Another Smoking Ban
Written by YellowJacket on February 27th, 2007The city council of Baltimore has voted 9-2 to ban smoking in public places including bars, restaurants, and taxicabs.
What is it about private property rights these people don’t understand?
27
PM
Smoking, then certain foods, then entire food groups, then drinking maybe, then other “anti-social” behaviors . . . This is liberal facism and we all know where it ends. It isn’t about health, it is about power and control over other peoples’ lives.
27
PM
Come on, Mike… it’s at least a little bit about health. While you might not agree with the decision, to say that the the Baltimore city council is part of some “vast liberal conspiracy” is ridiculous.
Also, what happened to the handy feature in the upper right of the main page that tracked “recently discussed topics”?
27
PM
I don’t think it is part of a “vast liberal conspiracy”, just liberals independently doing what they do best: using the government to tell other people how to live their lives.
Banning fatty foods is about health, banning alcohol is certainly about health, banning firearms would be about health, where does it ever end?
And I can see the conversation trackers just fine, might be an issue with your browser, I am using Firefox.
27
PM
The Connecticut State Assembly currently has a bill out to ban trans-fats in all foods throughout the state.
27
PM
“Banning fatty foods is about health, banning alcohol is certainly about health, banning firearms would be about health, where does it ever end?”
It seems like it ends with a populace with less lung cancer, less heart disease, less DUI fatalities, and less shooting deaths. In addition to the lessened emotional trauma from fewer people dying needlessly, healthcare costs would go WAY down. Certainly there is some good to be found here…
27
PM
I’m not saying I advocate these “freedom restricting” measures, I’m just saying that very few decisions in politics are all bad.
27
PM
If somebody wants to smoke and give themselves lung cancer, they have that right.
If someone gets behind the wheel of the car drunk, there are already laws on the books to prevent this action. Beyond that, if someone wants to have a friggin’ beer on a Sunday that should be their right (but not in Georgia due to “time management” that our governor wants us to learn).
Less shooting deaths? You are clearly ignorant of the facts. Areas with more regular gun ownership typically result in less crime (see Kennesaw, Georgia). Outlawing guns only leaves the guns to the outlaws (and the police, but what good are they if you’re being held up in your living room?). Americans have a fundamental right to firearms in order to protect themselves from fellow private citizens, in order to add a level of order to local communities and neighborhoods (a criminal isn’t going to commit crime in a neighborhood where he knows there are many gun owners), and most importantly, against the government should the need ever come to resist a tyrannical force. Yes, infringing upon the 2nd Amendment is all bad, David.
27
PM
Does someone have the right to give themselves lung cancer if that a.) Turns their children into orphans, or b.) Turns them into a burden on tax payers?
28
AM
Man Woodroe bringing out the big guns! I think that is a very interesting point.
28
AM
I just find it entertaining that the headline is about banning smoking in “public areas,” and then the poster talks about “private property.” This isn’t a liberal conspiracy to infringe on what people do with their own bodies. It’s about making sure that the people who work in these public areas aren’t exposed to smoke that they DON’T choose. I don’t see what’s so bad about protecting minimum wage workers at bars and restaurants from smoke when they likely wouldn’t smoke themselves.
On a personal note… I remember walking into a bar in Madison, WI before their smoking ban. Yuck. Inhaled smoke all night, and then my hair and clothes smelled like it.
28
AM
Alexander: When every bar is like that, do I really have a choice? Do the workers really have a choice? If you’re a bartender, where are you going to find a job that doesn’t mean a heightened risk of cancer? (Unless we have smoking bans such as this one.) I’m totally serious about this. There literally were no bars in Madison where one could escape the smoke. I don’t see why I should have to forego visiting bars just because other people can’t abstain from smoking for an hour.
And I get that someone owns these public places (that’s pretty obvious). What I don’t get is why the government can’t pass a law that says, hey, you’re putting your employees and patrons at a heightened risk of cancer that not everyone is OK with (ie, not everyone is choosing to smoke). I remember the “smoking” and “no smoking” sections of restaurants, and how completely they failed to work.
Considering childhood asthma rates, cancer rates, and the other pollution we face on a day to day basis, I’m all for measures that ban people from exposing others (and others’ loved ones) to carcinogenic second hand smoke. If people choose to smoke, they should do so in a way that doesn’t force others to deal with the consequences of that decision.
28
PM
Becky what about the concept of free choice don’t you understand?
You chose to walk into the bar, and even if the other bars were smoke-filled you DID have a choice, not walk into a bar.
People aren’t forced to work at bars, they CHOOSE to.
This is a private establishment, a bar. The owner can do whatever the hell he feels like on his private property, if he can’t then we don’t really live in a free country. It starts with smoking, and then it will become food, then alcohol, then who knows what!
Woodroe:
“Does someone have the right to give themselves lung cancer if that a.) Turns their children into orphans, or b.) Turns them into a burden on tax payers?”
a.) So? I mean really, so what? You don’t get to abridge free choice (the ideal this nation was founded upon) simply to “protect the children”. Because if you do then it does not stop with smoking, it never does.
b.) Why would they be a burden on taxpayers? Oh right because of socialism. Well that is a self-inflicted wound this society must suffer with until it becomes more intelligent. It is certainly not a good reason to further curtain freedom.