tuscl

Effect of No Smoking Laws

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 12:44 AM
Our Legislature and Governor, in their collective paternalistic wisdom, have decided that all indoor spaces in the State will go smoke-free after the first of the year. The enforcement provision of the statute lets the enforcing local governmental body (municipality or county) get 50% of all net fines levied for statutory violations. The purpose of this, of course, is to provide a dis-incentive from local officials turning a blind eye to violations. What effect, if any, do you think the ban will have on strip club patronage. I live essentially on an interstate border, there are about 15 clubs on my side of the State line. Repressive laws prevent similar establishments from opening up in the adjacent State. SO, will customers stay out of strip clubs because they can't smoke there, even though there is no competing alternative within easy reach?

59 comments

  • FONDL
    •
    17 years ago
    Chitown, I've read that in states and cities that have enacted no smoking laws, there's been virtually no impact on bars and restaurants. So I doubt if you'll see any impact on your local clubs. But the thing I'd worry about most is that you'll probably be able to see the girls better and that may not be a good thing. I don't think I've ever been in a strip club that didn't allow smoking, it would seem strange.
  • Book Guy
    •
    17 years ago
    I think it would seem strange. But I concur, there may be a FEAR that business of a certain sort will diminish in the wake of new anti-smoking legislation, but it's my understanding that in general across the continent that has not come to pass, but rather night-life businesses tend to see improvement soon after the change. Might affect strip clubs the same way?
  • dennyspade
    •
    17 years ago
    ChiTown: Believe it or not, in that Big Metropolitan City which borders Lake Michigan at the other end of the State of Il, this topic is garnering a significant amount of discussion amongst the dancer community. I visited at least five different clubs over the last 30 days where contentious debate reigned more than the Obama vs Clinton as the Illinois favorite son/daughter. Personally, I feel that the cost of drinks and dances will have a bigger impact than a smoking policy. I have seen dancers sitting on picnic benches, wearing trench coats over their outfits, sitting with the smoking lepers outside the door of the Silver Bullet in Urbana, IL. Business is still good and some patrons like the clean air and dirty girl combo. I also noticed that there were more dancers smoking than patrons at Crazy Rock in Romeoville, during a recent visit. My unscientific deduction senses that a non-smopking policy will have less impact than that of a local economy with patrons having some discretionary income (after paying for petrol)to spend on said dancers.
  • chipitin
    •
    17 years ago
    This law will help clubs because it will serve to keep my money flowing in. Presently i am limited to 60-90 minutes in the club unless I want to go home smelling like a smokestack and explain why I was in a smoke filled bar.
  • lotsoffun201
    •
    17 years ago
    Here in Las Vegas, the recent antismoking laws were enacted so that anyplace that serves food as well as liquor is non smoking. This was a real problem for the local small taverns who have video poker, food and booze. A few of them partitioned off the bars so that you can smoke and drink at the same time, but not eat. You have to also know that essentially the casinos are exempt. Interesting, the only place you can't smoke in a casino is in the food court (if they have one) or a restaraunt. Guess who was behind the anti smoking statutes? Thats right, the casino. Oh yes by the way, there is no smoking court, no cigarette police, and nobody enforces the shit anyway. What a total waste.
  • motorhead
    •
    17 years ago
    FONDL: The Mons Venus in Tampa has not allowed smoking for several years, and for my money, it's the best club in the country. It certainly didn't hurt their business when they went smoke-free, but this could be an exception given their location, the quality of the girls, and the level of contact allowed. Maybe I'm biased since I am not a smoker, but I love a smoke-free club. I wish more would follow their lead.
  • snowtime
    •
    17 years ago
    I don't think it will have any impact on anyone other than the cigarette companies. Even though I own some Phillip Morris stock I would love to see all strip clubs and casinos go smoke free. It didn't seem to hurt the airlines and I noticed that the entire Marriot chain has gone smoke free. I doubt if they (Marriot) would have done so if they anticipated a significant drop off in room revenue. Likeise stripclub patrons who smoke will find some way to adapt. Just as people are not going to quit flying or using motels, neither are strip club fans going to give up "the hobby". It will be a welcome relief not to have a cute nude girl who is giving me a lapdance, pause to have a drag on a cigarette.
  • David9999
    •
    17 years ago
    Plenty of attractive non-smoking girls (some even health conscious) now have more reason to give stripping a try. In certain northeast locales that have had the ban a few yrs, the clubs usually have built and outdoor lounge of some type -useful for parts of the spring, the entire summer, and a portion of fall - for 3 seasons basicall - for the nicotine addicted dancers and for customers So its the best of all worlds, plus patrons can avoid bringing home (suspiciously) smoky clothes to one's spouse
  • gatorjoe2
    •
    17 years ago
    In some states, including Florida, the smoking ban is only in effect where food is a certain percentage of the overall profits of the business. Most of the clubs in Florida, despite banning smoking, still have smoking. Honestly, ridding smoking is always great. Honestly, I bet within 10-15 years, smoking cigarettes will almost completely taboo among the U.S. population.
  • casualguy
    •
    17 years ago
    The smoke from cigarettes has carcinogens that cause cancer and other harmful substances such as carbon monoxide and other toxins. I for one would be happy if I didn't have to inhale all of that second hand toxic smoke just to have fun in clubs and bars. However I did hear some talk about some dancers who smoke might decide to quit and move some where else so that they could continue to smoke. It's sad that the ventilation system in many clubs could eliminate a bad smoke problem but many clubs don't seem to bother to operate such systems unless you can hardly even see through the smoke. Maybe those systems just don't work good in a big smoking crowd. No smoking laws have been arriving here in South Carolina which is one of the big smoking states. My health improved dramatically within a few months after no smoking bans were enacted in the workplace. I actually knew someone who developed lung cancer and was sitting at a desk nearby where I used to work at. He had surgury and one of the guys sitting next to him asked "does it bother you if I smoke here?". He should have just said, nah, go ahead and smoke, I'm going to die from it within a few months anyway, you'll only kill me a few weeks faster. Instead he just said, don't worry about it. He died within a few months.
  • casualguy
    •
    17 years ago
    What I really don't like is that the governments here in the Carolinas are helping to support terrorism by keeping our cigarette taxes much lower than the rest of the nation. I heard organized groups buy cigarettes in low tax states and sell them in high tax states for big profits (probably illegally) and then ship the profits overseas to support terrorism. Higher taxes on cigarettes could help cut down on terrorism. South Carolina is planning on raising the tax but it's so low compared to other states it's not enough in my opinion.
  • ShotDisc
    •
    17 years ago
    As a lifelong non-smoker, I would love it if strip clubs went no smoking. I realize I am in the minority and this has little chance of happening.
  • shadowcat
    •
    17 years ago
    I am a smoker. Have been for over 50 years and have no intentions of quiting. It has affected my way of life. I no longer want to go to restaraunts where I can't smoke. I'm talking about fancy places where I would order a cocktail. A cocktail without a cigarette is unappealing. I would much rather stay at home and cook for my friends/family. In GA if your establishment derives more income from alcohol than food, you may have smoking. Of the 50+ places in my town, only 3 "sports bars" qualify and I do not go to any of them. I do not believe this shit about second hand smoke. I do believe that the smell is offensive to non smokers. I can't stand a cigar smoker near me in a strip club. Thank you magicrat for not lighting up. Besides going to SC to visit my favorite club, I also enjoy the fact that I can still smoke in most restaraunts. Tobacco country. 2 years ago on a routine check up they discovered a nodule on my right lung. About the size of a pea. They do not know if it is cancerous or not but since then I have been getting chest xrays every 6 months. There has been no change in size or appearance. They say that if it changes they will just go in and remove it. No questions asked. I have had to make adjustments to my life style to comply with over restricted government regulations but I am not going to quit. Sorry daughter.
  • Raincoat
    •
    17 years ago
    I can't tell you how many times I have not gone to club only because I knew the smell of smoke would cause trouble with Mrs. Raincoat. If the ban is inforced, I'll be spending a lot more money in local clubs.
  • ThisOldManPlayed1
    •
    17 years ago
    Being a smoker myself since 15, I want to quit, but don't have the desire to at this time. I have slowed down quite a bit. However.... Ohio has enacted a state wide smoking ban also, as well as Kentucky, just this year. No smoking anywhere indoors!! What I have found that clubs do to counter this is: 1) Club employees still smoke in their clubs, but in dressing rooms, except Club Lido in Cleveland, dancers put on coats and smoke at "bus stop" type smoking shelter out front. 2) some Louisville clubs "rent" ashtrays to customers for $2 for the night. Money goes into a kitty to pay any smoking ban fines. 3) A club in Elyria furnishes small plastic cups for smokers, then puts them under the counter when not in use. The club makes enough money to pay any enforced fines. 4) Some Ohio clubs have built on outdoor fenced-in smoking porches, some with heaters, some without. These states can do anything they want with their frigging bans, but there will always be a way around THE LAW. I understand the non-smokers rights but as long as cigarette/cigar smoking is legal, US smokers can smoke all we want. As far as those BITCHING and GRIPING non-smokers..... how many of you smoke marijuana still?
  • FONDL
    •
    17 years ago
    I'm not a smoker and never have been, but the smoking bans bother me because I'm afraid of what the do-gooders might be outlawing next - drinking, lap dances? In my area most restaurants have smoking sections and no-smoking sections, and it seems to work fine. Even in the smoking sections (where I always sit because ther are fewer little kids, who bother me a hell of a lot more than does a little smoke) the ventilation systems work well enough that there's almost no detectable smoke. The problem with many strip clubs isn't that they allow smoking, it's that their ventilation systems are terrible. I have 2 other comments about smoking bans. (1) There has never been any good study which suggests that infrequent exposure to low levels of second-hand smoke is harmful. It's a basic law of toxicology that the dose makes the poison. All the studies on second-hand smoke are based on extrapolation from high levels of smoke, which is scientifically unsound. Smoking bans are based on bad science. (2) The population segment most at risk from second-hand smoke is children who live in homes where a parent smokes. The smoke levels in such homes is much higher than in restaurants because homes rarely have much of a ventilation system, and those children are exposed continuously, not just sporadically. So why has there been no effort to outlaw smoking in homes where children are present? And before you respond that the government can't regulate what goes on in your home, there are already many laws that do exactly that.
  • snowtime
    •
    17 years ago
    Fondl: Although somewhat off topic you make a good case for the govt. regulating smoking in homes with small children. I could certainly see them going in this direction although I generally agree with you "the less govt., the better govt". This is particularly true with the adult ent. industry and other victemless crimes. Nonetheless I would prefer to at least see a non-smoking section to any public place that allows smoking. There are those of us with asthema ( in my case, the result of 57 years of bad Atlanta air) who are often physically impacted by excessive cigarette smoke. That being said, I too would prefer a room full of smokers to a room full of rugrats.
  • ThisOldManPlayed1
    •
    17 years ago
    How about? 1) laws prohibiting smoking in vehicles with small children? 2) laws prohibiting smoking on public streets? 3) laws prohibiting smoking while operating a motor vehicle? Where does it end? Like FONDL says, ban smoking, ban drinking, ban lap dances, ban music, ban dancing altogether, ban public affection in public, ban singing. Hell, seems everyone is so damn worried about the environment and how this and that is affecting it! But, everyone wants to approve of gay marriages, gay weddings? RUBBISH!! Just leave me and my cigarettes alone! LOL
  • DandyDan
    •
    17 years ago
    All I will say is the clubs near me in Lincoln, Nebraska have had 4 years or so of a smoking ban and whenever the dancer is done with the stage, they immediately go out to the smoking area, which sucks if you don't smoke. Not that I ever considered them worthwhile clubs to visit to begin with. One of the clubs there, the Foxy Lady, exploited the beer garden loophole, so they essentially have indoor smoking anyway. So I'm sure the clubs near you can find a loophole.
  • FONDL
    •
    17 years ago
    At least I doubt that Shadowcat's favorite club will have to worry about this any time soon. Can you imagine a politician in the Carolinas suggesting a ban on smoking? Now that would be fun to see. Philadelphia banned smoking in most public places. The governor tried to extend the ban to the rest of the state. The rest of the state told him what he could do with his ban. Some of our local restaurants have voluntarily banned smoking, while others haven't, meaning that customers hve a choice. IMO that's how things should work.
  • ShotDisc
    •
    17 years ago
    As a lifelong republican and conservative, I certainly understand the "slippery slope" arguments. I have made them myself on many occasions. But on this one I have to dissent. Smoking is a health hazard to those who do it and those around them. Especially kids. Restricting it in public is a no brainer in my mind. Smokers have the right to do whatever they want to themselves in the privacy of their own homes and vehicles.
  • Book Guy
    •
    17 years ago
    I'm a smoker (though that shouldn't matter to the discussion of the issues at hand, evidently some people feel it does) and, what's worse, of those irksome, DISGUSTING pipes. :) But I too feel it's pretty obvious -- smoking is a problem TO OTHER PEOPLE (people other than those who choose to light up) and therefore it is well within a government's right to rein in the smoking. I don't like the idea of relating it to eating, since I don't really see the connection. Here in New Orleans, if an establishment makes the majority of its money from food, it must eliminate smoking; but if its majority comes from alcohol sales, it need not. I don't see the connection, though I get what they're TRYING to do -- not make things bad on bar-sitters who want to go smoke while drinking. This has an odd set of effects. First, bigger places have put in partitions and sub-divided their location into a "bar" where smoking is allowed (it has tables, and you can "order in" food from across the partition) and a "restaurant" where smoking is prohibited (it has a bar, and you can "order in" alcohol from across the partition). Silly waste of drywall, employs a few contractors. Second, smaller places have eliminated their food menu, so now you can't get a decent po-boy at many bars that used to have excellent snacks. All these places are drinks-only establishments now, and though they're not really any smokier than they used to be, there's a growing dearth of decent quick-bite places in town that aren't fast food chains. Third, people stand around outside to catch a quick smoke, thus in fact INCREASING their impact on passers-by, because before the legislation they would have stayed indoors in a smoking-tolerant room where their second-hand smoke would have been collected, gathered, disposed of up some air vent, rather than blown directly at people on the sidewalk. Fourth, people who smoke pipes and cigars have been relegated strictly to "tobacco havens" such as shops which sell cigars, or hotel cigar rooms. I personally can't stand sitting around in cigar smoke, but never really minded a light dusting of cigarette smoke, and it generally seemed that everyone appreciated my pipe-tobacco's smoke as pleasant rather than offensive. So, now I'm stuck taking my generally nice-smelling discharge and keeping it away from people, and putting myself in the derelicts room with all the other generally nasty-smelling discharge. So, in principle, I don't dislike smoking regulation or even bans. But in practice it hasn't worked out so nice, here in town. In addition, I think people addicted to cigarettes deserve to be treated by government and health care facilities in the same manner that addictions to alcohol or hazardous "hard" drugs ought to be treated. It's a psychological and physical addiction with scientifically proven, medical causes and effects. It has medical therapies. The "refinement" or "enjoyment" of a cigarette is almost nil, relative to other types of more careful smoking. There ARE some "nice" cigarettes out there, for which this discussion probably doesn't apply. But mostly, people aren't "enjoying" the cigarette as much as "needing" it. The weeds and sticks they're smoking, and the recycled bleached paper, can hardly be said to have been carefully chosen for their aura and meticulous craftsmanship. :P I personally "choose" to smoke a tobacco pipe, NOT because I am addicted to the nicotine or the tar or whatever; and not even to the "emotional" experience of having a pipe. I choose it for the "fun" (in a grown up sense), kind of like choosing to use a fancy shaving brush and an English glycerine triple-milled soap, rather than over-the-counter canned shaving foam; or like wearing cuff-links. It's a special nice thing to do for myself. And I have no concerns about addiction. I have been challenged on six occasions by "well meaning" friends that I should quit. On every occasion I've simply given my friend the box which contains all my pipes, tobacco, tools, and supplies, and said, "Here, hold on to this for a month or two. Tell me when you're satisfied that I'm not addicted and I'll take them back and store them for you again." That's always stopped them short. It would be silly to "give up" something I enjoy, which likely has few or no deleterious effects, merely because someone else wrongly thinks it's harming ME. But that's not the case for cigarette legislation. The cigarettes ARE harming both the participant, AND all people nearby. Utterly different issues. And yet please don't peg me to the Nanny State hypothesis. I hate that idea. I don't believe, as a general premise, in the idea of legislating that people have to wear motorcycle helmets. "We're protecting them from themselves" in an anti-democratic argument. As long as they agree not to take public taxpayer-funded money for brain and facial reconstruction surgery if and when they have a motorcycle accident, and as long as they agree (maybe sign a waiver? enact a law?) that they can't sue someone who hits them for more than can anyone else who was in a similar accident even though the other person likely suffered fewer injuries than the helmetless motorcycle rider, then I think all people should choose for themselves the nature of their headgear for motorcycle riding. It's a basic, straightforward premise, based entirely on the "social contract" as outlined by the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century philosophers, largely of the Scottish Enlightenment. "Do as you choose, as long as it harms no other. When it involves another, then you must create compromise." Pretty simple, really.
  • magicrat
    •
    17 years ago
    Shadowcat..you're welcome, although I did smoke my cigar on my return visit later that evening. I even got a dancer to take a few puffs of my stogie, but that's an entirely different story. I live in the Carolinas and we too have no smoking in most restaurants. It doesn't bother me as I'm a nonsmoker, except for the occasional cigar. But my feeling has always been, if you're in a bar, don't bitch about the smoking! It's a bar for god's sake!..if you don't like it go to the Olive Garden or something. It is an issue when leaving a club because you smell like an ashtray, which Mrs. Rat would also pick up on. I usually plan my club visits, so I have a change of clothes in the car. I also have access to a shower at a club of which I am a member so if I have time I will also stop by and shower before going home.
  • casualguy
    •
    17 years ago
    Bones, I believe I have the right to complain about smoking. I've never smoked anything myself, not a single cigarette or anything else in my entire life. However in my last job, they enacted a smoking ban in most places of the factory but not in the offices at first. I had a lot of computer work and that was a job requirement. However all the supervisors and a couple of the office workers took smoking breaks in our enclosed office space and there was a dense cloud of smoke in that office all day. I believe the second hand smoke I was exposed to probably amounted to several packs of cigarettes a day. I developed a continuing cough which I never had before and some of my hair started turning gray. I complained but that didn't do much good. Finally due to some national law suits and possible legal trouble, a decision in most work places banned smoking in all factories that I have been in since. Within a year my cough disappeared. I guess some might make a quick comment saying, oh yeah, he could have just found a job somewhere else. However, when all the other places have smoke as well, it doesn't do any good. Fondl, I live in South Carolina as well. You might have missed it, but I think I said they are talking about smoking bans here as well. In fact the city of Greenville and many other cities have enacted smoking bans. I think one or two was overturned but senators in our state have been taking up the issue. I believe tobacco is becoming a smaller force compared to other industries in our state. However, if clubs and bars just had adequate ventilation during peak smoking times, it wouldn't bother me as much since I don't visit strip clubs that much. One reason is I don't like all the smoke. The other reason is super loud music and or bright lights in your eyes.
  • FONDL
    •
    17 years ago
    ShotDisc and Book Guy, let me modify your comments slightly and ask if you still agree with them. (1) Drinking is a health hazard to those who do it and those around them. Especially kids. Restricting it in public is a no brainer ... (2) Drinking is a problem TO OTHER PEOPLE (people other than those who choose to drink) and therefore it is well within a government's right to rein in the drinking. Seems to me that those argumesnts are just as valid as the ones you both made against smoking in public place and could easily be used to justify all drinking outside of the home. In fact I think the argument is much stronger re drinking because the facts are quite clear that drinking has harmed many others, while I don't think there's any evidence that occasional exposure to second hnd smoke is harmful.
  • FONDL
    •
    17 years ago
    Edit to say "... could easily be used to justify PROHIBITING all drinking outside the home." Sorry about that and several spelling errors, I was interrupted before I had a chance to proofread.
  • ThisOldManPlayed1
    •
    17 years ago
    casualguy - Not disgregarding non-smoker rights, my suggestion for non-smokers is this: Start smoking and you won't be bother by second-hand smoke!
  • jablake
    •
    17 years ago
    Hi FONDL, Very interesting point you made. I wonder if you follow your own logic further and see nothing wrong with OPEN containers of beer, wine, etc. in automobiles. I was with a large group of professionals of above average intelligence. Everyone, but me thought it was a NO brainer to make it a crime to have open alcohol containers. I may be wrong, you may agree with the majority--it was 100% excluding me and they weren't dummies, imo. And, it wouldn't surprise me if you were among that 100%. Just curious how far you'd go with you're line of thinking (BTW, supposedly cellphone use is as dangerous as drunk driving. I think that is probably true because "drunk driving" doesn't necessarily mean "drunk driving.") Who knows, agree with with me about open containers and maybe I can persuade that it is time for a friendly dictatorship! ;) It seems brain dead, but anti-smoking laws could actually increase business. I remember once before all this smoking ban shit a potential customer was claiming the right to smoke on private property where not prohibited by law and the owner of the business supposedly had no protection. Given how sick and twisted the law can be, it wouldn't surprise me if the smoker was right! That stupidity that someone has the right to smoke in your business establishment unless prohibited by law may have led to the backlash. The owner of the restaurant caved-in and most of the other diners had wished he'd held his ground. My 2 cents is that it should be a business' decision in most cases. Don't like smoking, then go somewhere that business agrees with you. I believe that smoke free would be a popular choice--even in bars maybe! :)
  • FONDL
    •
    17 years ago
    Jablake, I've never had an open container of any alcoholic beverage in my car. That's a Florida thing.
  • FONDL
    •
    17 years ago
    I find it amusing that people here are bragging about having unprotected sex of one kind or another in strp clubs but worrying about second-hand smoke. Seems to me that's kinda like sky diving without a parachute and worrying about the air pollution on the way down.
  • ThisOldManPlayed1
    •
    17 years ago
    ROFLMFAO@FONDL - WOW, what an analogy! I love it!!!
  • FONDL
    •
    17 years ago
    Bones, thanks. It amazes me that people on a board such as this would support banning anyone else's pleasure. Isn't that exactly what we all complain about, others trying to ban our pleasure? People who live in glass houses ...
  • jablake
    •
    17 years ago
    Well, it may be someones pleasure to play a boom box. If businesses didn't feel they could ban boom boxes, then may be the government needs to come and ban boom boxes and other personal noise spewing devices. I still remember the arrogance of the smoker who claimed it was his "right" to smoke in a restaurant. How dare the restaurant to try and limit his "freedom." The sad thing is the smoker may have been correct under the law. Thus, a new law is needed that goes overboard in the other direction.
  • ThisOldManPlayed1
    •
    17 years ago
    KUDOS!!!!!
  • DougS
    •
    17 years ago
    Interesting discussion... In the last year, the area in which I live has banned smoking in all public buildings. Smoking has also been banned in city and county parks (state parks, too, maybe). I've talked to a great many waitresses (non SC establishments) and they all pretty much agree that the smoking ban has harmed business. In particular, places like Hooters that is a restaurant and a "bar". However, the reason that the ban has hurt the business is that there are other alternatives for places to go where one can still eat AND smoke. My theory is, if all establishments had the same rules, business would not be affected. With that in mind, if smoking were banned in all strip clubs in a given area, I don't think business would be affected at all. If a person has a desire to go to a strip club, it probably won't change their mind if they can or cannot smoke. UNLESS there is an alternative that allows smoking in the general vicinity. Personally, I do NOT smoke. I am NOT one of those radical anti-smoking people, but I have to admit I much prefer eating at a restaurant where smoking is not allowed. I DO still eat at restaurants that permits smoking, however. Would I like strip clubs to go "smoke free"? I could argue both ways on this, but ultimately, I think I would side on the "allow smoking in SCs" side. Why? I despise spending a few hours at a club and smelling like the Marlboro Man when I leave. I cannot wear a coat into a club because I don't want to make a trip to the dry cleaner. Sometimes I am forced to make the nearly three hour drive with my windows down in order to "air out" and lessen the stink of smoke, even when the temp is below freezing (believe me, that makes for one hell of an uncomfortable trip). Reading that, you'd think I would be on the other side of the fence, right? Wrong! Suppose smoking is banned at the clubs that I frequent. Upon leaving, I would no longer be sporting the smell of cigarettes. Instead, I'd be smelling all girlie, having picked up the scent of the girls that'd been rubbing themselves all over me. No longer would cigarette smoke be covering up the smell of perfumes, body sprays and lotions. On the surface, that's not bad, but try explaining THAT to your wife or SO upon your return home!
  • Book Guy
    •
    17 years ago
    FONDL: I just saw your hypothetical, in which you drew the parallel between my argument about why smoking legislation is appropriate, to a further logical extreme about (alcohol) drinking legislation. I actually find your suggestion about alcohol quite reasonable. Yes, because the drinking of alcohol is a potential danger not only to the people who choose to partake (those who buy and ingest the alcohol) but also to other people, therefore it is within a collective governing body's reasonable purview to limit that ingestion. That is, after all, what we do right now, but few people get up in arms about it as though their "rights" are being abridged. I admit alcohol and tobacco have slightly different positions in the parallel, so the metaphor isn't ideal. The effects of tobacco are quite direct -- a non-smoker who must accidentally inhale a smoker's second-hand smoke is exposed directly to a stranger's carcinogens, while a non-drinker who must drive on a road with a drunk driver is not directly exposed to the ALCOHOL or fumes which the drinker ingested, but rather to the effects of those substances on his behavior (his inability to drive carefully, etc.). So really, it's more within a government's right to control second hand smoke than to control drinking without driving. The thing the government ought to control in the alcohol part of the equation would be alcohol-addled BEHAVIORS, not just alcohol itself. So the parallel is slightly off. Nevertheless, to me it's very straightforward. The government as a whole has a duty to protect ME from IDIOTS. They make murder illegal no matter how much the other guy might need to take my money to feed his family. They make his chopping my arm off illegal no matter how much the other guy might need my flesh to feed his family. Smoke is an equal parallel. If it causes me real harm, I want my governing body to do a good job of keeping it away from me. To me, there are only two legitimate complaints about this point of view of mine that I've ever heard. The first is, that many people claim that it doesn't actually cause me any real harm. Many cigarette smokers, inured as they are to smoky rooms and the otherwise eye-stinging discharge of their smoke, suggest that non-smokers are "faking" their own irritation. That was false for me. Cigarette smoke has been a genuine irritant, ruining meals, preventing me from seeing, causing me to return home and change clothes and wash my hair before I could continue with my day. People who distrusted my response simply didn't see the medical reality of it. In addition, they might suggest that second hand smoke doesn't actually cause cancer in non-smokers. There's, in fact, an internet rumor circulating about the idea that there are no studies. I can't detail the specifics, but I'm personally quite convinced that if smoke inside one person causes cancer in that person, then it's appropriate for me to not want that same smoke to go inside me, and thus by extension hope the government aids me in my avoidance of that smoke. So, the first legitimate objection, that the smoke "doesn't bother" the non-smoker, may indeed address the issue correctly, but its evidence fails because of its falsity. The second legitimate objection that I've heard, is simply that the legislation doesn't work, or is poorly administered, or generally has so many kinks and mistakes in it that it brings about idiotic situations. I utterly agree with this objection. In fact, my initial discussion on this thread was about exactly that phenomenon. I don't think that this objection addresses fairly my main statement -- that the principle of creating a law to limit smoking is based on legitimate duties of good post-Enlightenment governments -- but the objection does address an important portion of any government issue: to heck with theory, how do we do it in practice? I fully recognize that it's often quite difficult to do so. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate the theory. As far as the argument about whether or not I'm supporting the banning of another person's pleasure: I'm not. That isn't my point at all. I have no interest in whether or not the smoker enjoys or hates his cigarette, whether or not it is a pleasure of a pain to him. I only have interest in what goes into my own lungs, and by obvious extension, into the lungs of any citizen who wishes to retain autonomy in this democracy. Our right to choice is abrogated by the presence of deleterious second-hand smoke. Therefore, those who support the notion of a democratic government that fosters choice and individual freedom would rightly support the limitation of forced inhalation of a stranger's cigarette smoke, at least in principle. I don't care who smokes in his own home (though I don't want him to also use public funds to overcome his eventual self-caused lung cancer, but that is a different issue) or whether it's done in certain areas of restaurants or what-not where I can get away from it and yet still have all the same choices that the smokers have. What often happens among smokers is, that they forget that THEIR choice to smoke has LIMITED the options of other people. This in itself prevents equitable democracy. Same as if I were booming a boom box in a busy office with tunes that helped me work. It might benefit my performance, but likely would be deleterious to others'. If I cannot immediately see that any item (sound, smoke, etc.) which I put into another human's vicinity and (as in the case of smoke) BLOODSTREAM is an item I have inappropriately forced upon them, then I do not deserve to participate in a cooperative system such as American democracy. It's not about limiting pleasure. It's not about controlling other people. It's about having my own right to controlling myself being ripped away from me by those who would impose their choices on me. If they choose cigarettes, they must choose them and the smoke from them ONLY FOR THEMSELVES and not for me as well. Simple. The way it's always supposed to work in functioning post-Enlightenment societies. Of course, it's a lot easier to think it up than it is to write a law that actually does that. Limit it in one way, you've got weird effects in another that cross the line in the other way, etc. This I've already conceded.
  • jablake
    •
    17 years ago
    Hi Book Guy, It is about controlling other people's pleasure. Let's say I'm a heavy smoker and a heavy eater; I believe a good meal must accompanied by smoking. Ideally cigarette, cigar, pipe, and more. Perhaps get a hose from the jalopy outback and bring in its fumes. A lot of my friends and family feel the same way. An idea pops up! Open a little restaurant that caters to those that love smoking and eating. Problem is the government has taken that choice from me in the form of its NO smoking laws. :( The pleasure of having a commercial smoking hangout is taken away under government knows best and one size fits all and etc. :( I think the shoe may have been on the foot years ago where if you wanted a smoke free business, then the government wouldn't allow that. BTW, I HATE smoking. It is a nasty habit, but I don't really care if other people smoke. I don't even want to order them not to smoke around me although I prefer that they don't. I do want businesses to be free to have smoking or non-smoking. In this day and age, I think for many businesses (not stripclubs) where there is real competition non-smoking would be the norm.
  • FONDL
    •
    17 years ago
    Book Guy, IMO ALL of your arguments are adequately addressed by (1) requiring separate smoking and no-smoking sections in bars and restaurants, and (2) setting ventilation standards for commercial buildings. Both of those things already exist in most places. Guys, let's be honest - the only real reason anyone here wants to ban smoking in public places is that they find it annoying. The health issue is a red herring, there is no health problem associated with occasional exposure to low levels of second-hand cigarette smoke. I sometimes find smoking annoying too, but I also find lots of other behaviors annoying. Does that give me the right to demand that all such behaviors be banned by the government? For example, should the government ban the use of cel phones in restaurants, which is much more annoying to me than someone smoking in the smoking section? I'm sure lots of women find lap dancing annoying too, does that give them the right to insist that the government ban it? Now if you want to argue that children are at risk, that may well be true. I'd favor banning children from strip clubs and bars. That makes a lot more sense than banning smoking. I'm amazed that so many otherwise intelligent people are being taken in by the phony science perpetrated by the do-gooders who are trying to remodel society to their liking by further limits on personal freedoms. We already have too much government interference in our lives. We need fewer laws and regulations, not more. I'll say this one more time and then I'm done with this topic - ANY RATIONALE THAT IS USED TO BAN SMOKING CAN JUST AS EASILY BE USED IN SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FORM TO BAN STRIP CLUBS. You ignore that truth at your own peril.
  • jablake
    •
    17 years ago
    BTW, if air quality is really the issue older cars should be banned along with most buses. And, get rid of most airplanes. BBQ? Ban it. I think California in some places the charcoal BBQ has been banned. :) And, that should save some endangered cows. Cars represent a risk that is just too much for pedestrians and other innocents--BAN 'EM. :) This could really be fun. Guns, of course have to be BANNED. :) Pools are horrible offenders as far as killing small children. BAN 'EM. Dogs sure as hell are a health menace to some people. BAN 'EM. :)
  • jablake
    •
    17 years ago
    How could I have forgotten. Inappropriate books need to be BANNED because they represent and extreme health risk to the "innocents." I'm thinking The Turner Diaries and McVeigh. And, then there was the infamous Hit Man book that a person used as guide to wipe an entire family? or, maybe it was just a nasty wifey or hubby . . .
  • ShotDisc
    •
    17 years ago
    I greatly appreciate all of the intelligent dialogue on this subject. I understand the points FONDL is trying to make and appreciate the effort and passion he has exhibited in presenting them. I also appreciate the arguments brought forward by Book Guy. But as usual, a simple point has been elevated way beyond a normal conversation and into an exchange of rhetoric. As both a non-smoker and a non-drinker, I feel there is a significant difference between the two. Smoking is an outward pollutant. Drinking is an inward pollutant. A smoker in a bar or eatery has a negative effect on those around him just by sitting in their presence indulging in their habit. A drinker sitting in the same chair, causes me no ill effects. To me personally, that is a major difference
  • ThisOldManPlayed1
    •
    17 years ago
    Only problem with your analogy ShotDisc is that more DRINKERS kill people on highways than SMOKERS!
  • ShotDisc
    •
    17 years ago
    Looking at things short term, that is probably true. but in the long term, smoking will harm/kill many, many more non-smokers.
  • Book Guy
    •
    17 years ago
    FONDL: Yes, your 1-2 point is ideal for my world view (and, as you put it, it's good for yours too). Requiring separate ventilation is sufficient for me (especially if it happens in restaurants to the extent that I genuinely do not experience another person's smoke while I am eating). I don't see that this rationale could be used to ban strip clubs -- what, nude and non-nude seating in a restaurant? :P I think the poor rationales for anti-smoking legislation can indeed bleed over into similarly poor thinking behind anti-strip-club legislation. That's a legitimate worry. But most of the parallels simply aren't there. Smoking is legitimately "contrlled" (as per your suggestion) in a manner that is not parallel to, for example, the control of publication of certain information or opinions in books. Smoke itself, as a pollutant / irritant /carcinogen, causes harm to those who cannot avoid it without aid from governing authorities. Books, even if supposedly proven to "cause harm," nevertheless have a second level of choice -- not only the reader, but also the bystander, must choose to partake. The parallel is weak. Anyway, I didn't feel like invective was getting started. I appreciate FONDL's suggestions and do agree that much anti-smoking legislation falls well outside of his sane approach to the subject. He and I have effectively found common ground on that. No need to claim the situation has been overly exacerbated. By the way, I do believe certain dogs ARE hazards that should be banned from most public areas. There are many breeds which, when controlled by responsible owners, are not a public nuisance. But certain breeds, and certain individual dogs within those breeds, simply cannot be controlled by most owners, and even by those who are adept at handling them, they're still rather a risky proposition. These creatures are BRED to be killers. This is an inappropriate thing to bring into a common public setting, no matter how confident the owner (usually wrongly) is. You don't need to ban Fluffy, but if it turns out that Spike and all his cousins are uncontrollable, then you DO need to ban THEM. Again, for me, it's a simple issue. Does it affect other humans? Smoke does; therefore, it is appropriate for the government to impose rational control to allow those who wish to avoid it, to do so. Certain dogs do. Certain behaviors while under the influence of alcohol do. So, the government IN THEORY is well within its rights to try to rearrange such behaviors and items so that they don't harm people who do NOT choose to partake of them. That's all. The rest is bad work on the part of the legislators -- the preposterous hypocrisy about tobacco taxes ("we don't want you to smoke and we're so against it that we're going to base our entire state education budget on it!") is just one indication that they're not thinking the issue through. As FONDL says, a simple pair of concepts -- "(1) requiring separate smoking and no-smoking sections in bars and restaurants, and (2) setting ventilation standards for commercial buildings" -- could be the sum total of all smoking legislation.
  • FONDL
    •
    17 years ago
    I'm going to keep my word and not comment further on the smoking issue, mainly because I've said everything I can and would just be repeating myself. But I do want to comment on Book Guys point about dogs. My chiropractor has a pit bull that's always in his office, and it's the sweetest and friendlyiest dog Ive ever seen. My ATF has a rotweiler and it's also a very nice dog (althouh I wouldn't want to enter her apartment uninvited, which is the whole point. I've also known a lot of dogs that were vicious and not to be trusted, but in every case it's because their owners were mean to them and trained them that way. IMO it isn't the breed of dog, it's the breed of owner that makes the difference between a friendly pet and a visious monster. Don't cut the balls off the dog, cut the balls off the asshole owner.
  • AbbieNormal
    •
    17 years ago
    I've always considered it extremely rude to smoke when other people were eating. In a bar is a different matter, it's like considering a ballpark a resturaunt 'cause you can get a hot dog. You want food in a bar that is your decision. Unfortunately people have decided that the right not to be offended in any manner is apparently the greatest societal right, and they are therefore justified in crushing any kind of behavior they find distasteful. There was a day when something called "courtesy" or "manners" dealt with such matters, but just a shade below being offended in any manner on the list of intolerable acts is being judged in any way by any other human. Pretty much makes law the only avenue left, since nobody feels obligated to exercise judgement. Correct that, people are affraid to exercise judgement.
  • Book Guy
    •
    17 years ago
    "Unfortunately people have decided that the right not to be offended in any manner is apparently the greatest societal right, and they are therefore justified in crushing any kind of behavior they find distasteful." Actually, it's any kind of behavior that they find POLITICALLY INCORRECT which they'll seek to crush, regardless of whether it actually offends anyone. :P
  • AbbieNormal
    •
    17 years ago
    As for the effect, the only one I see is lots of people congregating outside bars for smokes. While I admit to not missing coming home reeking, I am disturbed that this will just be seen as no big deal. Since it didn't put bars out of buisness and since patrons, despite hating it and being inconvienced, adapted, all objections will be ruled illegitimate. The very idea that anything is not the buisness of the government if someone screams loud enough recedes a little further. Since the mid 1970's the government has been on a crusade to reduce the "corrupting" influence of unregulated money on politics. They've managed to gut the first amendment of it's core, preventing the government from regulating political speech or activities related to lobying the government or supporting a candidate, while preserving the outer shell, flag burning, government funding for crucifixes submerged in urine and Nazis and Clansmen marching. It's easier to hold a Clan rally than place ads in a paper in favor of a candidate. Anybody else see that as perverse? Anybody believe they've lessend the corrupting influence of money on politics? All they've done is mandate a discount price, yet that very failure will be used as a justification for more of a failed policy, not less. Anybody else see why I'm getting tired of politics?
  • AbbieNormal
    •
    17 years ago
    BG, it does cut both ways. Evolution, while admitedly a theory, not an established law or fact, still deserves to be mentioned at the very least, probably explained and taught as the dominant theory, in science classes, yet there are those who seek to ban it from public education. While I can muster some sympathy if evolution is taught as unassailable fact, it is the dominant scientific theory, and should be taught.
  • FONDL
    •
    17 years ago
    AN, mind if I change your statement slightly? "Christianity, while admittedly a theory, not an established law or fact, still deserves to be mentioned at the very least, probably explained and taught as the dominant theory (in this country) ... yet there are those who seek to ban it from public education." Or maybe, "Global warming, including its causation by human activities, while admittedly a theory, not an established law or fact, is taught as if it were ..." My point is that we don't apply such criteria uniformly, we teach those things that have been judged by the educatinal establishment to be politically correct and not those things that aren't, regardless of merit. AN, you have hit on what I consider to be the fatal flaw of democracy - people who believe in government and want government to do more are much more likely to become involved in politics than are those whose views are the opposite, thus government always has a bias toward growing and doing more. Most middle-class families already are forced to give half their income to governments, and yet every time a politician speaks they say they need more money for this or that. We are already close to the point where more people are net receivers of government benefits than are net taxpayers, and the portion of society demanding more benefits is growing rapidly. At what point does the system collapse? I think you younger guys will se it in your lifetiems.
  • jablake
    •
    17 years ago
    Hi Fondl, Even those who say they believe in less government seem to want more of it for their special interest. An excellent example is George Wills--smaller government until his family needs help i.e. his daughter's handicap. Well, part of the cost of a favorite project is that other less favorite projects will also probably get funding. Want more money for roads? Unless it is paid for by a dedicated and reasonably linked tax, then more likely than not more money for roads comes with more money for housing, sidewalks, sewers, environmental protection, etc. Given the supposed conservatives that I know, the government should grow by leaps and bounds. More money for building prisons, more money for the military, more money to stop "illegal" immigration (Guilliano, claimed it was NOT a crime to enter the country without proper documentation ???), more money for the drug war, more money for law enforcement, etc.
  • AbbieNormal
    •
    17 years ago
    Well FONDL, Christianity is not a scientific theory, it is a religion and calls itself faith based very proudly. The global warming part is pretty accurate, but global warming is not much of a theory since nobody has ever sought to explain how it works in any detail. I agree that there is a tilt in the educational establishment toward the latest PC fashion, but that still doesn't excuse people who want creationism or intelligent design taught as scientific. They aren't. For all it's problems evolution is science.
  • AbbieNormal
    •
    17 years ago
    FONDL, as for the fatal flaw of democracy, if you really mean democracy then the fatal flaw is that 50.0001% of the people can vote to take all the posessions or the other 49.9999% and it is totally democratic. If you mean the flaw of a constitutional republic like ours I would agree to an extent, but the elected officials aren't the real problem. The real problem is a permanent professional political class that comes to Washington and stays, implementing their policies, directing regulation, and reporting problems and statistics as they see them regardless of who gets elected. And as you point out, they are almost always the people who see a bigger department and more workers and money for them to direct as the solution.
  • Book Guy
    •
    17 years ago
    AN: yer preachin' to the choir about evolution! I think the mere premise that it IS a theory is what makes it scientific (ideas change over time as new evidence is found) whereas creationism and intelligent-design ideas, because they lack experimental or scientific method, are inherently NOT theories and therefore are not welcome in a scientific study. If (a big "if") we agree that science alone should be taught in publicly funded science courses at whatever level, and if (another recently heavily attacked "if") we agree that religiously based ideas should not receive public funding, then (based on those "if"s) we must reject creationism and intelligent-design-ism from those classrooms. I don't see the parallel to Christianity. It seems to me the people who support the one tend to oppose the other, and vice versa; so, although it might be a quaint way to draw an analogy, where were y'all going with it? I also don't see the parallel to smoking, or to anti-smoking legislation. The government having "inappropriately" or "appropriately" (depending on which side you're on) legislated, is entirely an issue of the level of limits on their powers which you wish to ascribe to them. I do the ascribing on the basis of that nebulous "enlightenment theory" I keep quoting. Others have other lines in the sand they wish the government would not cross. For me, the argument is basically about my freedom of lung-choice. I don't see what that has to do with creationism.
  • AbbieNormal
    •
    17 years ago
    BG, a few points. What makes evolution a scientific theory is that it proposes a specific mecanism and makes specific verifiable predictions. The problem is that the most critical of those predictions have not been verified. We can see evolution on the small scale, it's called genetics. Nobody however has ever turned a rabbit into a fox, a lizard into a bird, or a monkey into a human, that is the missing part. But since broccolli and cauliflower are both cabbages, and since eggplant were originally about the size of small tomatoes and white you can start to see the point that it isn't a great leap to go from genetics to evolution. Those were both examples of selective breeding, however the principle remains. The main problem I see is when the social sciences started trying to be hard sciences and when the humanities tried to apply scientific principles and be sciences. The social sciences are a lesser culprit. For the most part they can use statistics and demographics as tools to study society, but too often they see those statistics or pools or demographics as something other than a snapshot of an ever changing ever evolving, and completely uncontrollable entity that is driven by 300 million people making thousands of decisions every day. The idea that you can control such a thing is ludicrous. We first saw the failings of that conceit in Vietnam, where the best and brightest decided they could control the behavior of an entire nation and it's leaders by positive and negative reinforcement. The humanities and arts are an argument for another day. As for the Christianity parallel, FONDL will have to clarify, but my understanding was that just because a majority believe it does not give them the right to impose it as a norm. Although there are probably other aspects to the argument. My point was that a scientific theory is a very different creature, and while consensus and majority rule does not (Al Gore's opinion to the contrary) equate with science, evolution goes well beyond that as far as scientific theory goes. As to your contentions, I agree, the government should protect you from harm. Much of your post however talks of irritation, annoyance, inconvenience. It is not the governments job to protect you from being annoyed by others, although as I have lamented that is quickly becoming the new norm. The other point you ignore is that you make your preferences the definition of the norm. You find smoking annoying, or even stretch it to dangerous, therefore it is a public nuisance. So your contention is that you have no obligation to avoid places where people who do not find smoking either annoying or dangerous congregate, rather they are obligated to conform to your desire to be able to go anywhere and not be offended or annoyed. So what about their right not to be annoyed by you? Smoking isn't illegal (yet). The drinking argument is interesting, but ultimately fails because it isn't drinking, but public intoxication that is illegal. And the threshold for public intoxication is pretty high. You pretty much have to be causing a public disturbance. Driving is another matter, mostly due to the fact that operating a vehicle comes with a lot of public safety concessions for the privilege.
  • Book Guy
    •
    17 years ago
    Yes, there's a fair distinction to be made, between (a) "harm" from (for example) a stranger's cigarette smoke done to bystanders and (b) "irritation." At some point the bystanders' right to an "unencumbered" experience is adequately met merely because legitimate harm has been prevented by the government, even though otherwise legitimate irritation may not have been. Indeed, in the long run the politically correct camp has (quite intelligently, from their point of view) simply blurred the line between irritation and harm (or, use other terms: harmless disagreement and harmful disagreement) to the point that all disagreement is now fair game for illegalization. I think for me, specific to cigarettes, there's not really a "harmless irritation." It's all medical. If I can smell it and it gets in my eyes, then I have extremely rabid violent reactions. I can't breathe. I get wheezy. (Technically, it's not asthma. But it sure feels like it.) My eyes water, turn red, cannot focus, itch, burn. I sneeze. I cough. It's not JUST "irritation" of a harmless variety. (Sometimes smokers get annoyed at me "acting out" my symptoms, and wrongly conclude that I'm "faking" it and that "it doesn't bother you that much." They tend to make this conclusion on the basis of the evidence that it doesn't bother THEM that much. Silly evidence, wrong conclusion.) So I'm not happy with extending the weak-irritation-versus-real-harm distinction to cigarette smoke, since for me even the weak-irritation end of the spectrum causes what I consider to be a legitimate, real, medical harm. We might disagree on that subject? Anyway, your previous suggestion, that separate ventilation should be enough, still holds quite strong. We need nothing more than separate ventilation to provide adequately for my hypersensitivity to cigarette smoke to be permanently protected from the dangerous harm (or, from the innocuous irritation which I'm falsely calling harm). So again, we have common ground -- most current legislation goes overboard, I agree with you. But that parallel doesn't fit most of political correctness. The legitimate-harm thing isn't really legitimate harm. Don Imus lost his job for speaking out publicly. Sure, he said idiotic things. Did anyone lose a job? Would anyone get sick, fall off a train, break his neck, go psychopathic and kill his grandmother, drive irrationally and slam into an ambulance full of tuberculitic school children who were refugees from war-torn Iraq? Doubtful. More likely, his speaking out is simply ... harmless. Not a legitimate harm at all, just an innocuous irritation. But in this current political climate, we're just not allowed ... It bugs me. There are some things which are QUITE dear to me, that I would appreciate an opportunity to speak out about. But BECAUSE the supposed "left wing" of American democracy has done such a good job of teaching people how to complain, we're all so worried about offending that we generally know that we'd better just shut up. Example. Last night plus one, Mitt Romney's speech included a statement that basically said, democracy requires faith. I find this statement idiotic. Just as idiotic as the notion that democracy requires a capitalist free market system. Neither is PROVEN. Neither is MANDATORY. Each of the supposed necessaries -- faith; laissez-faire -- is probably a good idea, given all the other extraneous factors. Each has advantages. But right now we're assuming that anyone who rejects one of them is somehow OFFENSIVE and EVIL and DANGEROUS TO SOCIETY. I'm not agnostic, or atheist, or really anti-religion. I'm not one of those zealots who is all "spiritual" -- going off to California for conferences about the kabbalah and pyramid essences and the aura of Indian mandalas and all that crap -- while also excoriating organized religion: "It's not spirituality I hate, it's the SYSTEM." I frankly think that's a STUPID argument. If you're talking about religion, you ARE talking about the system. You can't accept Catholicism and then reject priests, the pope, confession, wine and the host, and the Bells of St. Mary's. Sure, maybe you can "be a good person" and "accept certain tenets of the XYZ faith without accepting them all" -- that just makes you a secular humanist who's hedging his bets by means of Pascal's wager, like the rest of us. So, for me, I'm not rampantly ANTI-religious. What I am, is anti- { the idea that religion is necessary for a functioning democracy. } We have religious pluralism in this country. That includes, but is not limited to, the notion that we shouldn't really vote for, or against, anyone on the basis of his or her religion. If he's Jewish but I like his ideas about reforming the welfare state, then I like his ideas about reforming the welfare state. If he's Eastern Orthodox but I think he'd make a great wartime leader, then I think he'd make a great wartime leader. Depending on whether I think the country needs a wartime leader more or less than a welfare-state reformer, I vote appropriately. What scares me about the Romney situation, isn't so much what it indicates about Romney's personal views. I'm unlikely to vote for him whether or not he's a Mormon. He's WAY far off of my political views, regarding such important items as freedom of thought, business involvement in political campaigns, the privatization of government services. That's a different issue. What scares me, rather, about the Romney situation, is that it reveals an American assumption. Nearly everyone out there is OK with this idiotic idea: "I have great faith. Therefore I have one of the necessary qualities for leadership of a democracy." Jefferson rolls over in his grave. Faith in religion, to me, is AND SHOULD BE utterly independent of anyone's judgment on election day. If you care one way or the other, you're blatantly against the American constitution (which is really beside the point -- it's just our current law, likely to change; and not necessarily the best of all possible laws for all time). You're also blatantly against the principles on which this country was founded. America has never been, nor should it ever be, a Christian nation. And more important, you're blatantly against anything that might actually aid us in the future. The more we as a country sign up for adhering to a given faith, the more we antagonize a set of cagey, well-armed, rather effective freedom fighters who happen to live in stone age circumstances and want some of our Western material benefits. The more we talk as though a single set of religious values is, inherently, "to be assumed," the more we exclude rational problem solving and the perspectives of people who are not raised within those values. Religion brought us creationism, and that's just one ridiculous thing that I can kind of scoff at. It also brought us the subjugation of women (bad plan; 50% of your potential brain power left uneducated), the hatred of people different from ourselves, the use of non-provable problem solving based more on "hope" than on any sensible knowledge that it will work, and the refusal to discuss alternate viewpoints. Most of America, I am shocked to learn from this Romney situation, ACTUALLY THINKS that religion is a mandatory condition for a leader. Kerry made this mistake when campaigning against Bush2 for the 2004 election. When Bush started to assert his "great faith" stuff, Kerry made the mistake of letting Bush frame the argument. (And no, I didn't think Kerry was much of a candidate. I'm not a big supporter.) The right answer to Bush's accusation that Kerry lacks sufficient faith, is NOT "Oh yes I do too have faith," which is what the Kerry camp came up with. No. The right answer is, "Why the fuck do you care about my religion? This is AMERICA goddammmit we're FREE from that crap and how unAmerican ARE YOU to want to know what kind of faith I have?" I'm stunned that this is not a more common response. I want a bumper sticker that says, "Get your goddamned religion out of my goddamned country goddamnit." "Freedom" of religion is one thing; requiring that it exist and be professed by others, is entirely another. The Baptists I used to work among, genuinely believe that "freedom of religion" means, simply, "I ought to be free to impose my religion on you." And the politicians, it seems, are coming 'round to America's current zeitgeist, in which "freedom of religion" has come to mean "we aren't free unless we got religion." Simple grammatical error. It's not the subjective genitive, it's the objective. And I object!
  • Book Guy
    •
    17 years ago
    OK gee I kinda got started there ... :P ... heh ...
  • SuperDude
    •
    17 years ago
    Someone is going to get rich designing an effecient and affordable ventalation system that removes smoke without creating an indoor hurricane. I have seen some systems for homes and apartmnets on the internet. In the meantime: 1. Clubs will keep a separate set of books to get around the food/booze ratio, just in case. 2. Dancers will demand and get a vented smoking room attached to their dressing room. Imagine going outside in Detroit in February with a coat over a skimpy dancer's costume. That won't work. 3. Law enforcement will be tempted to stage smoking raids in clubs where the fines generate revenue for the city. If LE sees other "illegal" activity, beyond smoking, will they ignore it or bust dancers and customers. 4. If smoking is allowed in Detroit's casinos but not in SCs, the lawyers will take care of this unreasonable classification. Since the casinos generate a lot of money from smokers, they won't be touched. And the SC owners will win in court on the claim that this health regulation is not applied accross the board to all public places.
  • FONDL
    •
    17 years ago
    Wow, where have I been? I missed all this fun stuff. Here's some belated replies to comments that were aimed my way. "FONDL, as for the fatal flaw of democracy, if you really mean democracy then the fatal flaw is that 50.0001% of the people can vote to take all the posessions or the other 49.9999% and it is totally democratic." AN, it seems to me that is what's been happening in our country for the past 50 years or so, so I agree with you. But I don't think that and my fatal flaw are mutually exclusive, seems to me they've been complementing each other - the activists and those who suck on the government tit. The two are really two different ways of saying the same thing. AN, as you probably know, scientific method involves two things: a hypothesis and an effort to disprove it's opposite (called the null hypothesis.) Seems to me that those are are both present whether we're talking Christianity or evolution. I personally don't see any conflict between the two - for example the Bible by it's own admission is a series of parables not meant to be taken literally, thus the millions of years described by the evolutionists and the week it took God to create everything can be seen as one and the same time period. And Jesus was a historical figure, there's no question of that. Does anyone honestly believe that everything came to be purely by chance without some guiding force at work? Clearly there are laws of nature that have been guiding evolution for eons. That's a scientific fact. So where did those laws come from? Choosing to label such things God doesn't make them any less scientific. And if you follow sub-atomic paticle physics at all it appears that science and religion are merging. As they should. I think it's inevitable. Einstein understood this a long time ago. To get back to the original topic, my biggest reason for opposing smoking bans and other such laws that the proliferation of attempts to legislate civility is undermining respect for law in total. We have so many laws today that laws don't mean anything anymore, they have little moral suasive power. And laws that aren't adhered to voluntarily by most people are unenforcable. The paradox is that the more laws we enact, the more lawless our society becomes. Do we really want to live in a lawless society?
You must be a member to leave a comment.Join Now
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion