Smoking in France a thing of the past?

[NirvanaMan]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/02/europe/smoke.php?page=1

While no surprise in the US and other places as of late, surely France would not fall victim to this trend. A culture ripe with smokers, though less in the article than I surely would have expected.

So is this akin to shutting down the corner bakery in Paris or is this a breath of fresh air to the many non-smokers who do not wish to be choked with the decisions of others?

[Not Afraid]

Berlin is also joining in on the "fun".....which doesn't seem right either.

[Isaac]

The last time we were in Paris, we ate at Man Ray. Our waiter that night mentioned such a proposal was on the horizon and he approved of it.

A few months ago I read an article about wine consumption in France & it seems to be on the decline. More and more young french men & women are passing on wine and champagne, in favor of cocktails and hard liquor. When asked, the young men & women say they just don't care much for wine. This disturbs the older adults but they don't know what to do about it.

I guess their culture is changing.

[Moonliner]

Muuuhhhaaauuu.... The secret purpose of EruoDisney is at last reveled. All your culture are belong to US!

[scaeagles]

I am sick of the hypocrisy of this all. If it is so horrid, ban it. I am a non smoker and really dislike being around it, but smokers are people, too.

The tyranny of the majority.

[figment1986]

they can smoke... just in areas that doesn't affect non smokers... so no where??

Interesting how FLA passes a law... and France takes the law to the next level. FLA you can smoke in bars that make less than X amount of cash on food sales... if the owner allows it. France says no smoking in public essentially.

[Kevy Baby]

Interesting how FLA passes a law... and France takes the law to the next level.California's law is tougher than Florida's and some cities have taken to banning smoking in ANY PUBLIC PLACE (including outdoors).

[innerSpaceman]

Perhaps in a nation where smoking is so prevalent, the health consequences have become more pronounced. Economics aside, I can't see how you can argue that smoking should be allowed in public places where non-smokers are permitted to be.

The hermetically-sealed environments are the way to go. All other smoking directly affects the health of others. I don't see why there should be a "freedom" to make other people sick via one's personal drug habits.

[Stan4dSteph]

As a soon to be resident, I say hallelujah.

[Alex]

I agree with iSm to some extent. We've goen about it completely bass ackwards in this country. The case for prohibiting smoking in public spaces is much stronger than for doing so in private spaces.

Of course, I consider private businesses to be private spaces so I don't support restaurant and bar bans. Instead of shoving them all out in the street outside the bar, keep them in the bar and I'll decide if I want to join them.

[Stan4dSteph]

I agree with iSm to some extent. We've goen about it completely bass ackwards in this country. The case for prohibiting smoking in public spaces is much stronger than for doing so in private spaces.

Of course, I consider private businesses to be private spaces so I don't support restaurant and bar bans. Instead of shoving them all out in the street outside the bar, keep them in the bar and I'll decide if I want to join them.I agree somewhat, but it also has to do with the health of the people who work there, not just patrons. They don't have the option of not going in unless they go find another job. Not always a realistic prospect.

[Alex]

I feel bad for them. But so long as they know there is smoking in the establishment when they take the job, then I don't consider it a concern sufficient to allow the state to set mandates. Any more than severe airborne peanut allergies (much smaller population but much more severe, immediately, and clearly connected consequences) are reason enough for the state to put Thai restaurants out of business.

[scaeagles]

Tempe AZ passed a law banning smoking in bars and restaurants. Where did the smoking patrons go? To establishments in other cities. Many business owners had significant losses in business and were forced to lay off employees. So there are unemployed people looking for jobs whether they quit to work in a place with no smoking or lose their job because of being laid off.

As a patron, I much prefer NOT being near smoking and would certainly go somewhere that doesn't allow it. But make that the choice of the business owner. The only possible argument against it is the employment argument, and alex sums it up well above.

However, I realize I am on the losing side. There is a side of me, though, that does like it from a standpoint of how much I hate being behind car when the driver is smoking with his windows open, or how angry I get watching people throw their butts on the streets and in parking lots.

[innerSpaceman]

Nope. Can't agree. I don't see how allowing a public health threat to exist anywhere the public may go, whether they choose to go there or not, can be allowed by law.

It's already been demonstrated that too many people are too stupid to consider their own smoking dangerous enough to quit or never start. It's a little too much, imo, to expect people casually out for a drink or bite to eat to adequately consider the health risks of the establishment they patronize.


"Private" businesses are not private. People go there, people work there. It's really unrealistically naive to say customers and employees should take into account the dangers of second-hand smoke when doing something either as serious as deciding where to make the money they need to survive, or as casual as deciding where to have breakfast.


Pulease.



And I don't buy the bullsh!t about the demise of French Culture either. What a crock.

[Moonliner]

Nope. Can't agree. I don't see how allowing a public health threat to exist anywhere the public may go, whether they choose to go there or not, can be allowed by law.

It makes me wonder. How long will it be before you can get fined for going out in public with a cold or the flu.

[scaeagles]

Then lets ban it all together. I don't have a choice about sitting behind someone smoking in their car. Parents harm their children. Someone smoking in their back yard can be affecting their neighbors. Really, is there anywhere someone can go to smoke that there isn't the risk of affecting someone else?

Edited to add - exactly Moonliner. Similarly, why not make everyone with an STD wear an ID bracelet or require a release form prior to any sexual contact with anyone?

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Private businesses had decades to declare themselves smoke free. Instead they decided to make "smoking sections" that didn't stop everyone from breathing smoke. I don't think there was such a thing as a smoke free establishment (except hospitals??) before the laws came in.

When i was in high school I included smoking bans in a speech I gave about government controlling our lives. I was very against these bans. But in my travels to places that do not have the bans, I realize how things used to be. It is severely gross to be in that haze the entire time one is indoors at airports and restaurants, to smell the ancient stink permeating the curtains and furniture.

I realize that businesses will not do it themselves, and that non-smokers won't make a big enough deal out of it to push businesses into it. I don't say "will" meaning I'm guessing - like I said, places that don't have the law don't end up with non-smoking establishments. Making a law is the only way to stop this nastiness from happening, because people and businesses are too stupid to do it themselves. The laws, IMHO, are an improvement on the entire situation, including forces smokers to be more polite about their habit.

I'm mostly a libertarian, but this is one arena that I have changed my mind on. We're too dumb to take care of ourselves, sometimes. :(

[Kevy Baby]

I am an ardent non-smoker. I believe we have gone too far with smoking laws. I have no scientific data to back this up. It is just a thought I have.

[scaeagles]

We're too dumb to take care of ourselves, sometimes. :(

What you say makes sense, and like I said, i realize I'm on the losing side of this argument. But this last line scares me. There are so many unhealthy things people do that this philosophy will continue to permeate every area of our lives. In the nanny state we live in, particularly if we move toward a government health care system, every unhealthful thing will be taxed out of existance because every time someone gets clogged arteries it costs the tax payers money. Why not have mandatory exercise programs and shut down McDonalds (or put enough taxes on a Big Mac to make it $7)?

Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I don't think when warning labels went on cigarettes and domestic flights were made non smoking that anyone was imagining banning smoking in bars.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

But this last line scares me. Scares me too, hence the speech at 18. I also included seat belt and helmet laws in there. Thing is, since then, my feelings have changed.

It gets messy when you talk about something as serious as helmets. I've seen numerous studies about how when the helmet laws are put in place, deaths go drastically down, and when you take them off, they go drastically up.

Here's one I just found in a Google search. (http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/news/florida-helmet-law.html)
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conducted the first study, and it found that in the three years following Florida’s decision to repeal its mandatory helmet law in 2000 that there were 933 motorcyclists killed. The number of Florida motorcycle deaths increased 81 percent, an increase from the 515 bikers killed from 1997 to 1999.

So that's basically 400 extra people dead in 3 years. An ugly, serious fact. Flip the law switch one way, they live, flip it the other, they die. You can say that they're Darwinesque casualties, but they're still human beings with families, parents, children. They just made one bad decision one fateful day.

Yes, these laws can be brought to extremes, with all of us being forcefed prozac and kept in rubber rooms, but there's gray area in between.

As this refers to smoking, though, there's less of a case because of the less direct dangers of smoking. The stupid part to me is that this is classified under health threats, while in my personal subjective opinion, I'm more annoyed about the stink and needing to cough.

[3894]

Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I don't think when warning labels went on cigarettes and domestic flights were made non smoking that anyone was imagining banning smoking in bars.

I was! And in restaurants, lobbies of buildings, public bathrooms ...

Cigarette smoke is a migraine trigger for me. I walk through or by cigarette smoke and I need an Imitrex stat! My health insurer picks up the $20 per tab. Pre-Imitrex, I suffered and lost productive time. And all for someone else's freedom to fire up a cigarette.

I hate cigarettes. Ban 'em to the ends of the galaxy!

As for cigarettes somehow being central to French culture, it is to laugh.

[scaeagles]

Just read a study about traffic delays caused by people using cell phones while they drive. I think studies have also shown that cell phones increase the risk of brain tumors. It is also rude when people carry on loud conversations on them in public.

Not rhetorical, I'm wondering....the world got by fine pre cell phone. They are a convenience. So should we ban them in cars and public places? Not only are they an annoyance, and have adverse effects on others (traffic, noise, etc), but there are health risks apparently involved. Is this not the same as the smoking debate?

I can honestly see the same thing happening to cell phones that has happened to cigarettes. There will be health warning labels regarding increased tumor risk. Then they will be banned in cars. Then in public places. I don't see that as a stretch.

Many people don't care when something they hate and is an annoyance to them is restricted by the government in ways they think are fine. Then the government applies the same logic to something the person in question uses and that same individual is outraged.

[innerSpaceman]

You don't see that as a stretch, huh?


Um, wow.



But any way you cut it .... cell phones, if a health risk, are one to the person who chooses to use them. Frankly, seat belts and helmets are dangerous in the same individual choice way.


Cigarettes are not.


The analogy that a McDonalds diet poses a health risk to others because of, what?, public health care funds taken from a cancer patient to pay for a triple bypass? Um, that's even more of a stretch than the cell phone ban.


Nope, of all the personal vices and habits ... I think smoking is unique in the way it excretes its chemical danger into the atmosphere surrounding the choice-making user.

Hmmm, perhaps driving itself comes under this category, too. Maybe a ban on driving in public places is in store for us all.

[Alex]

The studies have no shown an increased risk of brain tumors with cell phone use. In fact it is pretty much the opposite. Of course, the significant health risks of second hand smoke aren't really established either.

[scaeagles]

Older study (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/cell_phone_cancer_link.htm), but there have certainly been linkages made between cell phone usage and brain cancer.

Perhaps more studies will show that people in the immediate vacinity of those using cell phones are at risk as well. And there are issues with bee colonies and cell phones (http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20070315215055data_trunc_sys.shtml), which could lead to world wide crop problems.

I don't see my paranoia at government intrusion into my life and the lives of everyone as anything of a stretch. It's what government does. If we have universal health care imposed upon us, I would bet heavily that fatty and sugary foods will be taxed virtually out of existance and you will pay less for services if you prove you have a 5 day/week exercise regimin.

I find it difficult to believe that those who think the government wants to listen to their everyday conversations (rather than software combing for certain key words and phrases) and find that to be an intrusive thing aren't worried about more and more intrusion into their daily lives.

[Moonliner]

The analogy that a McDonalds diet poses a health risk to others because of, what?, public health care funds taken from a cancer patient to pay for a triple bypass? Um, that's even more of a stretch than the cell phone ban.


That's pretty much the rational that was used to pass the helmet and seat belt laws we already have in place across this country. So why would you see that as a stretch?

[Scrooge McSam]

If we have universal health care imposed upon us, I would bet heavily that fatty and sugary foods will be taxed virtually out of existance and you will pay less for services if you prove you have a 5 day/week exercise regimin.

Fearmongering :rolleyes:

With so many of our industrialized nations offering universal health care, the world should be rife with examples you could cite.

Please do.

[Kevy Baby]

Anything to reduce the surplus population is good.

[Alex]

Older study (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/cell_phone_cancer_link.htm), but there have certainly been linkages made between cell phone usage and brain cancer.

Perhaps more studies will show that people in the immediate vacinity of those using cell phones are at risk as well. And there are issues with bee colonies and cell phones (http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20070315215055data_trunc_sys.shtml), which could lead to world wide crop problems.


Look into it and you'll find that pretty much all large studies find zero correlation between brain tumors and cell phones though small and generally poorly designed studies occasionally pop up. But yes, it could still bear out.

The bees and cell phone stories was a press misunderstanding of a small unrelated study that somehow quickly became internet gospel (how shocking for science reporting). It was quickly debunked (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18441520/) with the authors of the study themselves going to great lengths try and repair the misconception.

[NirvanaMan]

What you say makes sense, and like I said, i realize I'm on the losing side of this argument. But this last line scares me.

I concur. While I completely agree with CP's statement, I hardly find it governments responsibility to protect the stupid by penalizing personal choice. People are stupid, let them choose their own demise. I know a lot of bikers that prefer to ride without a helmet. I think they are idiots, but shouldn't it be their choice (so long as our dollars are not paying for their healthcare).

Now, this clearly crosses into a gray area when your personal choice impacts the health and comfort of others. That is where I begin to have a moral dilemma. Government = bad. However, I do enjoy the benefits of coming home from a bar smoke free. It is odd now to go back to places where they do not have these laws. However, in principal I am still opposed. It is simply because I enjoy the side benefit that I do not complain too much about the government imposition in our lives.

I suppose the argument could be made regarding the choice of venue. Whereas an airplane or restaurant is something that people should be free to use and enjoy without putting their health at risk, isn't a bar a place of vice anyway? People are hardly going their out of need, hunger or to live a more healthy lifestyle.

[Morrigoon]

I could see allowing a situation where bars could apply for a special smoking permit, have to pay extra for the privilege (to keep EVERY bar from doing it), and thus be allowed to become "smoker's bars".

But beyond that... as paranoid as I am of government interference in our lives I am happy to allow them to ban smoking.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Helmet laws impact the general public because we pay the costs of their hospital stays and rehab if they can be rehabbed. It's only secondarily about the deaths- as noted, a tragedy, but one that affects only that family. The public health care cost affects all of us. I'm not sure how I feel about helmet laws, though when hubby and I lived in a non-helmet-law state, we still wore helmets.

Cig smoke is more affecting to others around the smoker. Without smoke bans, as has been noted, there's really no public place to escape the smoke. Restaurants have "non smoking" sections, but you're not really away from it. If people smoke everywhere, how can a person escape it? Even by avoiding bars and restaurants and movie theaters, people still smoked in the grocery store, right? People smoke everywhere if allowed. That's the important element for me- the fact that if smokers are allowed free reign, a nonsmoker cannot avoid being exposed.

I disagree that smoking is required for any culture. Maybe it's a part of how they think of themselves, but culture changes. They can still be French. It's a lifestyle involving much more than just cigs.

[NirvanaMan]

Fearmongering :rolleyes:

With so many of our industrialized nations offering universal health care, the world should be rife with examples you could cite.

Please do.


Well, not necessarily. We have become a culture of entitlement. "I want what I am owed" is heard time and time again. Our court systems are filled with frivolous cases. People win multi-million dollar settlements (at least initially) for spilling coffee on themselves. This is not the case with many other countries, including those that currently offer some flavour of government health care.

It would take the combination of universal health care along with a society that supports and embraces the idea that common sense is non-existent for the hypothesis proposed by sceagles to come true. The sliding slope argument is a fair one that has often been proven to be a valid theorem time and time again throughout history. Simply dismissing it as "fearmongering" is a bit silly in my opinion.

[Alex]

One small group I do find amusing are the people who will sidle up to a person and cough loudly if someone is smoking anywhere near them but have no problem smoking pot so that everybody within 100 feet can smell it. Personally I find the smell of pot smoke much worse than cigarettes.

And incense. The guy at the Macarthur BART station who sells incense should go to prison for life. The piss odor under the overpass is much preferable to his wares.

[mousepod]

As someone who calls himself a libertarian, I should be disgusted at all of the anti-smoking laws that keep getting passed - but deep in my heart, I know that the world is a more tolerable place with less smoking.

I also know that these measures were instrumental in getting me to quit 11 years ago. When I lived in NYC, I could smoke in my office (I had a private office with its own ventilation unit), in bars/clubs (where I did a good portion of my work), and of course in my apartment.

Once we moved to CA, my office was located in an open warehouse, so smoking was verboten. I couldn't smoke at clubs or restaurants. My home was now "our home" and H made it clear that while my smoking would be tolerated, it certainly wasn't appreciated.

Since smoking was no longer something I did while doing something else, I had to make a conscious decision whether or not I wanted to stop what I was doing to go outside and smoke. That didn't last long.

So I'm conflicted, ambivalent, and but ultimately secretly happy with the current state of no-smoking laws.

[alphabassettgrrl]

I keep thinking about "Demolition Man" when they say meat and salt are banned because they're bad for us and all restaurants are Taco Bell.

[Not Afraid]

I hate inside smoking. I always have. Outside smoking doesn't bother me one bit.

[Snowflake]

I hate inside smoking. I always have. Outside smoking doesn't bother me one bit.

I do not care for smoking, a lifelong non-smoker, the only one in my family.
Inside, horrible. Outside, since I am a non-smoker, it matters not, the wind will change in whatever direction I stand or sit so I will always get smoke in the face. It must be some form of wacky universal punishment for me, but it always happens.

For the record, I do not think smoking is a culteral thing to be solely identified as being a French trait. I am surprised that the bans are happening outside the US, however. Duh, there are non-smokers, even in France and Italy. ;-)

[Cadaverous Pallor]

It is simply because I enjoy the side benefit that I do not complain too much about the government imposition in our lives. Yes, and that is a valid reason to support it. In fact, that's the only reason we should support governmental impositions on freedom, because the specific imposition benefits us.

[Alex]

With so many of our industrialized nations offering universal health care, the world should be rife with examples you could cite.

Not exactly on point, but in the slippery slope direction:

Here is a man (http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=19525&cid=4&cname=Business+Today) who was denied a work visa in New Zealand because he was overweight and a potential burden to their national health care program. He lost went and then was allowed in. Presumably Samoans are not allowed to move there.

[Scrooge McSam]

We have become a culture of entitlement.

Have we? I'm not so convinced. I see us as more "little guy vs big guy", with the level of justice received directly in proportion to one's ability to pay for legal representation. That is, of course, a gross oversimplification but I think it gets the point across. There are some little guys gaming the system, to be sure. Your "welfare queens", as coined by Mr. Reagan, would be an example. They disgust me. On the other side are our corporations, flush with cash, who practically write their own legislation. They disgust me.

Our court systems are filled with frivolous cases. People win multi-million dollar settlements (at least initially) for spilling coffee on themselves. This is not the case with many other countries, including those that currently offer some flavour of government health care.

I would need to read more before engaging you on that point. I do find it hard to believe that the US is the only place one would find a frivolous lawsuit.

It would take the combination of universal health care along with a society that supports and embraces the idea that common sense is non-existent for the hypothesis proposed by sceagles to come true.

Does our society embrace the idea that common sense is non-existant?

Simply dismissing it as "fearmongering" is a bit silly in my opinion.

That's OK, no offense taken. As you and I frequently find ourselves on opposing sides of these kinds of arguments, it just means the world is still spinning.

The challenge still remains... I haven't seen this activity that scaeagles refers to. If you, or anyone else has, please enlighten me.

[Scrooge McSam]

Not exactly on point, but in the slippery slope direction

Good find! Thank you

[Pirate Bill]

As for cigarettes somehow being central to French culture, it is to laugh.

http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/image.php?u=403&dateline=1199057415

Just an aside and not picking nits, I couldn't help but laugh at seeing this avatar next to this quote. I can't tell exactly what she's holding in the picture but it looks to me like one of those long cigarette holders. (Or is she chewing a piece of straw? - Which would, arguably, make the picture all the more sexy.) :D

So I'm conflicted, ambivalent, and but ultimately secretly happy with the current state of no-smoking laws.

Thank you for exactly summing up my feelings on the issue so well.

I'm a non-smoker. Have been all my life. I can't stand the smell of smoke. It doesn't affect me physically other than make me gag a little. But I'd rather breath in someone's fart than smell a cigarette. At least the fart smell won't permeate my clothes and hair and make me reek all day. But I do hate the idea of taking away people's freedoms to do stupid things. I do stupid things that I know I shouldn't do and are bad for me, but never would I want a ban on them. Does my stupidity affect others? Not nearly as much as smoking does, but I also fear the slippery slope as other's have mentioned.

It's funny. Having visited Disneyland many times before smoking bans or designated smoking areas, I would smell certain tobacco scents on occasion and actually like it. I now associate some tobacco smells to Disneyland. Even years and years later. Is tobacco central to a visit to Disneyland? No, but somehow I have created an association that is actually a fond memory.

[JWBear]

I’m very sensitive to smoke – and cigarette smoke especially so. Obviously, I’m all for smoking bans. Call me selfish, but I enjoy not living in bronchial hell!

[Alex]

I would need to read more before engaging you on that point. I do find it hard to believe that the US is the only place one would find a frivolous lawsuit.

No, the U.S. isn't the only place where they happen. But the U.S. system is particularly conducive to frivolous suits in some ways. It is much more common in the rest of the world to be on the English Rule system where the loser of a civil suit to have to pay the legal fees of the winner. The American Rule (each side paying its own legal expenses regardless of outcome) is somewhat anomalous in the world. I believe it is still the case that the only major country in the world on the American Rule system is Japan and they charge court filing fees as a proportion of the claimed damages.

The English Rule removes the incentive for a defendant to settle simply because it would be cheaper than going to court (even if they're in the right). It also removes the incentive for lawyers to take fringe cases on contingency knowing that it only takes a certain percentage settling out of court (for the above reason) to come out in the black on the whole endeavor.

Massive class action suits are also more difficult to form in most other countries and caps on punitive damages are more common as well.

[Alex]

What is the rationale for banning smoking in an enclosed environment where you can choose to go or not because you don't like the smell or it causes you personal health issues but not banning peanut use in an enclosed environment where you can choose to go or not even though it will send a lot of people into anaphylaxis? Or certain flowers and hayfever which puts Lani in a migraine situation for days at a time?

[NirvanaMan]

So I'm conflicted, ambivalent, and but ultimately secretly happy with the current state of no-smoking laws.

And I as someone who too calls himself a libertarian, mostly, also share the same sentiment as above.

[Morrigoon]

What is the rationale for banning smoking in an enclosed environment where you can choose to go or not because you don't like the smell or it causes you personal health issues but not banning peanut use in an enclosed environment where you can choose to go or not even though it will send a lot of people into anaphylaxis? Or certain flowers and hayfever which puts Lani in a migraine situation for days at a time?
Well, for one, peanut use MIGHT affect someone's health in those very rare cases for whom it is a problem, whereas cigarettes are almost certain to negatively affect someone every time.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I have to interject that I am ever fascinated by how many self-described libertarians, partial or otherwise, are in this social circle. I mean, for such a small party to be so largely represented here, and by chance...it's striking, and it must mean something, though I don't have the inspiration as to what.

[Alex]

And I'm surprised by how many people are saying "I'm generally libertarian except when the intrusion suits me personally." That's not libertarianism, that's just being cantankerous and disagreeable so that not a lot of things suit you.

Morrigoon: And that is why I would generally support outdoor smoking bans, you don't have a choice. But just the peanut allergy person can choose not to got o Thai Restaurants (and Lani and I leave if someone is wearing perfume that sets her sinuses off), non-smokers can do the same. I find it ironic that smoking has been banned where I can choose not to go and pushed out into the places where I have much less choice.

I agree that given the choice there may end up being not a lot of places that offer truly smoke free environments (though they did exist before there were laws; I grew up bowling in a non-smoking bowling alley and our local crappy Chinese restaurant was completely non-smoking) but tough titty, said the kitty, when the milk ran dry.

[Morrigoon]

How many non-peanut serving restaurants does a peanut-allergic person have to choose from, compared to how many smoke-free restaurants we non-smokers had to choose from before the ban? Not ever restaurant is Thai, in a peanut-permissive society. However, when we were a smoking-permissive society, EVERY restaurant had smoking.

[Scrooge McSam]

But the U.S. system is particularly conducive to frivolous suits in some ways.

Thank you, Alex.

I get your point, NirvanaMan.

[Alex]

So? I missed the constitutional right to restaurant dining.

I agree with you all. I much, much prefer smoke free restaurants, stores, and bars. I also prefer bars that don't play music intrusively. So I don't go to many bars.


But, even if it sucks for me, I don't see how a risk I can choose to avoid puts a burden not another person to not create it.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

And I'm surprised by how many people are saying "I'm generally libertarian except when the intrusion suits me personally." That's not libertarianism, that's just being cantankerous and disagreeable so that not a lot of things suit you."Libertarianism" is an absolute, which I'd define as absolutely no government involvement past the exact delineation of the constitution. (It's been a few years since I've read any literature, so let me know if I'm off.)

I don't see the world in black and white. I see the benefits of certain meddling. I see the reasons to have certain types of trade agreements with other countries, or have free health clinics for poor people, or have laws about decorum in public. I have my own opinions as to which meddling is ok, and not surprisingly, some of those opinions are self-serving.

Wouldn't a REAL libertarian be against public libraries? Why should I pay taxes so a homeless guy can have internet access?

I have no problem saying "I'm mostly Libertarian, but..."

[Morrigoon]

Life does not come in black and white, but shades of gray. So should our political stances.

[Jazzman]

I enjoy cigars. Until recently one of the best local cigar shops was in a town north of here. The owner originally opened just a little tobacco shop, but when business boomed because his shop was first rate and prices were good he expanded. Eventually he wanted to sell wine by the glass to compliment your smoke and this too boomed so he expanded again. Eventually he had moved to a bigger location and was running as a full restaurant, selling meals and wines that compliment a good cigar. Anyone care to guess what happened next? The state stepped in and told him to stop selling cigars or close up shop. Here in Washington we have our own Draconian anti-smoking laws and one stipulation is that no smoking may occur where food is served. So, even though his establishment's very existence owed to his being a tobaccinist and wouldn't exist otherwise he had to close up his humidor and now we have lost one of the best cigar shops in the county.

To me this situation was absurd. He should have had every right to operate as he saw fit. He was successful, paid taxes (particularly heavy as he was selling tobacco products) and employed a full staff. But, the self-righteous indignation of the anti-smoking crowd made his decision for him. So much for liberty and one's own pursuit of happiness.

I will add the caveat that I absolutely abhor the smell of cigarettes. It's foul, nauseating and worse triggers my hay fever. So, I avoid it. I either don't go where I know there is smoking or I deal with it if I do. When I smoke a cigar I make sure that I'm nowhere near anyone who might be bothered by my smoke. I have forgone my pleasure many times in fact out of respect for someone nearby who didn't wish to inhale cigar smoke. I don't support smoking bans at all, but I do hold smokers responsible for a good portion of their public scorn. Ducking out every thirty minutes for "smoke breaks" or lighting up in a crowd and forcing your crap into everyone else's lungs is a good way to bring public scorn upon yourself, and deservedly so. If smokers conducted themselves with a little more decorum then perhaps smoking bans might not be so prevalent in the first place.

[NirvanaMan]

Yes, and that is a valid reason to support it. In fact, that's the only reason we should support governmental impositions on freedom, because the specific imposition benefits us.

See that is something I specifically disagree with personally. And that may just be a me thing, but I feel hypocritical by saying I disagree with government intrusion into our lives, except when I prefer the outcome. That is why although I enjoy the smoke free life that these laws have given me, I still vehemently disagree with them in principle and would vote against them given the opportunity. Thus the internal conflict. Having to vote against that which would make you happy in favour of that which you believe in principle. Tough call, but I would have to side in favor or my principles every time regardless of how much I might enjoy reaping the rewards of legislation limiting personal freedoms.

That said, smoking is truly a tough one. It really depends on the situation. Allowing someone the right to smoke versus allowing someone to not be subjected to it. An ethical question perhaps as much as it is a legislative and political one. My personal philosophy is that I should be allowed to do anything I wish such that it does not negatively noticeably impact another human. In other words, hurting someones feelings doesn't count; hurting someone physically does. I'm sure one could dissect this with all sorts of individual cases and exceptions, but I think I could generally stand fast behind the idea. It's how I try to live my life, though at times liberty squashing legislation prevents me from achieving my Zen as my government tries to protect me from me.

And I'm surprised by how many people are saying "I'm generally libertarian except when the intrusion suits me personally." That's not libertarianism, that's just being cantankerous and disagreeable so that not a lot of things suit you.

Yeah, basically.

[NirvanaMan]

Life does not come in black and white, but shades of gray. So should our political stances.

Isn't declaring that political stances should come in black and white then turning the gray vs. black and white debate into one that is black and white?

[Cadaverous Pallor]

See that is something I specifically disagree with personally. And that may just be a me thing, but I feel hypocritical by saying I disagree with government intrusion into our lives, except when I prefer the outcome. Hence your inner conflict. Your principles are black and white, life is not.

Isn't declaring that political stances should come in black and white then turning the gray vs. black and white debate into one that is black and white?Hah, and all things in moderation, excepting this rule or including it? ;)

[mousepod]

Well, the Libertarian stand is clear - these are not good laws. There's an article on the official Libertarian page that compares them to communism or fascism.

As for my own feelings, I stand by my wishy-washy post above.

I have no problem calling people out on their hypocrisy. In this case, I must call myself out. It's only fair.

[alphabassettgrrl]

I could accept an exception for those places that are based on tobacco use- the cigar shop that served food, or the water-pipe bars mentioned in the original article. If tobacco is the *point* of going there, it's easily avoided by those of us who choose to.

[Kevy Baby]

I could accept an exception for those places that are based on tobacco use- the cigar shop that served food, or the water-pipe bars mentioned in the original article. If tobacco is the *point* of going there, it's easily avoided by those of us who choose to. Then you will see the natural evolution of restaurants opening up with a tobacco bar as a way to skirt the "no smoking" laws.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Then you will see the natural evolution of restaurants opening up with a tobacco bar as a way to skirt the "no smoking" laws.

I think a lot of us have gotten quite used to the nonsmoking atmosphere of food, and will avoid anything that has tobacco associated with it.

Or if the tobacco part is actually separated from the nonsmoking part, then it would be ok by me. As long as I can choose to avoid it, smoking doesn't bother me. It's only because it's so unavoidable, that it's objectionable.

Maybe a geographic zoning of some kind- places here can have smoking, places here can't. As long as the zones are made small enough that people have access to both at any given point of the city, that might be ok.

[Stan4dSteph]

Not exactly on point, but in the slippery slope direction:

Here is a man (http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=19525&cid=4&cname=Business+Today) who was denied a work visa in New Zealand because he was overweight and a potential burden to their national health care program. He lost went and then was allowed in. Presumably Samoans are not allowed to move there.NZ has a pretty complex immigration system and you get points based on all kinds of criteria. You have to undergo a medical exam. I'm not too shocked at this. It's another one of those things, "can't get a visa? Go find a job somewhere else."

I believe there's a whole different set of restrictions regarding Pacific Islanders.

[Alex]

Oh, I'm not saying it isn't a rational decision. That is the nature of the slippery slope. Based on the previous decisions the next one doesn't so odd any more.