide whether they want my business or if they prefer to cater to smokers.
October 2nd, 2009 at 2:01 pm
I propose a complete ban on urination and defacation. The cost is exhorbinant and adds unnecessary taxes to an overtaxed society. The environmental impact is enormous and the smell is abominable.
A complete ban wil probably be costly and difficult to manage, so my second recommendation is for a ban on eating. Eating results in massive waste of good natural land, it results in the uneccesary deaths of countless farm animals (yes, there will be more animal urination and defecation as a result, but that's natural. Human waste is not) and it results in huge expenditures for our welfare system and for families.
If we can have a total ban on both – human waste and eating – I'm certain that we can make significant progress in reducing our carbon footprints as well. The carbon trading market will be an utter disaster, but that won't be a problem since the benficiaries of carbon trading will be gone along with the rest of us.
October 2nd, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Flatulence should be included in this no smoking band, isn’t methane gas is breaking down the ozone layer? Just think of the fines that could be extorted from our senior citizens.
October 2nd, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Flatulence should be included in this no smoking band, isn’t methane gas is breaking down the ozone layer? Just think of the fines that could be extorted from our senior citizens.
October 2nd, 2009 at 2:48 pm
The trouble is TA, you could use this argument for ANY regulation of private business. What's next…going to tell McDonald's they can't sell Big Macs because they're unhealthy. It makes as much sense as telling private business they can't allow smoking.
October 2nd, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Should business owners be permitted to burn all kinds of carcinogens on my property or just tobacco?
October 2nd, 2009 at 7:48 pm
The moral police have a libertarian point, namely, the public should not, in their view, have to pay large amounts of health care dollars to subsidize the health care costs of idiots who can't read the clear warnings on tobacco products. It is the old moral hazard business. We had it with motorcycle riders and helmets. We should have had it with AIDS. Abdul likes cigars (that will end soon now that he has a new master) but should the public bear any expense connected to treating him for the cancers that are likely to develop from this habit?
And, just what was a robber baron but the cloudy idea of a dumb communist? And, just how is it that those giants of commerce have such a superficial (and wrong) treatment being dismissed only as greedy sorts?
October 2nd, 2009 at 8:59 pm
My doesn't mind my cigar habit and I've been smoking cigars for 20 years. You would have thought something would have shown up by now.
October 2nd, 2009 at 10:42 pm
My Dad used to say that…even as he lay dying…he was such a smart guy but he did some really dumb things.
Its never to late to kick a habit Abdul.
October 3rd, 2009 at 5:08 am
If I was Fidel Castro I'd be worried. But I don't think a cigar a week is going to be the death of me.
October 3rd, 2009 at 5:17 am
Actually, yes. That is what's next.
October 3rd, 2009 at 5:19 am
Cars burn carcinogens. Shall we ban them? Have you banished all cars from your property?
October 3rd, 2009 at 5:37 am
At least being around alocholics is not as bad as breathing someone's smoke. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
October 3rd, 2009 at 10:12 am
You're making an argument to ban cigarettes. That's fine. But as long as they are legal an owner of the private business should be making the decision on whether to allow people to light up. Nobody is forcing customers to remain in a smoking establishment.
October 3rd, 2009 at 2:31 pm
This big issue has been around for years now. I have a better idea for the anti smokers who think they can tell a business owner how to run his business. If they are really true to the cause they will try to get the ban of all tobacco sales in Marion County. But its true, that the government wants keep selling tobacco for the taxes but tell you where you can smoke. Since I have all but stop smoking I figure that the state has lost about $350 in taxes.
October 4th, 2009 at 7:39 am
The moral police want Abdul to cease smoking or sign away any rights to subsidized by the public health care. Nice dodge on avoiding the point. The problem with society is that they will treat Abdul at their expense because they are civilized and view him as a victim. So, the good Samaritan, would he have been so had the fellow found on the road been a self abuser, a cutter, and the maker up of stories about being robbed and left by the road? The tobbaco suits against the tobbaco companies suggest that when the cancer comes Abdul will be blaming the companies for an unsafe product. The Samaritan today suggests the good news that there is some evidence that ceasing the use of this substance(s) can, in a few short years, have the body repair itself to almost as good as new. One of the first questions heart attack victims are asked is if they are a smoker. Why do you suppose they ask that when they do? Currently on the moral scene, smokers are free riders since it is not possible to have them pay as they go (although a death tax on them might be useful if they had any money).
October 4th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Not only do the ask if you smoke if you have a heart attack, badder cancer. I bet anything you come down with smoking had something to do with it. My father started smoking at age 15. The Doctors and others said it finally caused his death, at the age of >>>>81 My mother had a cough the other day, she is 93 and it is reported that it is from second hand smoke. (He never smoked in the house for some 30 years or in the car.) So this “second hand” smoke had to be some 40 years ago.
October 4th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
The moral police want Abdul to cease smoking or sign away any rights to subsidized by the public health care. Nice dodge on avoiding the point. The problem with society is that they will treat Abdul at their expense because they are civilized and view him as a victim. So, the good Samaritan, would he have been so had the fellow found on the road been a self abuser, a cutter, and the maker up of stories about being robbed and left by the road? The tobbaco suits against the tobbaco companies suggest that when the cancer comes Abdul will be blaming the companies for an unsafe product. The Samaritan today suggests the good news that there is some evidence that ceasing the use of this substance(s) can, in a few short years, have the body repair itself to almost as good as new. One of the first questions heart attack victims are asked is if they are a smoker. Why do you suppose they ask that when they do? Currently on the moral scene, smokers are free riders since it is not possible to have them pay as they go (although a death tax on them might be useful if they had any money).
October 4th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Not only do the ask if you smoke if you have a heart attack, badder cancer. I bet anything you come down with smoking had something to do with it. My father started smoking at age 15. The Doctors and others said it finally caused his death, at the age of >>>>81 My mother had a cough the other day, she is 93 and it is reported that it is from second hand smoke. (He never smoked in the house for some 30 years or in the car.) So this “second hand” smoke had to be some 40 years ago.