First They Came for the Smokers
Now, apart from the very rare cigar, I have been a nonsmoker all my life. And if my daughters started to smoke, I'd give them the devil for it. That said, I've always sided with the smokers v. the health puritans on issues like this one.
The Boston Globe reports that two city politicians are now trying to ban smoking from public parks and beaches in the same city where colonials rebelled against a British tax on tea. I suppose there is a better argument for a government ban at truly public spots -- i.e., public parks and public beaches -- than there is for a government ban at bars and restaurants.
Anyway, my sympathy is with the smokers here. It reminds me of Hope Springs, the Colin Firth romantic comedy set in Vermont. In it, Minnie Driver plays a love interest who is dying for a cigarette -- but every time she lights up some Bloomberg-style vigilante pops up to remind her she's violating some ordinance.
- Comment (44)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Nov '10
Re: First They Came for the Smokers
The only California regulation that I am happy with is the smoking ban. On the rare occasion that I get a whiff of smoke, it brings back the awful experiences of years ago when it was virtually impossible to escape it in the office, at restaurants, in lines at the post office, at the ball park, at the theatre, etc. I recall a particularly bad evening at the Palladium in London when during the intermissions it was death to be caught in the lobby.
Nope. Smoking is not merely a personal vice, it is directly transferred to anyone in the immediate vicinity.
Edited on Feb 9, 2011 at 9:16amRe: First They Came for the Smokers
Now that Big Tobacco has been brought to heel, the statists are focusing--as Rush Limbaugh predicted years ago--on Big Food. What next?
I
Oct '10
Re: First They Came for the Smokers
My time in Amsterdam made me feel grateful for California's smoking bans. People should be able to smoke if they must, but not to such an extent the entire community's standard of living is goes down.
Sep '10
Re: First They Came for the Smokers
Robert Promm: The only California regulation that I am happy with is the smoking ban. On the rare occasion that I get a whiff of smoke, it brings back the awful experiences of years ago when it was virtually impossible to escape it in the office, at restaurants, in lines at the post office, at the ball park, at the theatre, etc. I recall a particularly bad evening at the Palladium in London when during the intermissions it was death to be caught in the lobby.
Nope. Smoking is not merely a personal vice, it is directly transferred to anyone in the immediate vicinity. · Feb 9 at 9:15am
Edited on Feb 09 at 09:16 am
So your personal preferences should override private property rights?
Re: First They Came for the Smokers
I have to say, no one is forcing anyone to go to a bar or restaurant. So if the owner wants to allow smoking, I believe it should be his right. On public property, seems to be a different story.
May '10
Re: First They Came for the Smokers
Mark Belling Fan
Robert Promm:
Nope. Smoking is not merely a personal vice, it is directly transferred to anyone in the immediate vicinity. · Feb 9 at 9:15am
Edited on Feb 09 at 09:16 am
So your personal preferences should override private property rights? · Feb 9 at 9:30am
No MBF, I don't think you have it right. The fact is that cigarette smoke is intrusive and noxious and may in fact impose a health hazard. So I am all for smokers doing their thing but only in places where they genuinely are not infringing on my right not to breath in their exhaust. And as Robert correctly notes, it takes being away from the stuff to appreciate how insidious and omnipresent it is. I share Bill's disdain for the self-righteous, but I think the cause of liberty is best served in this case by containing those places in which this habit can be indulged. I just wish everyone in California were equally punctilious about pot smoke.
Nov '10
Re: First They Came for the Smokers
I detest perfume. It simply makes me want to throw up. I can't believe anyone would intentionally put anything so offensive on themselves and even worse yet, it's equally intended for others to "enjoy?". I wish Big Brother would outlaw perfume, aftershave and odiforous soaps. I hate the smell of sauerkraut too. Nasty. There should be a law.
Harley Davidsons are the most annoying vehicles on the planet...you have to stop conversing until they are two blocks away. Loud stereo equipment should carry a stiff fine, as well. Basically any personal noise of any kind should be confined to headphones, Harley exhaust included.
Cigarettes...I don't smoke, but they don't really bother me. Smoke up, Johnny.
Sep '10
Re: First They Came for the Smokers
Trace Urdan
Mark Belling Fan
Robert Promm:
Edited on Feb 09 at 09:16 am
· Feb 9 at 9:30am
No MBF, I don't think you have it right. The fact is that cigarette smoke is intrusive and noxious and may in fact impose a health hazard. So I am all for smokers doing their thing but only in places where they genuinely are not infringing on my right not to breath in their exhaust.
So if I put my life savings at risk by opening a bar or restaurant, I have to cater to your personal preferences, on the off chance that you may some day frequent my establishment?
How about if I name my establishment "The Bar for Smoking"? Seems fairly obvious what to expect from a place like that. You don't like smoking? Stay away. Under current state law I still can't allow smoking inside this place (unless of course I am operating an Indian Casino). What is the justification for that, besides nannyism?
Jun '10
Re: First They Came for the Smokers
I limit my smoking to fine cigars that I can't afford to make into a habit. I certainly wouldn't argue for a right to light up in a restaurant (unless designated as a cigar haven), an office or any place else where the concentration of smoke would be objectionable both as to intensity or actual environmental pollution. But really, calling out across forty yards of vacant beach "I can smell your cigar!" calls for a little balancing of personal privilege. Is "...and I can see three inches of flabby butt hanging below your bikini bottom!" an inapproprate retort?
Jul '10
Re: First They Came for the Smokers
In Yer car on the road: Private Property or public?
Jun '10
Re: First They Came for the Smokers
Bars and restaurants thought the smoking bans would bury them. It didn't happen. A whole new crop of customers who had been kept away by the smoke materialized. Pub and restaurant patrons and the musicians and bartenders who work there love the clean air.
I'd prefer giving the private enterprise the right to choose, but if you advertise as "The NonSmoking Bar" you had better deliver on your promise. Smoke is not something you can avoid. It permeates hair and clothing and seat cushions and drapes. It lingers. It ruins the meal. So having the choice of enjoying your pint and some good music without the noxious smoke is wonderful. Those who need a smoke can go to the smokers bars. Problem solved.
Public spaces should be smoke free. Keep the option of smoking on private property. You can't violate noise ordinances, be naked, urinate, dump garbage, have sex, or engage in a number of other actions in public spaces. Adding smoking to the list is fine by me.
Sep '10
Re: First They Came for the Smokers
Banning smoking in public places as open as beaches and parks is bald-faced nanny-statism. There is no way that the smoke that a bystander smells, from whatever is being smoked, in these places is going to do the so-easily-offended any harm whatever, period. It is simply too diffuse by the time it reaches the easily-offended. (The harm to health that smoking does is due to the cumulative effect of the smoke inhaled into the lungs over a period of years or decades.) If the offended party is truly highly allergic to smoke, then he is probably going to be allergic to myriad other allergens found in nature as well, which vastly outnumber the sources of smoke. In this case, the easily-offended should be going out to the park wearing a dust and pollen mask.
There is even some research to suggest that childhood allergies and asthma have increased recently because of the lack of exposure to enough allergens in the environment to strengthen sufficiently these childrens' immune systems.
Sep '10
Re: First They Came for the Smokers
There is an obvious free-market solution to all of this--reform tort law to make private property truly private again, and legalize private parks and beaches.
Jun '10
Re: First They Came for the Smokers
Beware this slippery slope .. is flatulence next as in Malawi?
h/t Mark Steyn on the Rush show
Sep '10
Re: First They Came for the Smokers
This is hardly a universal truth. There are plenty of business owners that will claim otherwise.
Except that these bars don't exist. They've been made illegal.
Nov '10
Re: First They Came for the Smokers
Pilgrim: Beware this slippery slope .. is flatulence next as in Malawi?
h/t Mark Steyn on the Rush show · Feb 9 at 10:37am
I desperately wanted to include flatulence in my screed, but couldn't think of a way to do it without dragging a reader through the gutter. I tip my hat to you Pilgrim.
Sep '10
Re: First They Came for the Smokers
George Savage: Now that Big Tobacco has been brought to heel, the statists are focusing--as Rush Limbaugh predicted years ago--on Big Food. What next?
I · Feb 9 at 9:26am
Big Fun--quantifying this will be tricky, but they'll figure it out. Maybe we can start by outlawing smoking at public parks and beaches, just as a foot in the door. Wait a minute...
Big Home--800 square feet per adult, 400 per child. Anything over that, and it's a big surtax for you, buddy. Public servants and Big Donors exempted, of course.
Big Family--already somewhat of a stigma in the U.S. in many circles. Medicaid recipients exempted, of course.
Re: First They Came for the Smokers
When I was living in Hong Kong, a friend of mine told me a story. He had been on the Star Ferry, which has two levels, each with a large cabin where most people sit. He went out back to have a smoke. It was at night. As he was smoking, he heard a splash and realized someone from top deck had fallen in. So he rang the bell; the ferry stopped, and the person who fell in was fished out.
He told me the local paper, the South China Morning Post, interviewed him for the story. He made a deal. He would give them everything, but he would get to pick the headline.
The headline he wanted? "Smoking Saves Lives"
May '10
Re: First They Came for the Smokers
Jimmy Carter
In Yer car on the road: Private Property or public? ·
Or how about the 80% or so of America that is still wild land?
The pivotal consideration is not if cigarette smoke is a nuisance but if that nuisance should be sanctioned by law or by social pressures. In most cases, I'd say social pressures are sufficient and proper.
I know many smokers, and they all step outside to smoke. People rarely smoke inside their own homes these days. Laws did not change that.
Government is not the only means by which society can be regulated.
Nov '10
Re: First They Came for the Smokers
But we already have public nuisance laws on the books. People are not allowed, for instance, to blast Norwegian Black Metal in front of a nursing home.
Honestly, if not for conservatives' knee-jerk tendency to scream, "Nanny state!" whenever "public health" and "regulations" are mentioned in the same breath, this wouldn't even be an issue. The restaurant ban is another matter (It should be the owner's choice) but there are all sorts of things we are not allowed to do in public parks. Smoking should not be privileged over other nuisances.