Moparmike
Member
Ok, in my own defense, I realized later that the "Representatives of District 2" were called Aldermen. Oh well.
BTW, this passed with only 400 votes, and had the biggest voter turn out in some time. Over 11,000 voted out of 50,000.
Smoking ban upheld in my city!! Critique my letter....
- Thread starter Moparmike
- Start date
- Status
BTW, this passed with only 400 votes, and had the biggest voter turn out in some time. Over 11,000 voted out of 50,000.
Pendragon
Member
So what is the framework of the "Ban"?
Is it a city-wide ban on all smoking? or just in public buildings or workplaces or restaurants/bars, etc - ?
I leveraged the CA smoking laws to excellent effect - I had people smoking literally 6 feet from my desk - which was next to a door which was next to a bench, etc.
I have no problem with people consuming nicotene or whatever, I just object to my own involuntary exposure while working for a publicly owned corporation.
Is it a city-wide ban on all smoking? or just in public buildings or workplaces or restaurants/bars, etc - ?
I leveraged the CA smoking laws to excellent effect - I had people smoking literally 6 feet from my desk - which was next to a door which was next to a bench, etc.
I have no problem with people consuming nicotene or whatever, I just object to my own involuntary exposure while working for a publicly owned corporation.
Andrew Rothman
Member
Well, since the rest of us have NO BLOODY IDEA what you are talking about...
http://nw-ar.com/smokefree/
http://nw-ar.com/smokefree/nwatimes_what_matters.html
http://nw-ar.com/smokefree/ordinance_4512.html
Personally, I think the law is a good idea.
If OSHA had any balls at all it would regulate tobacco exposure in the workplace in the same way that it regulates asbestos or cyanide.
Since it doesn't, good for Fayetteville!
You smokers have every right in the world to poison yourselves, but your right stops at my lungs. Standard libertarian principles.
I know, I know. If I don't like a smoky bar, don't work or drink there.
Sure. And if you don't like radiation poisoning, don't work at the nuclear plant. What? Put up shielding? DON'T YOU DARE TELL ME HOW TO RUN MY PRIVATE BUSINESS!
Have a nice night, everyone.
http://nw-ar.com/smokefree/
http://nw-ar.com/smokefree/nwatimes_what_matters.html
http://nw-ar.com/smokefree/ordinance_4512.html
Personally, I think the law is a good idea.
If OSHA had any balls at all it would regulate tobacco exposure in the workplace in the same way that it regulates asbestos or cyanide.
Since it doesn't, good for Fayetteville!
You smokers have every right in the world to poison yourselves, but your right stops at my lungs. Standard libertarian principles.
I know, I know. If I don't like a smoky bar, don't work or drink there.
Sure. And if you don't like radiation poisoning, don't work at the nuclear plant. What? Put up shielding? DON'T YOU DARE TELL ME HOW TO RUN MY PRIVATE BUSINESS!
Have a nice night, everyone.
0007
Member
Anybody able to quote any SCIENTIFICALLY BASED studies that show that "second hand smoke" is anything other then a bad smell, step up to the plate. Really good comparison there, radiation, asbestos, cyanide, and smoking. Usual non sequitur move by someone with no pertinent argument. 
And by the way I'm not a smoker and never have been.
And by the way I'm not a smoker and never have been.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Health tyranny? Gotta hate people arguing for better health.
In am insensed by your use of incensed.
By being 'incensed,' do you mean you reek of cigarettes? If you get really mad, do you smell that much worse? Oh, wait, you probably can't smell it.
In am insensed by your use of incensed.
By being 'incensed,' do you mean you reek of cigarettes? If you get really mad, do you smell that much worse? Oh, wait, you probably can't smell it.
Last edited:
Ryder
Member
As I remember it some housewives who had been continuously exposed to second hand smoke over a period of several decades developed cancer and it was suspected that this may have been the cause of having cancer. That's about as close as you are going to get to any kind of scientific study on humans.
I don't smoke either. I could care less if I catch a whiff of someone's cigarette. People can't seriously be so brainwashed as to believe occasional exposure will harm them in the least. My guess is it's just a convenient excuse to exercise their prejudiced oppressive nature against others. If it isn't one thing it will be another.
Be careful, however.
The "public health" argument is often resorted to by nanny-staters when it comes to gun bans.
In fact, I've heard more than one anti say "We don't allow cigarettes into restaurants, so why should we allow concealed handguns? They both kill people."
It is a logical fallacy of course, but when's the last time the voting public showed an ability to discern between logic and logical fallacies?
So be careful about self-righteously crowing too much over smoking ban laws.
Because the exact same tactics and statements used against smokers will be and have been used against gun owners, over and over and over. And in some areas, they have been used to great success for the antis.
hillbilly
The "public health" argument is often resorted to by nanny-staters when it comes to gun bans.
In fact, I've heard more than one anti say "We don't allow cigarettes into restaurants, so why should we allow concealed handguns? They both kill people."
It is a logical fallacy of course, but when's the last time the voting public showed an ability to discern between logic and logical fallacies?
So be careful about self-righteously crowing too much over smoking ban laws.
Because the exact same tactics and statements used against smokers will be and have been used against gun owners, over and over and over. And in some areas, they have been used to great success for the antis.
hillbilly
0007, I can not quote a scientific study but allow me to quote my experience.I am 56 and recently had chest x rays.I had told the doctor I had never smoked and I haven't.I grew watching my Dad chain smoke.At times, it was difficult to breath in the house or car.He died at 56. The doctor told me my lungs had the appearance of a moderate smoker. For me,second hand smoke has done damage. Byron
Stetson_CO
Member
Byron,
Not that it matters to me one way or the other, but is the condition of your lungs due to cigarete smoke or car exhaust fumes...or any other pollutant?
c):{
PS - I quit smoking Dec 10th, 2003.
Not that it matters to me one way or the other, but is the condition of your lungs due to cigarete smoke or car exhaust fumes...or any other pollutant?
c):{
PS - I quit smoking Dec 10th, 2003.
Pendragon
Member
Interesting how smokers always want scientific proof that cig smoke causes cancer.
"oh, its just an unpleasant smell!"
I will not contend that it causes cancer with 100% certainty - but I wonder if any smokers will contend that it is 100% harmless?
I have heard what amounts to "oh, its harmful probably, but just barely".
If its even a little harmful, then its harmful.
"Oh, but the arsenic and cyanide and all the other dangerous chemicals in smoke are only present in trace amounts".
Also - saying "careful! they will use health issues to take your guns" is pretty silly. The fact is, they will use anything they can to take our guns - but a lit cigarette is more properly compared to the discharge of a firearm. If we are responsible for where our bullets go, are we not also responsible for where our cigarette smoke goes?
I don't want to intersect with your bullets or smoke and legally, if you inflict a bullet on me, you make have a good reason and a defense - but what possible defense is there to inflicting smoke on me (in a place I have a right to be)?
I think most of the people here fall into the "smoke yourself silly, just don't get it on me" crowd - thats a very different breed from the nanny types who are offended by what you do to your body. I only care about what you do to my body.
"oh, its just an unpleasant smell!"
I will not contend that it causes cancer with 100% certainty - but I wonder if any smokers will contend that it is 100% harmless?
I have heard what amounts to "oh, its harmful probably, but just barely".
If its even a little harmful, then its harmful.
"Oh, but the arsenic and cyanide and all the other dangerous chemicals in smoke are only present in trace amounts".
Also - saying "careful! they will use health issues to take your guns" is pretty silly. The fact is, they will use anything they can to take our guns - but a lit cigarette is more properly compared to the discharge of a firearm. If we are responsible for where our bullets go, are we not also responsible for where our cigarette smoke goes?
I don't want to intersect with your bullets or smoke and legally, if you inflict a bullet on me, you make have a good reason and a defense - but what possible defense is there to inflicting smoke on me (in a place I have a right to be)?
I think most of the people here fall into the "smoke yourself silly, just don't get it on me" crowd - thats a very different breed from the nanny types who are offended by what you do to your body. I only care about what you do to my body.
Stetson,the doctor attributed it to cigarette smoke. I grew up in a rural area of GA thus no pollution. My Dad's smoking was beyond belief. As a kd, I could count on a hospital stay due to bronchitis. He quite when I was about 12 and no more hispitalization due to bronchitis. Byron
Mikul
Member
I have no problem with people smoking, but I can't be around them. I don't have asthma or any other breathing problems, but if anyone is within 50 feet of me, I can smell it and it will literally cause me to gag. I can't breathe.
When my parents took me to a restaurant as a child, I dreaded it because there was no non-smoking section. I spent 2 hours gagging and breathing through my napkin. Until non-smoking sections came along, I had resigned myself to never eating out as an adult.
If I walked into a room with people smoking, I'd leave. However, if I were in a room and someone wanted to light up, the polite thing to do is ask if it's okay.
When my parents took me to a restaurant as a child, I dreaded it because there was no non-smoking section. I spent 2 hours gagging and breathing through my napkin. Until non-smoking sections came along, I had resigned myself to never eating out as an adult.
If I walked into a room with people smoking, I'd leave. However, if I were in a room and someone wanted to light up, the polite thing to do is ask if it's okay.
meathammer
Member
The effects of smoking aside, the REAL issue here is the city telling business owners what they can and can't do on their PRIVATE property.
I'm sure there are plenty of non-smoking restaurants. Business owners that have personally made the choice to not allow smoking. Don't like smoke, don't take your business there. It's that simple.
I'm sure there are plenty of non-smoking restaurants. Business owners that have personally made the choice to not allow smoking. Don't like smoke, don't take your business there. It's that simple.
Moparmike
Member
All I asked you to do was critique the letter. NOT bleat about smoking and its evils
I feel better now.
As for the "guns are ok but cigarettes are evil, duh!" crowd: I really dont want to get into that age-old heated arguement that gets threads closed, but if you insist, I will. Your ability to dictate what legal substances I openly (public signage) use stops at my property line. If people want to use my property, they come in understanding that there will be smoke or not. The whole reason I am pissed about it is the welcome the Nanny State recieved yesterday. I cant believe almost 6000 sheeple in this liberal hellhole bleated in favor of the government doing their thinking and parenting for them. The whole arguement against the ban wasnt the health issue, but the fact that the right of someone to tell me what legal activities I can do behind my property line stops at my property line. If they want to ban smoking on private property, they should ban tobacco, not the activity using it. It is a dark day for property rights and individual thinking.
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/internetworkers/2001-May/003237.html
I really am starting to think that common sense is truely dead.
Thanks kbr80.
You know, I think I will:
I feel better now.As for the "guns are ok but cigarettes are evil, duh!" crowd: I really dont want to get into that age-old heated arguement that gets threads closed, but if you insist, I will. Your ability to dictate what legal substances I openly (public signage) use stops at my property line. If people want to use my property, they come in understanding that there will be smoke or not. The whole reason I am pissed about it is the welcome the Nanny State recieved yesterday. I cant believe almost 6000 sheeple in this liberal hellhole bleated in favor of the government doing their thinking and parenting for them. The whole arguement against the ban wasnt the health issue, but the fact that the right of someone to tell me what legal activities I can do behind my property line stops at my property line. If they want to ban smoking on private property, they should ban tobacco, not the activity using it. It is a dark day for property rights and individual thinking.
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/internetworkers/2001-May/003237.html
I really am starting to think that common sense is truely dead.
Thanks kbr80.
Some points made, Moparmike.
But once an individual opens a business to offer services or products to the public, all sorts of "private property" issues are not so cut and dried anymore.
For example, if I don't allow green-eyed left-handed people into my own private home because of whatever weird hangups and prejudices I have against green-eyed left-handed people, that is my right.
I can decide who I want or don't want in my house.
However, once I open a business and offer products or a service to the public, I can no longer openly keep green-eyed left-handed people out of my business without running afoul of all sorts of laws and basic principals.
So yes, private property concerns. But once you open a business patronized by the public, it's not exactly private property any more in the same way a private residence is.
I don't agree with the cigarette banners completely, and I don't want this idea to spread too much as it will be, and has been applied with success against guns and gun owners.
hillbilly
But once an individual opens a business to offer services or products to the public, all sorts of "private property" issues are not so cut and dried anymore.
For example, if I don't allow green-eyed left-handed people into my own private home because of whatever weird hangups and prejudices I have against green-eyed left-handed people, that is my right.
I can decide who I want or don't want in my house.
However, once I open a business and offer products or a service to the public, I can no longer openly keep green-eyed left-handed people out of my business without running afoul of all sorts of laws and basic principals.
So yes, private property concerns. But once you open a business patronized by the public, it's not exactly private property any more in the same way a private residence is.
I don't agree with the cigarette banners completely, and I don't want this idea to spread too much as it will be, and has been applied with success against guns and gun owners.
hillbilly
spacemanspiff
Senior Member
its been my personal experience that smokers care little about not just their own health, but the health and preferences of those around them. it also seems like smokers care little about a clean environment, as they are always dropping their butts anywhere they please, even if an ashtray is within arms reach.
i'm not saying all smokers are littering people who blow their smoke in nonsmokers faces, but the majority of smokers i know are like that.
whats really frustrating is when smokers congregate right at the entrance of a 'smoke-free' building, forcing everyone who enters to wade through their clouds of smoke.
just as smokers have a right to smoke, i have a right to never be exposed to that filthy rotten stench.
i'm not saying all smokers are littering people who blow their smoke in nonsmokers faces, but the majority of smokers i know are like that.
whats really frustrating is when smokers congregate right at the entrance of a 'smoke-free' building, forcing everyone who enters to wade through their clouds of smoke.
just as smokers have a right to smoke, i have a right to never be exposed to that filthy rotten stench.
Bob Locke
Member
Not picking on you in particular, hillbilly. You just distilled the argument down better than anyone else so far.
The idea of a "place of public accomodation" has no foundation in the Constitution.
There is public property, owned by the people at large and operated by their representatives, and there is private property, owned and operated by a person or a group of people. No middle ground legitimately exists.
Do I believe the government has the authority to ban smoking in any publicly-owned building? Absolutely.
Do I believe the government has the authority to tell the local bowling alley proprietor that he or she cannot allow smoking in their establishment? Not on your life.
Here's what it boils down to:
Many people would like to have a smoke-free environment in which to spend some of their leisure time. Hard to fault them for that. But rather than go about it the American way, which would be to put up their own money and/or become part of a group of investors and open their own establishment, they go to the government and have their will imposed upon the people who have put their time and money at risk.
If you don't like the fact that a business allows smoking, take action that's in accord with the idea of a free marketplace. Don't patronize those businesses. Or, even better, tell the owner that you will bring him or her your business as soon as the "No Smoking" signs go up. Let THEM make the decision; don't use the power of the government to make your decision for them.
Smoke
Member
I don't care if anyone wants to smoke. I do NOT care to smell your cigarette while I'm dining on a $30.00 steak.
The Feds/State/City have no business telling businesses they can not allow smoking. That decision goes back to the consumer. IF I don't want to smell smoke I go to a place that doesn't allow it or that has a seperate smoking section that I feel is satisfactory. It is NOT the Governments business. Remember they are banning a perfectly legal product. (Sound like guns? You can own them, just not here...)
It is my beleif that second hand smoke probably is harmful if inhaled in quantity over long periods of time and even then only to certain individuals.
But second hand smoke is offensive to non-smokers.
If you want to blow your cigarette smoke on me, you shouldn't mind if I spit my Copenagen on you.
Smoke - who doesn't
The Feds/State/City have no business telling businesses they can not allow smoking. That decision goes back to the consumer. IF I don't want to smell smoke I go to a place that doesn't allow it or that has a seperate smoking section that I feel is satisfactory. It is NOT the Governments business. Remember they are banning a perfectly legal product. (Sound like guns? You can own them, just not here...)
It is my beleif that second hand smoke probably is harmful if inhaled in quantity over long periods of time and even then only to certain individuals.
But second hand smoke is offensive to non-smokers.
If you want to blow your cigarette smoke on me, you shouldn't mind if I spit my Copenagen on you.
Smoke - who doesn't
Moparmike
Member
Thank you Bob. You said my feelings and arguement in a much more detatched and concise manner than my current feelings about the issue will allow.
thefitzvh
Member
I think smoke summed it up nicely...
I think that if you blow your smoke on me, I reserve the right to tell you what a nasty you are.
However, government has no place telling a business owner that they cannot allow smoking. Just as government has no place telling a bar owner that he can't allow CCW (some states ban CCW in bars, right?)
It's ridiculous.
Now with regard to the smokers who say "Prove to me that secondhand smoke is harmful..." yada yada yada:
Who cares? Even if it isn't harmful, the fact remains that you still smell like , and regardless of legality, you're offensive if you smoke near a non-smoker. It would be tantamount to me crapping on your doorstep. Sure, it might not HURT you, but it's damn sure offensive.
James
I think that if you blow your smoke on me, I reserve the right to tell you what a nasty
you are.However, government has no place telling a business owner that they cannot allow smoking. Just as government has no place telling a bar owner that he can't allow CCW (some states ban CCW in bars, right?)
It's ridiculous.
Now with regard to the smokers who say "Prove to me that secondhand smoke is harmful..." yada yada yada:
Who cares? Even if it isn't harmful, the fact remains that you still smell like
, and regardless of legality, you're offensive if you smoke near a non-smoker. It would be tantamount to me crapping on your doorstep. Sure, it might not HURT you, but it's damn sure offensive.James
Second hand smoke IS harmful, but again, a business owner should have the right to CHOOSE whether or not to allow it. Just keep it away from MY lungs and you are fine...
Bob summed it up nicely: MY property, MY rules. What the heck you do on YOUR property is your own business.
Bob summed it up nicely: MY property, MY rules. What the heck you do on YOUR property is your own business.
CommonSense
Member
Well said, Bob Locke! This thread reminds me of a lot of old sayings such as:
“Put your money where your mouth is.†(Build your own establishment)
“Put up or shut up.†(See above)
“If you don’t like it – Leave!†(No one is forcing you to be here)
“I’m from the government and I’m here to help.†(No comment required)
“When cigarettes are illegal, only Al Capone will hav.. (nevermind – wrong product.)
“Built it and they will come.†(Advice to all non-smokers that think they have a better business plan)
Anyway, whatever happened to capitalism and free enterprise in this country?
“Put your money where your mouth is.†(Build your own establishment)
“Put up or shut up.†(See above)
“If you don’t like it – Leave!†(No one is forcing you to be here)
“I’m from the government and I’m here to help.†(No comment required)
“When cigarettes are illegal, only Al Capone will hav.. (nevermind – wrong product.)
“Built it and they will come.†(Advice to all non-smokers that think they have a better business plan)
Anyway, whatever happened to capitalism and free enterprise in this country?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked