They're Coming After You

[the iron horse]

Walter Williams:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/02/13/theyre_coming_after_you

 

[financeguy]

Deja vu is setting in.

 

[Harry Vest]

They've been after us for years. It won't stop. These kind of people never stop. What feeds them is a inordinate amount of self righteous politically correctism. I wish they would answer me this on the smoking bans...Why is it that when I was a kid we were exposed to smoke constantly yet the cases of kids with asthma was almost non-existent, whereas today it seems if they don't have a horrible peanut allergy then they have asthma. Somethings going on and it has absolutley nothing to do with second hand smoke.

 

[BVS]

Why is it that when I was a kid we were exposed to smoke constantly yet the cases of kids with asthma was almost non-existent, whereas today it seems if they don't have a horrible peanut allergy then they have asthma. Somethings going on and it has absolutley nothing to do with second hand smoke.

Let me ask you this... So since you don't have asthma there isn't any reason to curb second hand smoke?

Is there room for compromise, or should you be able to smoke anywhere you damn well please?

 

[melon]

Why is it that when I was a kid we were exposed to smoke constantly yet the cases of kids with asthma was almost non-existent, whereas today it seems if they don't have a horrible peanut allergy then they have asthma.

The word 'asthma' is derived from the Greek aazein, meaning "sharp breath." The word first appears in Homer's Iliad; Hippocrates was the first to use it in reference to the medical condition, in 450 BC. Hippocrates thought that the spasms associated with asthma were more likely to occur in tailors, anglers, and metalworkers. Six centuries later, Galen wrote much about asthma, noting that it was caused by partial or complete bronchial obstruction. In 1190 AD, Moses Maimonides, an influential medieval rabbi, philosopher, and physician, wrote a treatise on asthma, describing its prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. In the 17th century, Bernardino Ramazzini noted a connection between asthma and organic dust. The use of bronchodilators started in 1901, but it was not until the 1960s that the inflammatory component of asthma was recognized, and anti-inflammatory medications were added to the regimens.

Nothing like letting a bit of nonsensical romanticism get in the way of facts. Asthma, contrary to what you might think, has existed for ages.

 

[LemonMelon]

Is there room for compromise

Yes, there is. But things have gone a bit too far, IMO. What used to be "smoking/non smoking" is now "no smoking, period. GTFO."

The day "teenage smoking" became criteria for the MPAA's rating system is the day that this became a bit of a joke. Let people smoke in their cars, in bars, whatever. Just not elevators, restaurants...you know, places where people would actually complain about someone else smoking.

 

[BVS]

Yes, there is. But things have gone a bit too far, IMO. What used to be "smoking/non smoking" is now "no smoking, period. GTFO."

Well I agree, there are extremes on both sides, and the extremes are ridiculous.

The day "teenage smoking" became criteria for the MPAA's rating system is the day that this became a bit of a joke. Let people smoke in their cars, in bars, whatever. Just not elevators, restaurants...you know, places where people would actually complain about someone else smoking.

Well the MPAA's ratings are just absurd. I live in a city where if more than 50% of your sales is food then you have to provide an entirely separate room for smoking, if you can't provide an entirely separate room and ventilation system than you cannot have a smoking section. I think this system has to be one of the fairest I've seen. This allows patrons and employees to make the decision if they want to breathe smoke or not...

 

[indra]

Let people smoke in their cars, in bars, whatever. Just not elevators, restaurants...you know, places where people would actually complain about someone else smoking.

Why should people be able to smoke in bars?

If people want to smoke in their own homes or cars that's fine with me but not in public places, including bars.

 

[LemonMelon]

Well the MPAA's ratings are just absurd. I live in a city where if more than 50% of your sales is food then you have to provide an entirely separate room for smoking, if you can't provide an entirely separate room and ventilation system than you cannot have a smoking section. I think this system has to be one of the fairest I've seen. This allows patrons and employees to make the decision if they want to breathe smoke or not...

Yep, sounds fair to me. I've heard similar, along the lines of "smoking allowed in bars that get 70% or greater of their income from alcoholic beverages". Many of the laws I've read about are there to protect minors specifically, including the California ban on smoking in a car with a minor present, so I think it's fair that there should be designated smoking areas in +18 bars and clubs.

 

[BVS]

The problem I see is that most of these "articles" posted by Iron Horse(and I use the quotes because this one was horribly written and lack any real purpose) completely damage their cause. Comparing it to Nazi Germany? Come on!!!

Like I said, I understand there are extremes on both sides. And both extremes bother me. Anyone who thinks they should be able to smoke anywhere at anytime and deny all evidence of second hand smoke is an idiot. Just like anyone trying to make someone purchase a license to smoke is an idiot.

 

[BVS]

Why should people be able to smoke in bars?

I understand this question and it's something I have conflicted thoughts about. A lot of the bars here in town are providing non-smoking sections, just by their own choice, for you are still legally allowed to smoke in bars here. But let's face it, bars are a choice, more so than restaurants. You have to eat, you don't have to drink. So because of that luxury factor, I believe the patrons and owners should be allowed a little more choice.

 

[LJT]

I think saying bars are a choice compared to a restaurant because 'we have to eat' is quite a bad comparison. I would associate greater luxury with going to a restaurant....no one has to eat out, as much as no one has to have a drink.

 

[maycocksean]

Who's rights are more important than the other's

Smokers or non-smokers?

 

[Vincent Vega]

They've been after us for years. It won't stop. These kind of people never stop. What feeds them is a inordinate amount of self righteous politically correctism. I wish they would answer me this on the smoking bans...Why is it that when I was a kid we were exposed to smoke constantly yet the cases of kids with asthma was almost non-existent, whereas today it seems if they don't have a horrible peanut allergy then they have asthma. Somethings going on and it has absolutley nothing to do with second hand smoke.

Asthma and COPD are a far too complex issue, and there are so many kinds of asthma, allergic and non-allergic, caused by a great variety of factors, and to deny (second hand) smoke is as nonsensical as to say it is the major cause. But it certainly is a cause.

Allergies, atopic dermatitis and asthma are also often caused by parents obsessed with hygiene and an increased use of antiseptics in households. Studies conducted in west and east Germany showed that the numbers of children affected by one or more of those conditions is much greater in the west than in the east, and the fact that children in the east were exposed to dirt etc. much more than in the west, where some parents literally tried to keep their children away from every piece of dirt, together with some other indicators and studies showed that the correlation between the exposition to dirt and allergies is quiet strong.

 

[martha]

A lot of the bars here in town are providing non-smoking sections, just by their own choice, for you are still legally allowed to smoke in bars here.

The employees who have to breathe in the addicts' smoke must be thrilled.

 

[BVS]

I think saying bars are a choice compared to a restaurant because 'we have to eat' is quite a bad comparison. I would associate greater luxury with going to a restaurant....no one has to eat out, as much as no one has to have a drink.

Why greater luxury for a restaurant compared to a bar?

 

[Abomb-baby]

Here's my problem with the whole smoking ban issue. Why is it government's job to regulate this? Where I live the county passed a no smoking ordinance a couple of years ago. It ended up hurting the small business owners who were forced to create outside smoking areas and less people went out due to it. There were no laws banning someone from opening a non-smoking bar. YOU the patron ultimately have the say in whether YOU want to be exposed to second hand smoke or not. Shouldn't the market dictate this not government? It just seems big brotherish to me. Whats next, posting government officials outside of fast food joints to ensure obsese people don't frequent them?

 

[Vincent Vega]

Here's my problem with the whole smoking ban issue. Why is it government's job to regulate this? Where I live the county passed a no smoking ordinance a couple of years ago. It ended up hurting the small business owners who were forced to create outside smoking areas and less people went out due to it. There were no laws banning someone from opening a non-smoking bar. YOU the patron ultimately have the say in whether YOU want to be exposed to second hand smoke or not. Shouldn't the market dictate this not government? It just seems big brotherish to me. Whats next, posting government officials outside of fast food joints to ensure obsese people don't frequent them?

I never heard of second-hand obesity.

I don't know what you define as 'restaurant', but in Germany eating out at a restaurant (which is not a fast food chain or something like that) is seen as luxury as normally you cook dinner yourself.

And in some countries bars/pubs almost are defined a necessity.

 

[Pearl]

Whats next, posting government officials outside of fast food joints to ensure obsese people don't frequent them?

That's almost happening. In Mississippi, there's a legislation going through the state government over banning obese people from restaurants.

 

[Abomb-baby]

I never heard of second-hand obesity.

I don't know what you define as 'restaurant', but in Germany eating out at a restaurant (which is not a fast food chain or something like that) is seen as luxury as normally you cook dinner yourself.

The issue isn't about second hand smoke. Its about control and Government telling you whats best for you. Is smoking healthy? No. But there are plenty of unhealthy things that people do that the Government hasn't gotten themselves involved in. People who go to Pubs and bars where there is smoking are making a choice. The funy thing is that where I live we have Casinos that are run by the tribes and they don't fall under state law. So basically, the smokers just moved. I just think that we are on a slippery slope regarding government involvement with these issues.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Well, the point is that government got involved to a large extent due to other people being involved, second-hand smoke, and many people asking, or even demanding, government to take a step.
The more people are pushing for legal action against obesity, the more you will see in state or governmental laws regarding that issue.

 

[BVS]

YOU the patron ultimately have the say in whether YOU want to be exposed to second hand smoke or not. Shouldn't the market dictate this not government?

How does Mrs Smith have a say in whether she wants herself or her child exposed to second hand smoke in a subway or public buildings?

 

[martha]

Government telling you whats best for you.

And if "the government" is doing this as a response to demands from its citizens? You know, democracy? Then what?

 

[Abomb-baby]

And if "the government" is doing this as a response to demands from its citizens? You know, democracy? Then what?

First off, I'm not talking about a referendum by the people. I'm also not talking about a subway platform or a bus stop. I was specifically talking about a bar, where there is an expectation of smokers. Sorry if I didn't clarify that. Where I live, the office of public health unilaterally decided to impose a smoking ban in restaraunts and bars. It was illegal because the office didn't have authority to create law. However, I like it when the people are actually involved rather than some politician coming out and saying, "this is what the people want." I can make my own choices, can I not? If I don't want to smell smoke in a bar, I can choose to patronize a bar that doesnt allow smoking. People can make choices with their wallets. The smoking ban is getting out of hand. I don't even smoke. There are places in California that have banned smoking ANYWHERE within city limits.

 

[phillyfan26]

The issue isn't about second hand smoke.

Uh ... that's exactly what the issue is.

 

[randhail]

The issue isn't about second hand smoke. Its about control and Government telling you whats best for you. Is smoking healthy? No. But there are plenty of unhealthy things that people do that the Government hasn't gotten themselves involved in. People who go to Pubs and bars where there is smoking are making a choice. The funy thing is that where I live we have Casinos that are run by the tribes and they don't fall under state law. So basically, the smokers just moved. I just think that we are on a slippery slope regarding government involvement with these issues.

Just wait and see what happens if the government takes healthcare completely over. The slope could get pretty slippery in order to keep the costs down.

 

[martha]

I can make my own choices, can I not?

I'll ask again: What about the employees who don't want to breathe in the smoke of the addicts?

 

[martha]

The slope could get pretty slippery in order to keep the costs down.

Because the private insurance companies are much better at this!

 

[Abomb-baby]

I'll ask again: What about the employees who don't want to breathe in the smoke of the addicts?

Its called finding another job. This was the argument used when the state put it to a vote a couple of years ago. First off, these people were already working somewhere where smoking was PERMITTED. If you were so concerned about the dangers of SHS, why did take the job? Thats like a firefighter saying he doesn't want to run into a burning building. Its what you signed up for. You had a reasonable expectation that you were going to be breathing in SHS, and you were ok with taking that risk. As an adult I would expect you to either decide to live with your choice or find another career path.

 

[martha]

Its called finding another job.

The libertarian fantasy!

Where the rights of the addict and the business owner are more equal than the rights of the employee.

I guess cancer and respiratory diseases should be a part of the job. Tell me, does the libertarian fantasy allow theses diseases to be covered by workers' comp? Or are these poor bastards on their own?

What about when the employees are a part of the electorate that decides democratically to prohibit cancer-causing chemicals in their workplaces?