Politics and Smoking

[Joe Frances]

Has anyone here decided that he is fed up with liberal, do-gooder politicians who want to control everyone's lives and behavior, and would dearly love to even ban smoking in our own homes. I used to a "split ticket" conservative, who would cross over almost every election, but I have had it with control freaks. Mayor Bloomberg banning smoking on golf courses; in the open and putting warning labels on salt shakers; making restaurants put calories on menus. The nanny state is getting out of hand. We are slowly loosing our freedoms. By the way, I am an only occasional smoker, so the bans don't effect me very much, but I am sick and tired of politicians who get off controlling our lives. I am now a Libertarian. Ich habe genug!

[thomas newton]

Americans have more important freedoms at stake than the petty annoyances you outline in your post imo. Smoking on golf courses, calories on menus? Are you serious?

[smalltank]

whos "he"?

[mmack66]

You should be fed up with any politician, liberal or conservative, that seeks to control lives and/or behavior.

[MondoJ]

No smoking on golf courses that's pretty sad, its like saying no smoking outside:)

[raisindot]

Not quite sure how the original post fits into the moderator's definition of a "gentlemanly discussion of politics."

[_JP_]

Smoking bans don't necessarily equal a loss of freedom. Rather, they are a gain in freedom from unwanted smoke. A ban on golf courses equals no smoking outside? Not really. What that ban does is to keep smoking away from a place where people gather. And that is the gist of all smoking bans, to prevent smoking in places where people gather, be it on a golf course, beach, public park, or building. Smoking in a detached house should be allowed, but many apartment buildings are becoming smoke free because drifting smoke is not stopped by walls or open windows.

Politicians are responding to what people want. And in the case of the state where I live, it was the public that voted on enacting the state wide smoking ban.

[Obsessed]

I'm fed up with people who feel the need to use this forum to tell us all how fed up they are with liberals.

[j19bill]

I understand you pain. I don't like the government telling people how to live either but things don't always work out on these banning things for the other person either.
In Tennessee we banned smoking in restaurants. I was happy about this because I don't smoke and am allergic to some of the chemicals in the cigarettes. At first it was great now the smokers just gather around the entrance and smoke. So instead of just asking to seated in the non smoking section and avoiding the smoke I have to walk through it entering or exiting the building.
Having said that I don't care what people do their on home as long as it doesn't affect other people.

[luvmysuper]

Not quite sure how the original post fits into the moderator's definition of a "gentlemanly discussion of politics."

Not quite sure how your post fits into the definition of a "gentlemanly discussion" of his post.

Wanna know why I hate political threads?
Because no matter what the OP's original point of view is, half of the membership is going to get upset, and about half of those are either going to submit a PM to a Mod complaining about it, or make a potentially as equally irritating post as the OP in the thread.

Who is right, who is wrong. Who gets "air time", who doesn't.
My personal advice - if you don't want to get drawn into these discussions - don't post in them.

[jazzman]

This issue has nothing to do with liberals or conservatives. Bloomberg is a former Republican who is a billionaire. He is prone to pushing rules that control people's behavior. I am a real liberal, the kind the OP and many others like to bash without regard for civility, and I certainly enjoy smoking cigars outside. I can't imagine anything liberal about banning a lawful activity at a location where it poses no health risk to anyone. Where I live, Republican and Democratic candidates for county executive in the last election had identical positions on banning smoking in all indoor locations. Each of them knew that it was a cheap way to appeal to voters; it had nothing to do with liberal or conservative philosophies. Perhaps certain people who label themselves as conservatives should invest in dictionaries. Same goes for some self-labeled libertarians.

[Mako72]

Not quite sure how the original post fits into the moderator's definition of a "gentlemanly discussion of politics."

I don't see how its ungentlemanly. He stated his opinion, no one as yet has responded in a derogatory fashion.

Smoking bans don't necessarily equal a loss of freedom. Rather, they are a gain in freedom from unwanted smoke. A ban on golf courses equals no smoking outside? Not really. What that ban does is to keep smoking away from a place where people gather. And that is the gist of all smoking bans, to prevent smoking in places where people gather, be it on a golf course, beach, public park, or building. Smoking in a detached house should be allowed, but many apartment buildings are becoming smoke free because drifting smoke is not stopped by walls or open windows.

Politicians are responding to what people want. And in the case of the state where I live, it was the public that voted on enacting the state wide smoking ban.

When you can restrict one persons freedoms in the outdoors for another that is a loss of freedom. If the individual is on a private course that bans smoking that so be it, they have chosen to be a member of that course. But if its a public course using taxpayer subsidies then it should be open to all. I used to be a smoker but the idea that smoke, outdoors, is in your way... GMAFB. If you feel the need for clean air then reverse the laws and making smoking outside illegal but legal inside at the property owners discretion.

I'm fed up with people who feel the need to use this forum to tell us all how fed up they are with liberals.

I think the OP had it wrong, Liberal comes from Libertarian. If more "Progressive" and "Conservatives" were truly Liberal we wouldn't have this discussion.

As always, just my .02 and worth just about that much!

Jay

Ps-If I seem ungentlemanly, Que, Sera, Sera.

[Bruce Wayne]

I look foward to the day when the forum outrite bans ALL political threads. In the short time that I have been here, all but a handful of political threads end up being locked.

[Bruce Wayne]

This issue has nothing to do with liberals or conservatives. Bloomberg is a former Republican who is a billionaire. He is prone to pushing rules that control people's behavior. I am a real liberal, the kind the OP and many others like to bash without regard for civility, and I certainly enjoy smoking cigars outside. I can't imagine anything liberal about banning a lawful activity at a location where it poses no health risk to anyone. Where I live, Republican and Democratic candidates for county executive in the last election had identical positions on banning smoking in all indoor locations. Each of them knew that it was a cheap way to appeal to voters; it had nothing to do with liberal or conservative philosophies. Perhaps certain people who label themselves as conservatives should invest in dictionaries. Same goes for some self-labeled libertarians.

+1

[rickboone1]

Speaking of smoking and being gentlemanly. I find nothing gentlemanly about a person having their smoke going into the faces of my wife and child.

[jazzman]

Speaking of smoking and being gentlemanly. I find nothing gentlemanly about a person having their smoke going into the faces of my wife and child.

I think most smokers would agree with you. Even way back in the old days, when a majority of Americans smoked, such behavior was considered rude.

[j19bill]

I think most smokers would agree with you. Even way back in the old days, when a majority of Americans smoked, such behavior was considered rude.

Thats the thing, people don't worry about being rude. Common courtesy would solve alot of the worlds problems.

[Mako72]

Speaking of smoking and being gentlemanly. I find nothing gentlemanly about a person having their smoke going into the faces of my wife and child.

I don't mean this rudely, but what are you speaking of?

If you introduce your wife and child to an area where smokers are, who has the right of way, so to speak? If you voted to have smoking banned indoors and the result is that 25ft from the mall entrance you hit a wall of smokers, that is an unforseen byproduct of your vote. Now if you speak of indoors were smoking is already banned than you are in the right. OTH if you are talking about a wide open outdoor park, who has the right of way? You or the smoker? I would argue both have the right, if you chose to you can walk through his/her smoke. Otherwise you can choose to walk around. Life is like that, full of choices that we make and must live with...

Jay

[dpmtherrien]

Perhaps smoking should be allowed only in ones own home, and why not?

That would solve any problems smoking related for everyone.

[proxymoron]

Americans have more important freedoms at stake than the petty annoyances you outline in your post imo. Smoking on golf courses, calories on menus? Are you serious?

+1

Given Obama's extension of Bush's Patriot Act (and all its voided civil liberties), smoking really shouldn't be too high on the list.