Blowing smoke up your ass
There is apparently a push now in my fair state to ban smoking in public places (for the children, of course). As someone who until recently was a very heavy smoker, you’d expect me to be like every other ex-smoker and become a total dick about it and support this nanny-state bullshit. You’d be wrong. Here’s the deal: If I don’t want to be around smoke, I don’t go where the smoking is. It’s quite simple. Smoking is bad for you and it will kill you, which is why I quit. But if I own a business, I and not the state should decide what happens there. There are establishments that forbid smoking and there are establishments that allow it. Go to the one that suits you. And, for fuck’s sake, don’t take your damn kids to a bar.
But Uncle say the nanny-state pricks in between heading to soccer practice, Starbuck’s and spending time not minding their own business smoking causes cancer, emphysema, other health problems, impotence, global warming, and the uncontrollable urge for people not to mind their own business. It leads to increased healthcare costs and is a drain on society. And it may complicate pregnancy And Uncle says So fucking what? Plenty of other things do all that too. Like drinking
What it boils down to is that a bunch people don’t like smoking and want to be able to go add a few ounces to their thighs by sucking down bacon-double cheeseburgers at the local Ruby Tuesday’s and not be exposed to something they find distasteful, stinky, or unhealthy. And here’s the other deal: Once you start using the threat of force (i.e., passing a law) for this kind of objectionable behavior, where does it end? Do we ban drinking? Trans-fat? Bacon double-cheeseburgers? Cars? Etc. And, of course, this will eventually lead to calls for the banning of smoking in your own home if there are children there. Sound far-fetched? Just wait and see.
I find all kinds of shit objectionable but that doesn’t mean it should be banned under the threat of a gun. For example, I don’t like seeing your big ass in a shirt that is two sizes too small. Not only that, one of those buttons could pop loose and put out my eye. But I don’t cling to the skirt of the .gov demanding that you wear shirts with soft foamy buttons that fit and that you run your ass around the block a few times (you know, for the children).
Sean Braisted sums it up nicely: No surprise here…most people will support taking away another person’s freedoms if it means a little more comfort for themselves.
If this shit keeps up, I’ll have to start smoking again to keep from choking some busy-body nanny.
These nanny-state pricks even have a blog. And they have poll.
Via Brittney.
December 29th, 2006 at 11:51 am
You know what pisses me off? When some nanny-socialist says that if 73% of the people want something then it should be the law.
What if 73% of the people think that we should kick the nanny-socialist in the nuts?
December 29th, 2006 at 11:56 am
Unc, I quit smoking almost 6 years ago and I most emphatically do NOT support smoking bans…
December 29th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
I’ve been informed that “nanny-state” is a sexest term. I asked for clarifcation on the term “Big Brother”, but it has not been forthcoming. Until it does, I recommend a strict quota of equal use of each of the terms, …for the children, of course.
December 29th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
The difference between smoking and all those other unhealthy behaviors you list is that smoking doesn’t just affect you, but also those around you. Anyway, see grievance #1.
December 29th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
I myself am an ex-smoker. I smoked since I was 16, through the army and until I meet my wife who made(told) me to quit. I did. I however, like yourself. I am not a dick about it. I don’t sit in the smoking sections, don’t hang out with the smokers at work while they smoke, and avoid place that allow a lot of smoking. However, again just like you I believe in LIBERTY, something these nanny state leftards have forgotten about. As a business owner or home owner I have a RIGHT to run or live the way I CHOOSE. Not the way the STATE wants me to. That is not liberty but a dictatorship.
December 29th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
Sure it does affect me. And the fat ass thing is identical in every respect:
I have to look at someone’s fat ass / someone doesn’t like the smell of smoke
fat assness causes an increase in my health care costs, like smoking.
And, of course, if you get behind the wheel of a car while hammered and plow into a family of 6, that affects them.
I agree smokers can be dicks and all but the solution to this is not nannyism.
December 29th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
If you believe that someone else’s smoking has an effect on your health, then you need to recalibrate your bullshit meter and go check out the original EPA study, which has been thrown out of at least 2 Federal courts as failing to meet the minimal standards of science. The “effect” on cancer rates that they measured was within the margin of error. It’s been the same for every other second-hand smoke study done since. The end.
What it really comes down to is that tobacco smoke is distasteful to some people — just like fat asses in jeans too small is distasteful to some people. SU is dead-bang on with his analogy.
(And yes, I know that some people are allergic to tobacco smoke. Some people are even more alergic to peanut dust, but we don’t have big peanut bans. Yet.)
December 29th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
I live in “smoke free” Seattle, and used to live in “smoke free” Vancouver. To be honest, it is much more pleasant for me, as a non smoker, since the new laws took effect. This is entirely beside the point of whether the laws are just and all that, I’m only going to consider the outcomes. Here’s a couple anecdotes and considerations:
1. Everyone knows smoking is stupid. The only people who smoke either started when they were stupid (kids) and are too addicted to quit once they pass into non-stupid-hood, or else they’re stupid for life and start as adults (rare, but I know at least two who fit the latter description). Therefore, anything that helps the stupids keep from starting the habit is a good thing. They will probably appreciate it later, just as I appreciate it now every time I watch a grown up try to quit.
2. When smoking was first banned in Vancouver, I noticed something very interesting. A local “family” restaurant used to be filled with hung-over teenagers every Saturday and Sunday morning. They would smoke like chimneys, mostly order just coffee, and sit and chat for the entire morning about the escapades of the previous night and what had transpired between Biz and Julie.
After the ban, the restaurant lost all its weekend teenager business. But instead of being empty, they were full. Full of families buying full-course breakfasts. The atmosphere was quite pleasant, since there was no smoke, and no foul-mouthed idiots rambling on about their pubescent social lives.
Then the really interesting thing happened. The ban was rescinded on some technical ground or other. The bars of course resumed belching the diabolical fumes, but the family restaurant in question did not. Not hard to guess why.
Then the ban was “fixed” and put back in place. By that time, nobody cared, and the bars figured out that they weren’t going to lose money after all, since everybody knows you get laid by drunk women, not by smoking women, which has other benefits as well, I suppose. That, and the fact that you can get a smoker to go to a non-smoking establishment where drunk women are present, but you have a harder sell, especially with stick-in-the-mud’s like me who don’t smoke, to get us to go to a room filled with smoke, drunk women or no.
So, besides the infringement of the rights of smokers to stink it up in public, there seems to be a net gain from these laws. However, the slippery slope that might let laws pass that ban being fat in public may be too great a price to pay. I don’t know about that, but these otherwise trivial laws keep the nanny retards busy on unimportant things, which keeps their damn hands off my guns and such that I actually care about. But then there’s that slippery slope, and they may eventually move on. Argh!
December 29th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Give it a rest Uncle, you’re not that dumb. Me being a fat ass near you doesn’t expose YOU to higher-than-normal levels of carcinogens. You smoking near me DOES expose me. Not the same thing, no matter how much your whiny ass wants to pretend otherwise. 🙂
December 29th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Then prove to me how incidental exposure to 2ndhand smoke causes anything other than annoyed non-smokers.
December 29th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
It causes me to stink like a smoker. Being near a fat person, well, depends on the person.
Besides, why should us non-smokers have to move to avoid your stinky fumes? Next thing you know, you’ll want to roll back anti-farting and anti-pastrami-belching regulations.
December 29th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
It is a scientific fact that fat people fart much more than trim people so just like cattle they are causing global warming. Fat people are destroying the planet dammit.
I’m serial.
Wish I knew how to do those smiley faces. What is the code for “I’m kidding”?
December 29th, 2006 at 6:39 pm
I am a rabid non-smoker, and I certainly like smoke-free restaurants and loathe ones which permit smoking.
Nonetheless, I think that it is the job of the private sector, and not the government, to decide whether, when and where smoking should be permitted, perhaps with the exception of commercial aircraft.
The best thing that the government can do is get out of the smoking business altogether, including repealing tobacco taxes and denying government-funded (i.e. Medicaid) health care coverage to smokers.
Letting the private sector (i.e. free market) determine whether smoking will be prohibited in a restaurant, store or theater will essentially let the problem solve itself.
The 3 in 4 people who don’t smoke carry 3 times the economic clout as the 1 in 4 who smoke, and those merchants, restaurateurs, etc. who wish to profit from the nonsmokers can make a market-driven decision as to whether to permit smoking.
As for nonsmokers, the easiest way to counter smokers who insist on stinking up public places is to carry a boom-box to turn on, loudly, of course, whatever music is most likely to annoy the smokers.
If they can pollute the air, then so can we.
I’m thinking 50 Cent for annoying elderly caucasian smokers, Billy Ray Cyrus/Toby Keith for the hip-hop crowd and Britney/Madonna for annoying anyone else with a double digit IQ.
The government needs to get out of the public health and social engineering departments.
December 29th, 2006 at 7:01 pm
I’m dying to find out to which category I belong.
Not being gifted with the smugness that comes gratis with dwelling on the left coast (having instead to rely on raw eastern smarm) I fear I may never know.
December 29th, 2006 at 7:16 pm
I quit smoking cold turkey on July 15 2006 at 11:30pm after smoking for 10 years…hardest fucking thing I have done in my life. At this point in my life I cant stand to be anywhere near anyone who smokes…they fucking reek (I can only imagine how bad my ass smelled with my pack a day habit). Power to them to ban smoking…I’m a militant anti-smoker now. I used to hate people like me when I smoked…mostly because they had the balls to quit and I didn’t. I don’t see any negatives to society because you ban smoking. By the way…you the PEOPLE elect those guys who want to ban smoking so its not like the evil empire is taking over with the help of the New World Order and black helicopters. The same argument could be said about the drug war and abortion re: RIGHT to run or live the way I CHOOSE etc… Just my two cents…
December 29th, 2006 at 7:21 pm
Justin, you’ve become what you used to hate 😉
December 29th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
I’m dying to find out to which category I belong.
I belong to the “I’m a dumbass teenager who thinks its cool to smoke…and then get addicted to it after a few months…and then keep smoking for another 7 years after my father dies of lung cancer” segment. I’m fucking disgusted with myself that my chances of getting lung cancer are double or triple the amount for non smokers because I was too weak and stupid to either not start or quit a long time ago. Yeah he (and I) chose to smoke on our own free will but both of us would have been more than happy had the state decided to ban tobacco out right etc…
December 29th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
I know SU…I know…amazing isnt it? I’m the reverse of what you are suppose to do…you are supposed to grow up “liberal” and mellow and get a little more conservative with age…I think I got hit on the head a year or two ago… I’m still more libertarian than I am a weed smokin’ hippy:)
December 29th, 2006 at 7:34 pm
I smoked for 49& years, quit cold turkey, because my wife made me promise when we found out I was dying. Although smoking is not the cause. I promised because I did not expect to leave alive. I did, but, a promise is a promise. So, I quit.
I still don’t like non-smokers. I have found them to be sanctimonius control freaks who believe they have the right to regulate the lives of everyone. Except, guess what? They never apply that same enthusiasm to the harmful things in which they engage.
I don’t like joggers for the same reason I don’t like non-smokers. I suppose by now, everyone has assumed I am mentally deficient. Well, here is the explanation, an explanation that I wish weren’t true, but one that I have not been able to disprove.
Joggers and non-smokers are just too damn narcississtic. Go into any establishment that has both smoking and non-smoking sections. Note in which section the people the talk, visit, laugh and interact with each other. Note which section is filled with people that are only interested in themselves. You will find that smokers are friendly and outgoing and non-smokers, in general, are not. Smoking or not is not the cause of this behavior. It is just that smokers are not wrapped up in themselves and their personal well-being as much as non-smokers or non-joggers.
Even though, I no longer smoke, I always sit in the smoking section. They’re just nicer people.
December 29th, 2006 at 7:41 pm
You will find that smokers are friendly and outgoing and non-smokers, in general, are not. Smoking or not is not the cause of this behavior. It is just that smokers are not wrapped up in themselves and their personal well-being as much as non-smokers or non-joggers.
Thats a pretty big net your throwing out there. I’m the life of the party when I go out…and generally think that I’m pretty nice in person even though I sound like an ass on here sometimes.
December 29th, 2006 at 8:50 pm
Back when there was a smoking section on airlines, I often asked for a seat there, even though I didn’t smoke, because I wanted to talk with someone during the flight, and I had discovered that the chances of finding a seat mate who would talk with me were much higher there.
I have had a couple of periods of moderate smoking, but my lungs always vote to quit, and I have so far listened to them, especially now that I’m taking high blood pressure medication.
But I still firmly believe that smoking in privately owned establishments is a propery rights issue. If the owner wants to allow smoking, or ban it, it ain’t nobody else’s business. Don’t like it, don’t go there, or petition him to change his policy.
Pointing government guns at owners by making a “law” banning, or requiring a place for, smoking is criminal. Every legislator who votes for any such “law” and any cop who enforces it, should be tried for assault and kidnapping or conspiracy to commit mass assault and kidnapping, the proper names for unwarranted arrest. Kidnapping ia a capital crime.
December 29th, 2006 at 9:13 pm
Every legislator who votes for any such “law” and any cop who enforces it, should be tried for assault and kidnapping or conspiracy to commit mass assault and kidnapping, the proper names for unwarranted arrest. Kidnapping ia a capital crime.
From perusing your website that statement doesn’t surprise me.
December 29th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
Anti-smoking is part of the “religion” of the secular left, along with global warming, diversity, etc. Whether left or right, it’s sticking your nose in someone else’s business.
December 30th, 2006 at 12:29 am
I’m dying to find out to which category I belong.
Don’t get me wrong, I belonged that first bunch, I think, except that I was lucky to never have started (almost got going with the chewing terbaccy, blech). It’s possible I belong to the second group, but I haven’t started up yet.
December 30th, 2006 at 8:55 am
chris Says:
Cool, can I get out of my Medicaid payroll taxes if I claim to be a smoker? What exactly would it take to get out on my Socialist Insecurity payroll taxes too?
This sounds like a great way to transition out of the forced payment ponzi-like schemes and change over to some kind of forced retirement savings and health plan.
December 30th, 2006 at 11:58 am
Justin B, the size of that net I cast, is why I used the qualifier “in general”. Not everyone in either group is going to fit the description, but they will in general. Before you think I am harsh, just look around you next time your the life of the party. See who enjoys the interaction and see who has a stick up their asses.
December 30th, 2006 at 11:59 am
you’re not your. proofreading is my fred.
December 30th, 2006 at 6:10 pm
Wow, look at all the flying stereotypes!
December 30th, 2006 at 8:27 pm
A local politician here in Smyrna has started the push for enforced smoking sections in eating establishments. I gave my point of view at the This is Smyrna, Tn blog. He left a comment so I know her read it. I just hope he comprehended what i was attempting to say.
December 30th, 2006 at 8:35 pm
brittney, how do you think they became stereotypes? You don’t have to accept anyone’s interpretation, but now that you have seen them, why not check it out on your own?
December 30th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
I have the Final Solution (heh):
All those who hate smoking can get together and start their own resturants and bars. Since there are obviously so many smoke haters, there will be tons of business for them and they’ll get filthy rich.
See? There’s a free-market solution to everything! No wait– that would take effort, risk and it would take imagination. Never mind.
But that’s not the point is it? killing Liberty is the point, else they wouldn’t pass up the opportunity to make big money serving their fellow smoke hating man.
December 31st, 2006 at 2:19 am
Lyle, you have correctly identified the problem. They find the sweet smell of control too enticing to abide the more raw aromas of free choice and/or cigarette smoke.
However, look for this to spread to perfumes, bright colored clothes, this issue is not about health. It is about control at gunpoint.
December 31st, 2006 at 12:09 pm
I like the non-smoking section of a restaurant. It’s like swimming in the non-pee area of a public pool.
December 31st, 2006 at 12:11 pm
Non-smokers should sit in the smoking section and fill it up so the smokers have to sit in the non-smoking section and can’t smoke.
December 31st, 2006 at 8:23 pm
See what I mean, Lyle. Fresh Air is one of those control freaks without the courage to try force on another without the benefit of hired gunmen.
December 31st, 2006 at 10:38 pm
Straightaarrow, I hope you don’t mind me smoking a big cigar right next to you and your ? as you and yours try to have dinner. I hope you don’t mind if I talk at the top of my lungs to my date or someone else on my cellphone. Don’t let the 5 uncontrolled kids I bring bother you, after all, unless the restaurant bans it, it’s allowed….
Oh, I don’t believe in taking a bath either, but there is no law against that either….
January 1st, 2007 at 2:09 am
The anti-smoking groups are out of control and going to far with their demands. Yet my wife and I are very much for not smoking in public areas, especially eating establishments. We both have immediate effects to our health when subjected to second-hand smoke.
Let me first of all offend all you smokers. Smokers are mostly clueless. They have no idea of the health effects caused to some people. I don’t mean the “for the kids”, that I’m sick and tired of hearing about too. Nor the possibility that you may get cancer, etc. I mean immediate health effects. We both get immediately sick. My wifes has serious asthma and mine is just sinuses plugging up, nausea, and then unable to eat for hours. Wonderful when you go to a restaurant! And forget it, private business isn’t going to build separate restaurants.
A public place is different than your private home, where you have the right to decide on smoking. A public business must take into account the “public” safety. Therefore you have laws concerning fire escape, etc. If you own a business, you must take into acount these things when serving the public.
You can smoke all you want, but you don’t have the right to do us harm. It might inconvenience you, but get over it and do what’s right for others. Smokers have been too used to doing exactly what they want, where they want, when they want.
We were raised with parents that smoked, we were used to it, til we got older, and our health turned on us. We have no problem with people smoking, but not in our faces. Actually it’s embarrassing for us to have these health sensitivites. We wish we were a little tougher. We no longer go out to dance, and can do without it, but we would like to be able to eat without getting sick. It’s a little hard to give up going out to eat or shop.
I don’t want to lose my main point, but smokes have no idea of the stench that clothes and hair, even the furniture are staturated with. And oh yes, your vehicles. Lets not get into the filth of cigarette butts stewn all over. And I love when people go outdoors to smoke, and stand right beside the entrance doors, so that non-smokers have to walk right through the smoke. And of course their butts are all over the walkway. As I said clueless.
I’m all for you smoking, but not in everyone else’s face. You need to relearn some courteousness for others. Sorry about that, but it’s very much needed.
January 1st, 2007 at 11:58 am
“Smokers are mostly clueless.”
Hey, asshole, here’s a clue for you: smoking is healthier than fascism.
January 1st, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Next time I have a cold or the flu, I won’t bother to stay at home so I don’t spread it to others. I’ll fly, go to work, the gym and eat out. In fact, I won’t bother to cover my mouth when I sneeze or cough. As long as there isn’t a law against, it……
January 1st, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Fresh Air you are proving my point. And I am a non-smoker. From your attitude displayed here I wouldn’t object to your cigar nearly as much as I would your presence.
I hate professional wrestling, I think it spreads stupidity through the population and encourages violence by youngsters not smart enough to know it is fake. Therefore I believe my family is at increased risk due to pro wrestling. These demonstrations always take place in a public venue. No one has the right to earn a living doing this because I object and don’t want to take enough responsibility to just not go where it is being done. Now you will agree with me on this, right? Next we’ll take up pro sports of all kinds. Then we can move on to the harm fat people are causing, how about people who live in houses? They add to global warming by heating and cooling their homes. We should disallow heating and cooling of any public facility or commercial facility. You still with me?
Pretty soon you and I can run the world and tell everybody to do as we say. And you can continue to not bathe.
January 1st, 2007 at 5:30 pm
I am all for courtesy and consideration of others. I do not believe in using the point of a gun to enforce social courtesies or deny private ownership rights. That is the issue.
Not the red herrings you threw out trying to change the subject. Can you force yourself upon an owner of property who may not want your presence under conditions you set? That is the real issue. You think you have that right. You, however, want the organized guns of government to protect you when you trespass the man’s rights. How can you justify that?
You could show your disapproval of the owner’s preferences by simply not trading with him, but that doesn’t make you feel powerful enough, does it?
January 1st, 2007 at 6:51 pm
If this passes, I’m going to give TN less of my money; I’ll go to KY to buy cigarettes. Yes, it means a 45-minute drive vs. the present 10-minute one, but so what?
While, I’m there, I might as well get groceries. Let’s see, I’ve been needing a new lawnmower, so why don’t I buy that while I’m there? Might as well fill up with gas, too (don’t get me started on TN’s hideous gas taxes). And imagine what’ll happen if I’m in the market for a new car–why would I give all that money to TN?
A couple of weeks ago, I did an onsite job in Dayton, OH, which state just passed exactly this sort of nanny-state crap. I might have spent some time in the evenings at O’Charley’s or a similar place, but why do so if I can’t enjoy a cigarette after my meal?
Oh, and the Ohio ban? Turns out that, to pass it, quite a few media outlets had to lie. Quite a few of them slanted their reporting so as to imply that the ban wouldn’t affect private clubs (a real surprise that they’d lie, eh?). The truth came out once the ban passed, but, of course, it’s easier to not pass a law than to rescind an existing one.
January 2nd, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Enjoy some cartoons of the nanny state:
http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/TransFatBan/main.asp
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Louisville has a ban on smoking in restaurants.
January 4th, 2007 at 10:01 am
[…] We know how I feel about the smoking ban. Good to see Naifeh do the right thing. For once: Despite reports of growing support for a ban on smoking in workplaces, House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh said Wednesday he opposes the idea and believes most other legislators feel the same way. […]