FDA & Federal Government Out Of Control On Tobacco Regulation

[Peikko 1,575]

Your choice causes millions of $ worth of damage which is paid for by people who don't share your choice and yet they are supposed to ignore that simply so you can exercise your choice because it's all done in 'private'? That seems fair

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Not really putting a value on it.

I make a choice to be in a private establishment that allows smoking, just as I make a choice to smoke.

The problem here is the same entitlement mentality that's been sweeping this nation for the past 60+ years. People think they are entitled to go into a private restaurant and have a meal smoke free. When in reality they have no such entitlement whatsoever. if the smoke bothers you, simply don't eat there. It's that simple. If you don't ilke the idea of smoking in bars/restaurants, you have the choice and the ability to open your own establishment that is 'smoke free.' That's the beauty of how things are supposed to work.

Instead, we have meddling jerk offs who come in and are offended/bothered by smokers. Come up with BS studies that are inconclusive, yet treat them as facts and then proceed to act as if you have the right to be a patron of an establishment in the first place by banning smoking/forcing tight rules with in regards to such.

This is ALOT different than a drunk driver on a "public" street.

It's the line between 'public' and 'private' that has gotten skewed and where government and people looking for more of a nanny-state have gotten their idiotic ideas thrown into the lime light.

A good libertarian policy will always protect the private establishment and the private industry, so long as people have a freedom of choices along the way.

I don't you are thinking this through in true Libertarian terms. You cannot cause harm to someone else, even if you are on private property. If you and I are both invited to a party, does that mean I should be allowed to get drunk and smash your face in with my fist? Of course not, even if the host of the party served the alcohol. Do no harm means do no harm, regardless of where or when.

Edited March 19, 2010 by Galt's gallstones

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I don't you are thinking this through in true Libertarian terms. You cannot cause harm to someone else, even if you are on private property. If you and I are both invited to a party, does that mean I should be allowed to get drunk and smash your face in with my fist? Of course not, even if the host of the party served the alcohol. Do no harm means do no harm, regardless of where or when.

No one is being harmed however. Everything when it coems to smoking is about 'choice.' Every aspect of it. No one is being forced to be around cigarettes....

[one...two...tree 2,762]

No one is being harmed however. Everything when it coems to smoking is about 'choice.' Every aspect of it. No one is being forced to be around cigarettes....

You're not being forced to go to the same party I'm going to where I'm going to get drunk and punch you in the nose. Second-hand smoke is unequivocally harmful - the scientific evidence is conclusive in spite of whatever tobacco lobby propaganda you've bought into. And given that it is harmful, you do not have the right to inflict harm on others even if that harm is caused by something you've been given permission to do.

Another example - if there's a pool at the party and the guest gave you permission to swim, you do not have the right to do cannon balls, splashing the other guests if they don't want to be splashed.

I'd recommend you really explore the concept of "do no harm" because I think you'll realize that in order for that ideal to be upheld, it means your personal liberties sometimes have to take the backseat to another's personal liberties.

Edited March 19, 2010 by Galt's gallstones

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You're not being forced to go to the same party I'm going to where I'm going to get drunk and punch you in the nose. Second-hand smoke is unequivocally harmful - the scientific evidence is conclusive in spite of whatever tobacco lobby propaganda you've bought into. And given that it is harmful, you do not have the right to inflict harm on others even if that harm is caused by something you've been given permission to do.

Another example - if there's a pool at the party and the guest gave you permission to swim, you do not have the right to do cannon balls, splashing the other guests if they don't want to be splashed.

I'd recommend you really explore the concept of "do no harm" because I think you'll realize that in order for that ideal to be upheld, it means your personal liberties sometimes have to take the backseat to another's personal liberties.

Your personal rules on your property do not inhibit another's personal liberties, because they make the CHOICE to patron/be on your property under your rules and guidelines.

There's a huge difference in someone being forced to be somewhere or being forced to be around something.

It's about CHOICE.

[Peikko 1,575]

I have no choice but to pay higher premiums for health care because people choose to smoke. My choices have been limited to accommodate your choice to smoke.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

I have no choice but to pay higher premiums for health care because people choose to smoke. My choices have been limited to accommodate your choice to smoke.

welcome to the bandwagon, i've been paying higher prices for cigarettes to fund health care for someone's kids.

[Peikko 1,575]

welcome to the bandwagon, i've been paying higher prices for cigarettes to fund health care for someone's kids.

You use some classy logic Charles.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I have no choice but to pay higher premiums for health care because people choose to smoke. My choices have been limited to accommodate your choice to smoke.

I would say find a better insurance company. Most have separate rates for smokers vs. non-smokers.

[Peikko 1,575]

I would say that the impact of smokers on health resources is more widespread than simply increased premiums and no matter whether or not health insurance companies call a premium a non smoker plan premium, the costs are still higher because of the reality that smoking related diseases cost a lot of money to treat.

[lucyrich 20]

The problem here is the same entitlement mentality that's been sweeping this nation for the past 60+ years. People think they are entitled to go into a private restaurant and have a cigarette, spewing their smoke into everyone else's lungs. When in reality they have no such entitlement whatsoever. If the lack of smoking opportunities bothers you, simply don't eat there. It's that simple. If you don't like the idea of clean air in bars/restaurants, you have the choice and the ability to smoke in your own private property. That's the beauty of how things are supposed to work.

Some people seem to think laws against public smoking are somehow a problem for smokers, or are targeted toward them. Baloney. Virtually all of us urinate at some time or another, but laws against public urination are not seen as discriminatory against urinators. Laws against public nudity aren't seen as discriminatory against those who occasionally are nude in their homes.

During the Waxman hearings, the chairmen of the tobacco companies all swore under penalty of perjury that smoking was not addictive. Therefore, it's obvious that smokers, just like nonsmokers, have no problem whatsoever going without a cigarette for a few days, nevermind the time it takes to have a meal in a restaurant. Just wait until you get home to smoke.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The problem here is the same entitlement mentality that's been sweeping this nation for the past 60+ years. People think they are entitled to go into a private restaurant and have a cigarette, spewing their smoke into everyone else's lungs. When in reality they have no such entitlement whatsoever. If the lack of smoking opportunities bothers you, simply don't eat there. It's that simple. If you don't like the idea of clean air in bars/restaurants, you have the choice and the ability to smoke in your own private property. That's the beauty of how things are supposed to work.

Some people seem to think laws against public smoking are somehow a problem for smokers, or are targeted toward them. Baloney. Virtually all of us urinate at some time or another, but laws against public urination are not seen as discriminatory against urinators. Laws against public nudity aren't seen as discriminatory against those who occasionally are nude in their homes.

During the Waxman hearings, the chairmen of the tobacco companies all swore under penalty of perjury that smoking was not addictive. Therefore, it's obvious that smokers, just like nonsmokers, have no problem whatsoever going without a cigarette for a few days, nevermind the time it takes to have a meal in a restaurant. Just wait until you get home to smoke.

Excellent post.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The problem here is the same entitlement mentality that's been sweeping this nation for the past 60+ years. People think they are entitled to go into a private restaurant and have a cigarette, spewing their smoke into everyone else's lungs. When in reality they have no such entitlement whatsoever. If the lack of smoking opportunities bothers you, simply don't eat there. It's that simple. If you don't like the idea of clean air in bars/restaurants, you have the choice and the ability to smoke in your own private property. That's the beauty of how things are supposed to work.

Some people seem to think laws against public smoking are somehow a problem for smokers, or are targeted toward them. Baloney. Virtually all of us urinate at some time or another, but laws against public urination are not seen as discriminatory against urinators. Laws against public nudity aren't seen as discriminatory against those who occasionally are nude in their homes.

During the Waxman hearings, the chairmen of the tobacco companies all swore under penalty of perjury that smoking was not addictive. Therefore, it's obvious that smokers, just like nonsmokers, have no problem whatsoever going without a cigarette for a few days, nevermind the time it takes to have a meal in a restaurant. Just wait until you get home to smoke.

Wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. There's a HUGE difference in a private business owner setting rules for his/her business, than government saying you can't be a patron there and smoke. HUGE difference.

Other things you are comparing apples to oranges. I am talking the difference of Private vs. Public and that's what we have lost sight of and many people fail to look at reasonably in this debate.

As a business owner, if you want to have a smoking section atleast, you should be able to. It's a PRIVATE restaurant, not a public one. There are no 'public' restaurants the last time I checked.

[lucyrich 20]

It's a PRIVATE restaurant, not a public one. There are no 'public' restaurants the last time I checked.

A "private restaurant" would be the dining room of your home or apartment, where you ARE allowed to smoke. You can invite your friends to come eat with you, too, and they can smoke.

But if a restaurant is open to the public, and allows members of the public to come in off the street, and accepts money from members of the public in exchange for its food/services, then it's a public accomodation, even if it may be privately owned. There are lots of rules about health and sanitation that apply to public restaurants which don't apply to private residences. There are rules about having lighted exit signs, fire extinguishers, stainless steel food prep surfaces, handwashing sinks, and a bunch of other rules established for the public health and safety. If you don't like the idea that restaurants open to the public can be regulated for the public health, you're free to move to a jurisdiction that doesn't have or enforce such rules.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

A "private restaurant" would be the dining room of your home or apartment, where you ARE allowed to smoke. You can invite your friends to come eat with you, too, and they can smoke.

But if a restaurant is open to the public, and allows members of the public to come in off the street, and accepts money from members of the public in exchange for its food/services, then it's a public accomodation, even if it may be privately owned. There are lots of rules about health and sanitation that apply to public restaurants which don't apply to private residences. There are rules about having lighted exit signs, fire extinguishers, stainless steel food prep surfaces, handwashing sinks, and a bunch of other rules established for the public health and safety. If you don't like the idea that restaurants open to the public can be regulated for the public health, you're free to move to a jurisdiction that doesn't have or enforce such rules.