Well, personally I always wonder about things like the '225,000 employees of skating rinks, bars, and diners' who must be protected from the horrors of smoking. The good news is, it's a vote, and Rita the coffee girl who I see smoking every five minutes at Denny's can express her opinion of wether she wants to be protected or not. As for the '25 feet from any entrance, window, vent, or air-permeable membrane'...let's just be honest, we're talking about a full ban. There's pretty much nowhere in the entirety of Seattle, other than a few parks, that doesn't have a door, window, or air vent within 25 feet. While gathering in the woods with other smokers would give me nostalgic memories of high school, it'd probably irritate me in the long run
( ... )
It's not so much that nothing should get fixed till everything gets fixed. It's just that with an out of control budget, major, deepseated issues that aren't even being addressed, and a general lack of actual social progress, I think maybe, just maybe, we should focus on government simply successfully running society, not our personal lives, whatever the reason or rallying cry to do so. I maintain a firm opinion that government, at it's best, should be involved in little other than itself.
for me it's simple...glabrous1October 6 2005, 22:10:58 UTC
A genuine public health issue trumps any "personal freedom."
See, if I drink next to you, you don't get cirrhosis of the liver.
If I eat butter, bacon, etc. next to you (which I do and will), you don't get arterial plaque.
If I smoke next to you- I poison your lungs (and stink you up, to boot).
It's far easier to amend such laws to remedy the geriatric problem you cited (and which will need to be addressed) than to allow this to continue as is...
The right to exhale 'your' toxic fumes stops where my respiratory system begins. Should they ever invent a cigarette that only the smoker can inhale, I'm happy to allow any adult to make that choice... but not before that.
Yes, I am biased. I've got asthma/allergies from growing up awash in second-hand smoke; it takes three prescriptions daily to keep my lungs relatively comfy. As there is no redress for me, i.e., suing Big Tobacco for past/future medical costs, I am fighting vigorously to make public spaces safer. It's no panacea, nothing is. But it's a damn good start.
My problem with this line of reasonng is that it's already illegal in all the areas that you really would reasonably have to go, such as sidewalks, buses, libraries, hospitals, schools, gov't buildings, etc. The remaining holdouts are restaurants, where it's optional, bars, dance clubs, bowling alleys, pool halls, and a few other non-often-found places of business, along with a class of private office where it is also optional like a restaurant.
If you have a problem with ciggarettes, why go those places? I detest ciggarette smoke, so I avoid those places.
There are, of course, enforcement issues, and "linger and drift" issues, but those would still occur with this ban.
If the activity itself (smoking) is still legal, why tie the hands of a small business owner by saying he can't specifically attract those customers?
that arguement keeps getting raised..glabrous1October 6 2005, 22:35:16 UTC
but to date, no US state or Euro nation has experienced $$ hardship because of a ban on smokes.
I like live music. I shouldn't be forced to poison myself to hear it. In Oly, there are venues a-plenty that are great-- food, music.. but smoke-filled. If I "just don't go"-- there's damn few places to go.
The majority of Washingtonians are non-smokers, yet we're held hostage to the 'rights' of this vocal minority, backed by the industry.
I've noticed that no one says to the smokers you can just stay home and smoke there.. but I'm always told I can just stay home.
It's still a public health issue; to me, rights is just a false arguement.
I don't smoke, but I'm against this ban. I'm generally against laws that limit freedoms, even if they're unpopular freedoms. Nothing really eloquent to say, just that I think we need to stop making so many laws that govern what people can and can't do, in public and in private.
Comments 21
Reply
Actually, what you said about the cars makes sense, but if we said "nothing should get fixed until it all gets fixed at once" nothing would get fixed.
Reply
I maintain a firm opinion that government, at it's best, should be involved in little other than itself.
Reply
See, if I drink next to you, you don't get cirrhosis of the liver.
If I eat butter, bacon, etc. next to you (which I do and will), you don't get arterial plaque.
If I smoke next to you- I poison your lungs (and stink you up, to boot).
It's far easier to amend such laws to remedy the geriatric problem you cited (and which will need to be addressed) than to allow this to continue as is...
The right to exhale 'your' toxic fumes stops where my respiratory system begins. Should they ever invent a cigarette that only the smoker can inhale, I'm happy to allow any adult to make that choice... but not before that.
Yes, I am biased. I've got asthma/allergies from growing up awash in second-hand smoke; it takes three prescriptions daily to keep my lungs relatively comfy. As there is no redress for me, i.e., suing Big Tobacco for past/future medical costs, I am fighting vigorously to make public spaces safer. It's no panacea, nothing is. But it's a damn good start.
be well,
J
Reply
If you have a problem with ciggarettes, why go those places? I detest ciggarette smoke, so I avoid those places.
There are, of course, enforcement issues, and "linger and drift" issues, but those would still occur with this ban.
If the activity itself (smoking) is still legal, why tie the hands of a small business owner by saying he can't specifically attract those customers?
Reply
I like live music. I shouldn't be forced to poison myself to hear it. In Oly, there are venues a-plenty that are great-- food, music.. but smoke-filled. If I "just don't go"-- there's damn few places to go.
The majority of Washingtonians are non-smokers, yet we're held hostage to the 'rights' of this vocal minority, backed by the industry.
I've noticed that no one says to the smokers you can just stay home and smoke there.. but I'm always told I can just stay home.
It's still a public health issue; to me, rights is just a false arguement.
Reply
Reply
Reply
*cough*
Let me rephrase that entirely.
I agree with you in a wholehearted fashion.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment