More DC Stupidity
Tags:
Current Councilman, former Mayor and crackhead Marion Barry on getting robbed in his own home:
There is a sort of an unwritten code in Washington, among the underworld and the hustlers and these other guys, that I am their friend.
Washington has passed a smoking ban similar to New York's:
Bravo to Carol Schwartz, the "1" in that 11-1 vote, who described herself as "not responsible for taking away civil liberties [from] consenting adults making free choices."
And, for the record, I hate overly-smoky bars. But I don't think they should be illegal; I have the option of going elsewhere and, overly zealous public health warnings aside, all a little secondhand smoke is gonna do is irritate my eyes a bit and make my clothes stink like tobacco.
"And, for the record, I hate overly-smoky bars. But I don't think they should be illegal; I have the option of going elsewhere "
Bravo, Joe. Guess I fall libertarian on this one, because that's precisely how I feel -- and it seems like I always get odd responses from fellow non-smokers when I say that. The topic came up when I was just in smoke-free Cali, and my belief that one can dislike smoky bars while also being against smoking bans seemed foreign there.
Posted by: Jay on January 5, 2006 2:03 PM | permalinkI have a libertarian view as well. Do what you want as long as it causes others no harm.
Smoking in confined public places causes harm to others.
Ergo, don't smoke around anyone that doesn't smoke. Its foisting the smokers decision to smoke upon others.
No one is saying smokers can't smoke anymore than we are saying drinkers can't drink. It is quite simply that one shouldn't be in a position to cause innocent others harm while drinking (DUI) or smoking (public place second hand smoke).
My caveat is this: There are places where smoking is the whole idea behind the place (cigar bars, for instance). A reasonable person cannot expect to go there without being in the presence of smoke.
(The smoking regulation goes into effect in March for Oklahoma. Its a lot more common sense than the dipshit california law...look it up.)
Posted by: Bubba on January 5, 2006 5:59 PM | permalinkAdmittedly in a selfish way, I love the smoking ban. I don't think it's really fair, but I love it.
Posted by: ChuckJerry on January 5, 2006 6:28 PM | permalinkJerry:
Well, yes, it's easy to support something that benefits you or oppose something that penalizes you. At least you admit it's not fair.
Bubba:
I think "confined public places" stretches the word "public" a bit. I mean, if there was such a demand for smoke-free places, you'd think some entrepreneurs would put bit "smoke free" stickers on their windows. I know, for example, that I'm less likely to go to underground bars (as in basement, not speakeasies) because of the poor ventilation of that cigarette smoke. But I don't think that my preferences should be imposed on others. And I don't think it should be illegal to be rude.
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on January 5, 2006 8:24 PM | permalinkConfined = not outdoors, for the purpose of my post.
The real issue here isn't the act of smoking. By all means, if you can smoke in public in such a way as to not impact another human - be my guest. Its simply that smokers tend to want their fix, even if it means non-smokers get sick.
I'm kind of concerned that you would use the term rude. Would you consider DUI to be rude?
Ask yourself this question: Is DUI ok?
You non-DUI'ers obviously have the choice to stay the hell off the road/sidewalk if you don't want to be ran over - right?
Using the old "Drinking at a bar is ok, so smoking should be legal as well - we're all adults" arguement is flawed. I can get piss drunk without forcing anyone else to drink. However, one cannot smoke in a bar without forcing others to consume cigarette smoke as well. I've yet to see a pro-smoker arguement that takes this into account and provides a logical arguement.
In a rational society, the government has a right to set rules that protect its citizens from abuse of the freedom it affords its citizens.
-> you can drink, you just can't drive while drunk
-> you can watch hardcore xxx, just not openly
-> you can carry a gun, just not if you are mental
-> you can inhale burning plants, just don't force others to do so against their will
-> you can speak what you want, just don't yell fire in a theater
Yes, but the harm inflicted by a drunk driver who gets into a crash is nowhere near the harm inflicted by that smoker at the next bar stool.
It's like the difference between saying that it's not OK for others to listen to bad music versus it being illegal for them to blast their awful music in a residential area at 4am on a work night.
I agree, smoking is gross. I'd personally enjoy bars more if people didn't do it there. But jeez man, you make it sound like they're putting out cigarettes in your eyeballs or something. It's not so outrageous that it should be outlawed.
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on January 6, 2006 5:28 PM | permalinkSo, if you kill someone slowly its ok - but a fast death is wrong? Have you ever worked in a bar/restaurant that was full of smokers?
The difference you talk about (smoker on next barstool) is not quite the same. Its not the one smoker next to you. Its being around 1000+ "just one person smoking" over eight hours (if you work there) or maybe 100 or so over 2 hours if you go out to eat.
Its not the one smoker. Its the cumulative effect of lots of "one smoker" over and over and over.
And yes, I have a very strong (militant) view of this topic. I have a family member slowly dying from emphasemia (sp?) from second hand smoke.
I think I've communicated my perspective, so this is my last post on this subject. Thanks for bringing it up.
Posted by: Bubba on January 8, 2006 3:02 PM | permalinkNo more comments! Either someone has violated Godwin's Law, I'm tired of the discussion or, most likely, the ten-week window has closed. You can, however, contact me through email.