Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
New at Reason
Calabasas, California, smokers needn't worry, says Jacob Sullum: They can still light up at home, hiding under the bed with all the doors locked and the shades drawn if they want.
|3.8.06 @ 10:04AM|#
So, when do they start demanding in California that convicted smokers wear giant, red "S?"
Ed|3.8.06 @ 10:08AM|#
I can't wait for the show trials. I wonder if Court TV will air them. Will Stalin himself be present?
Rich Ard|3.8.06 @ 10:08AM|#
To be fair, we already stand out to those equipped with
noses.
This should be interesting to watch, considering how well it's
worked with grass, and alcohol, and opiates, and and and and...
|3.8.06 @ 10:11AM|#
It seems only a matter of time before farters face similarly draconian ordinances.
|3.8.06 @ 10:12AM|#
Ed,
Wait until Congress holds hearings on smoking activities of the
citizenry. Call it the House Smoking Activities Committee
(HSAC).
"Mr. Smith, are you now or have you ever been a smoker?"
Soon after that we'll have camps for smokers (and we'll have
month-long discussions here on Hit n' Run over issues of
citizenship).
|3.8.06 @ 10:15AM|#
ace, in 1991, a Baylor University student was given a ticket for breaking wind in the presence of a Waco police officer. Texas was ahead of California in penalizing passing gas.
|3.8.06 @ 10:16AM|#
I have an abstract curiosity about one thing: one the anti-smokers succeed in wiping smoking off the face of the earth, I doubt they'll be content to say "Cool; now that we've reached our goal let's just go home and live our lives." So what will they focus on next? Fat people sound like a good prospect, but since they make up the majority of Americans these days that would be very difficult to pull off. So who will the next official evil group be?
Larry A|3.8.06 @ 10:27AM|#
It's a love thing.
I Love You, California
I.
I love you, California, you're the greatest state of all.
I love you in the winter, summer, spring and in the fall.
I love your fertile valleys; your dear mountains I adore.
I love your grand old ocean and I love her rugged shore.
Chorus
Where the snow crowned Golden Sierras
Keep their watch o'er the valleys bloom,
It is there I would be in our land by the sea,
Every breeze bearing rich perfume.
It is here nature gives of her rarest. It is Home Sweet Home to
me,
And I know when I die I shall breathe my last sigh
For my sunny California.
The rest of the official
state song.
|3.8.06 @ 10:27AM|#
Soda is an enabler. It causes all obesity. It hurts our
children. Big Soda must pay.
As a first step, all soda drinkers must be banned from public
buildings. Why? Well, if we see soda being consumed, then we might
be overcome and consume it ourselves. This we cannot allow. Also,
studies show that second-hand drinking of soda increases a
non-drinker's daily caloric intake!
The horror! The humanity! Man the law courts! Legislate!!!!!!
Regulate!!!!
|3.8.06 @ 10:30AM|#
WHEREAS, the use of cigars is known to cause lung, larynx,
esophageal, and oral cancer and it makes my dog sneeze
and
WHEREAS, more than 440,000 people die in the United States from
tobaccorelated diseases every year and deservedly so
and
WHEREAS, deaths from smoking around the world will soon outnumber
those from AIDS, tuberculosis and the unintended consequences of
idiotic regulations propagated by smarmy health-Nazis
and
and
and
|3.8.06 @ 10:53AM|#
But they don't have the huevos to ban the sale of tobacco. The smoking ban cities want the revenue from the sales tax and property tax from the retailers. 'We want you to buy them in our City, just don't smoke them in our City.'
Warren|3.8.06 @ 11:05AM|#
I am more libertarian than thou.
I am ready to pitch a hissy fit over government overreach at the
drop of a hat. I too deplore the denomination of smokers. I agree
that health concerns from second hand smoke are bogus. Private
businesses should be allowed to set their own smoking
policies.
However, I grew up a non-smoker (I grew out of it, and then
partially reverted). The stench of tobacco is foul, it is
positively life degrading. That non-smokers (and smokers too for
that matter) should not be forced to suffer the detestable odor of
cigarette smoke, strikes me as self evident. I can't see how
smoking in public places is anymore defensible than emptying one's
wastebasket onto the sidewalk.
|3.8.06 @ 11:22AM|#
That non-smokers (and smokers too for that matter) should
not be forced to suffer the detestable odor of cigarette smoke,
strikes me as self evident. I can't see how smoking in public
places is anymore defensible than emptying one's wastebasket onto
the sidewalk.
You can apply the same logic to perfume, cologne, stinky
after-shave, scented-candle shops that make me sneeze every time I
walk by them--if people start claiming a right to go out in public
without being exposed to smells they find objectionable, we're all
going to be in a LOT of trouble pretty soon.
|3.8.06 @ 11:28AM|#
I can't see how smoking in public places is anymore
defensible than emptying one's wastebasket onto the
sidewalk.
Why should you care, unless you're rooted to the spot with your
nose two inches away from my mouth...?
|3.8.06 @ 11:35AM|#
"if people start claiming a right to go out in public
without being exposed to smells they find objectionable, we're all
going to be in a LOT of trouble pretty soon."
Jennifer:
Netflix'd Penn & Teller's Bullshit, watched it last
night. One of the shows on the first disc of the first season has a
piece on the smoking ban-ers. Penn says pretty much the same thing
as you just did. If no conclusive scientific evidence exists of the
health dangers of ETS, then banning it is no better than banning
anything else that various people dislike. And if we were to ban
everything that anyone disliked, our social structure would crumble
within a matter of minutes. These bans are indefensible, on all
accounts.
|3.8.06 @ 11:39AM|#
Why stop at smells? There should be a law against intentional infliction of aesthetic or sensory distress. Heavy fines for, say, more than three face piercings, minor (but on-the-spot) fines for wearing ballcaps backward, etc. If that works out, we can extend the law to cover unintentional inflictions, e.g., being ugly in public. As with sexual harassment law, the actual distress of the victim should be the standard. Think what a paradise we could create!
|3.8.06 @ 11:44AM|#
I posted this in another thread yesterday but I think it applies
here, too. Behold our future:
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/7770534/detail.html
H.S. Proposes Going Fragrance-Free
BOURNE, Mass. -- A Cape Cod high school may soon be the first in
the state free of all colognes, perfumes, scented deodorants and
body sprays.
The Upper Cape Cod Regional Technical School committee met Monday
night to discuss the fragrance ban for staff and students proposed
by Superintendent Barry J. Motta.
The proposed policy will be sent to a subcommittee for review,
Motta said, and will likely become part of the student
handbook.
Strong fragrances can irritate people with asthma, trigger
headaches, and cause respiratory and neurological symptoms. Motta
said he did not know about the possible effects of perfumes and
colognes until one of his staff members said they suffered from
chemical sensitivity.
|3.8.06 @ 11:44AM|#
Warren:
"That non-smokers (and smokers too for that matter) should not
be forced to suffer the detestable odor of cigarette smoke, strikes
me as self evident."
Forced? Forced? These bans apply not just to "public"
spaces, but restaurants, bars, even private balconies. Unless the
property owner has tied you up and held you hostage, you are free
to leave at any time. I'd support smoking bans for, say, inside of
public courthouses. But not the street. Not the park. This is not
"self-evident", as you claim...unless it is also "self-evident" to
ban other things that people dislike yet pose no real health
risk...like farting, or body odor, or ugly people, or fat
fucks...
"I can't see how smoking in public places is anymore defensible
than emptying one's wastebasket onto the sidewalk."
Since you can't see the difference, let me count the ways...
A) Emptying your wastebasket on the street means that trash, a
permanent physical solid, stays on the sidewalk. It obscured
walking, it can make a terrible stench that is long-lasting, and if
enough people do it, it can pose a major problem rendering
sidewalks unusable.
B) Most forms of littering has been shown to have a significant
detrimental effect on the environment.
C) If enough trash piles up on the public walkways, it can become a
major public health hazard.
...whereas smoking on the sidewalk:
A) Drifts into the atmosphere, and presents almost no inconvenience
to those around, unless the air is absolutely stagnant---even then,
it blows away as soon as the wind picks up, and it can't "build up"
like garbage.
B) presents no statistically significant health hazard to the
public
C) presents no real environmental hazard.
I find it very hard to believe that you cannot see these extremely
obvious differences...
Warren|3.8.06 @ 11:54AM|#
You can apply the same logic to perfume, cologne, stinky
after-shave, scented-candle shops that make me sneeze every time I
walk by them
Yes you can, and I would support their regulation should they
become as ubiquitous and problematic as cigarettes.
Why should you care, unless you're rooted to the spot with your
nose two inches away from my mouth...?
Huh? Cigarettes are nauseating from twenty feet (down wind of
course). Where they are still allowed in public venues, it is not
possible to escape their stench. One smoker at the ballpark ruins
the game for thirty people.
And if we were to ban everything that anyone disliked, our social
structure would crumble within a matter of minutes.
I see, it's too expensive to uphold people's rights, so that makes
it "indefensible". Let's see, our scocial structure would crumble
if; we were to�
Legalize drugs
Repeal zoning laws
Privatize Social Security
Etc.
|3.8.06 @ 11:58AM|#
Concerning the "cigarette smoke is practically a form of assault
and thus worthy of government force to regulate" meme, I'd like to
offer my own anecdotal experience:
Due to a bizarre camping accident in my childhood, I have almost NO
sense of smell. (When we brew coffee in the morning, my boyfriend
can smell it anywhere in the house, whereas I can actually stick my
nose in the pot and detect only the faintest coffee odor, and then
only if I concentrate.)
Obviously, I am as susceptible as anybody to things like poison gas
and such; I just can't smell them first. Last year there was a gas
spill in the creek right across from where I worked; I got the same
headaches as did my colleagues, but didn't notice the nasty smell
they complained about. I do sometimes sneeze when I go into a
scented-candle shop, or walk through the soap section of a bath and
body store, but I don't really "smell" these things; I just get a
tingly sensation in my nose and then 'achoo.'
When I'm downwind of smokers, I might occasionally get some smoke
in my eyes but that's it. No sneezing, no headaches, no such
effects. Which strongly suggests that secondhand cigarette smoke is
nowhere near the same league as gasoline fumes or even overly
scented Yankee Candle stores; it's just a damn smell like any
other. Yes, a lot of people dislike it, but you can find peolpe who
dislike any perfume, hairspray or scented soap on the market. That
doesn't mean that people's dislikes are enough to be enshrined in
the law.
It is not a health hazard; it is merely an annoyance.
Warren|3.8.06 @ 12:02PM|#
Evan,
So paper litter is just peachy with you. The wind and rain would
keep it from building up. There are no health hazards, no long
lasting odors etc. There would just be bits of paper constantly
blowing around and stuck to everything.
|3.8.06 @ 12:10PM|#
Again,
You guys just don't get tired of this.
Evidence for ETS being a health hazard exists.
Evidence it doesn't exists.
Pick you favorite evidence in an argument about smoking.
The evidence shows a statistically significant correlation between
lung cancer and ETS. The effect sizes for the meta-analysis by the
EPA are small. People will argue that the relative risk below 3 is
just about background noise for cancer. If that were true, it
wouldn't be statistically significant in such a large
meta-analysis. Your bias will determine which aspects of the
research you believe.
The main health argument involves not occasional smoke inhaled by
patrons of a business, but the constant exposure to workers. More
studies are needed on concentrated exposure levels seen in work
places. Concentrated exposure has been linked convincingly to
asthma in kids.
If you don't think ETS causes cancer fine.
Spend a few weeks working 8-10 hours a day in a poorly ventilated
bar. You will find yourself with smoker's cough within a month.
Cancer is not the only health risk from smoke.
Asking smokers to be considerate of others has not worked to solve
a problem that large numbers of people see as a problem (even if
you don't)...so people seek a government solution. That's how the
world works. If smokers were all considerate of other's concerns
regarding the smell, etc... they wouldn't be facing bans. You won't
get similar support for the non-issues you worry about...it isn't
that it is annoying that results in the ban... it is that it is
annoying to more people than not. Even those who support the ban on
indoor smoking can discriminate. They just put the "this is a
problem worth government action" bar in a different place than you
do.
Libertarians don't like theft. That is an arbitrary line as well,
but most people agree with it. We've banned theft. That's how these
things work: Interaction between annoyer and the annoyed. When
there are enough sufficiently annoyed, the annoyer is screwed.
That's how it works.
Get over it.
|3.8.06 @ 12:16PM|#
It's especially funny that California of all places is so obsessed with cigarette smoke, considering the horrible car-induced air pollution and similar problems they have. To paraphrase something I read from James Kunstler, California's anti-smoking attitude is like a heavy coffee drinker who is also addicted to heroin, alcohol and random unprotected sex--and decides that the coffee is the first thing he needs to give up in his quest for a healthier life.
Warren|3.8.06 @ 12:21PM|#
I thought California already has the most restrictive auto-emission regulations in the country.
|3.8.06 @ 12:25PM|#
I thought California already has the most restrictive
auto-emission regulations in the country.
When you have as many cars as California does, you've still got
some nasty air. Plus, air pollution and wind don't have a hell of a
lot of respect for political boundaries.
But hell, if you want to walk down a street with hundreds of cars
spitting exhaust into the air and then believe that the guy smoking
a cigarette upwind of you is the main thing you need to worry
about, go right ahead. Just don't ask the government to codify it
into law.
|3.8.06 @ 12:33PM|#
That's how the world works.
How the United States works, in theory at least, is that government
action is constrained by the Constitution. It is not two wolves and
a lamb voting on what is for dinner.
Spend a few weeks working 8-10 hours a day in a poorly
ventilated bar.
If I think the wage scale relative to my skills, the hours, the
chance to meet people, and the low probability that I spend my life
doing it is worth the risk, what possible business is it of
yours?
|3.8.06 @ 12:35PM|#
At this point, I'm actually considering becoming a
smoker.
Some Brit columnist did just that as a response to his own personal
nannies.
That non-smokers (and smokers too for that matter) should not
be forced to suffer the detestable odor of cigarette smoke, strikes
me as self evident.
I like the smell of burning tobacco, especially pipes and cigars.
Perfume, however, sucks.
Spend a few weeks working 8-10 hours a day in a poorly
ventilated bar.
Oops. "Working." Never mind.
That's how these things work:
Dishonest government health agencies, the tyranny of the majority
and the swinish masses who have no regard for private property or
other peoples' rights. So, what else is new?
Get over it.
Don't cry when they make your hamburger (or whatever) illegal.
|3.8.06 @ 12:36PM|#
Well, Cali's not at the Swiss point of mandating turning the
engine off at stoplights (though I sometimes do that at long ones).
And Cape Cod's going to have a natural (BO-induced) air pollution
problem if that bill passes.
Jen, do you mind my asking what your "bizarre childhood camping
accident" entailed? It's just so interest-piquing.
|3.8.06 @ 12:37PM|#
Spend a few weeks working 8-10 hours a day in a poorly
ventilated bar. You will find yourself with smoker's cough within a
month. Cancer is not the only health risk from smoke.
Spend a few weeks working 8-10 hours a day in the construction
business. You will find yourself with dry, sunburned skin and be at
risk of premature aging. Skin cancer is not the only health risk
from excessive sunlight.
So shall we require all construction jobs to be done under a heavy
sunproof canopy, or can we figure contruction workers are smart
enough to realize they'll be outside all the time, but are willing
to do that as part of their jobs?
|3.8.06 @ 12:38PM|#
The main health argument involves not occasional smoke
inhaled by patrons of a business, but the constant exposure to
workers.
So why are we banning it outdoors now??? I can tolerate bans
indoors--although I would prefer it be up to the owner. But even in
my most anti-smoking days, I didn't give a crap about smoking
outdoors.
Quite obviously, the "main argument" is rooted in majoritarian
distaste of smoke and smokers.
|3.8.06 @ 12:49PM|#
Jen, do you mind my asking what your "bizarre childhood
camping accident" entailed?
We had one of those little trailers where everything did
double-duty; seats were also storage cabinets, the sofa and kitchen
table folded into a bed, etc. Easter weekend when I was eight years
old we went camping in a nearby state park; my bed was at one end
of the trailer, and my toddler brother slept with my parents at the
other end.
I woke up on Easter Sunday sick as a dog--projectile-vomiting, and
drifting in and out of hallucinations. I got sicker and sicker as
the morning progressed, and finally my Dad carried me outside,
mainly to give my mom a chance to clean up my bed (which was
practically a biohazard at that point). Within half an hour of
going outside I felt perfectly fine, and even wanted to ride my
bike.
Turns out my bed was right next to the stove in the kitchen area,
and the propane tank or whatever we used for cooking fuel had been
leaking all night. (And it's damned good thing my mom went outside
for her morning cigarette, or pieces of my family would still be
orbiting the Earth.) I'm guessing that's when my sense of smell
went away--when I got back to school I remember being mad because
my teacher always gave out scratch-n-sniff stickers in lieu of gold
stars, and after Easter it seemed that every sticker I got didn't
work. And I also recall that for awhile food all seemed to have
less taste than before, but I suppose I got used to it.
In retrospect, I wonder if my sense of smell might have been saved
if I'd made a fuss over the stickers and the food, so that my mom
took me to a doctor, but when you're that age everything seems kind
of bizarre to you anyway, so it's hard to tell what is bizarre
enough to be worthy of mentioning to your parents.
|3.8.06 @ 12:53PM|#
"Don't cry when they make your hamburger (or whatever)
illegal."
The closest thing here, for me, is the noise ordinance thing... I
am a drummer. Makes a lot of annoying noise. I try to minimize that
by practicing in a sound proof room, don't play with my windows
open at 3 am, things like that. I don't hold it against the people
who back the noise ordinance, or consider them to be out to steal
my rights because my noise doesn't really harm them. I just
recognize that my rights come with a responsibility to get along
with my neighbors, and try to accomodate (something most bar owners
are learning too). No one has tried to ban drums (or live music at
bars), just like the current smoking ban movement doesn't try and
ban tobacco outright. Failure to discriminate is a major issue with
many posting on H&R.
"That's how the world works....How the United States works, in
theory at least, is that government action is constrained by the
Constitution. It is not two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for
dinner."
The main point of the US constitution is to provide for procedures
for deciding these issues and guidelines regarding the principles
to use in making the decisions. It says very little on the issue of
local governments' actions regarding indoor smoking. These are
typically state and city ordinances. I do believe that the US
constitution leaves it up to state and local governments to decide
those issues not directly given to the federal government.
The posting regarding people worrying about smoking when there is
so much car pollution is relevant here. Why do libertarians spend
so much energy on this small issue, when we have much more serious
intrusions on our rights going on all the time. With limited energy
and influence, I would think it would be better to concentrate
effort elsewhere.
(Notice that this implies that I think Libertarian views are an
important element in political life, but that I think they are
being squandered)...
|3.8.06 @ 1:07PM|#
If I had enough money to piss it away just to prove a point, I would love to bring a lawsuit in California trying to ban the use of the internal-combustion engine in any place other than one's own home. All I'd have to do is take one of these anti-smoking ordinances and change "cigarette smoke" to "car exhaust." All the complaints the anti-smokers bring up--smells bad, health hazard, etc.--are a thousand times more true when you're talking about even the most environmentally friendly car exhaust.
|3.8.06 @ 1:16PM|#
"libertarians spend so much energy on this small issue"
It ain't small when it's your livelihood being stamped
out.
|3.8.06 @ 1:18PM|#
Man, usually drummers are a pretty cool bunch, but you are one
uptight dude!
Here's hoping your bad kharma catches up with you quickly!
|3.8.06 @ 1:22PM|#
"I can't see how smoking in public places is anymore
defensible than emptying one's wastebasket onto the
sidewalk."(emphasis added)
Probably wouldn't be a big deal if the government kept out of
private places.
|3.8.06 @ 1:22PM|#
No one has tried to ban drums (or live music at bars), just
like the current smoking ban movement doesn't try and ban tobacco
outright.
In smoking terms, nobody is banning drums; it's just illegal to
beat a drum anywhere that a non-drummer can hear you.
|3.8.06 @ 1:23PM|#
Do you think these bans are being set up to increase smoking so
the tobacco industry doesn't go belly up?
Seems to me back in the 70s and 80s many, if not most, people were
quitting smoking just from knowing about the statistically
legitimate increased chance of lung cancer for smokers.
Now it's illegal and expensive and all the kids at my nieces'
school are taking it up because it's so cool.
|3.8.06 @ 1:27PM|#
just like the current smoking ban movement doesn't try and
ban tobacco outright
No; they're smart enough to take it one step at a time. Like the
anti-abortion folks used to be before South Dakota happened.
|3.8.06 @ 1:36PM|#
Do you think these bans are being set up to increase smoking
so the tobacco industry doesn't go belly up?
Nah. I just think people want a socially acceptable way to express
either hatred or the desire to control other people. Which of the
following statements is considered socially acceptable
nowadays:
1. I hate all women! They smell nasty and are simply
disgusting!
2. I hate all black people! They smell nasty and are
simply disgusting!
3. I hate all smokers! They smell nasty and are simply
disgusting!
Now what about these:
1. I hate people who drive cars! Tell those losers to stop
stinking up my air!
2. I hate churches that burn incense! Tell those losers to
stop stinking up my air!
3. I hate people who smoke! Tell those losers to stop
stinking up my air!
(I'm not filled with hatred, you see; I'm a caring, sensitive
person who loves children and the environment and wants everybody
to be healthy and happy. That's my motivation. Really.)
Captain Holly|3.8.06 @ 2:08PM|#
Libertarians don't like theft. That is an arbitrary line as
well, but most people agree with it. We've banned theft. That's how
these things work: Interaction between annoyer and the annoyed.
When there are enough sufficiently annoyed, the annoyer is screwed.
That's how it works.
We ban theft because there is a real, tangible,
quantifiable injury to the victim. If I'm walking through
the park and someone steals my wallet (putting aside the very
likely possibility that they would end up with several .40 caliber
holes in their skin), I have actually suffered a real
loss.
If I'm walking through the park and I happen to smell some
cigarette smoke I have suffered nothing but a transitory
irritation. There is no real injury, other than my
temporary discomfort.
In my book, making sure that no one is ever bothered by anything is
not a valid exercise of state power.
|3.8.06 @ 2:13PM|#
"just like the current smoking ban movement doesn't try and ban
tobacco outright
No; they're smart enough to take it one step at a time. Like the
anti-abortion folks used to be before South Dakota happened."
I think the slippery slope you worry about is more likely to slip
the other way (particularly with something this innocuous). Things
tend to regress to the mean rather than the extremes (despite
occasional excursions resulting from passionate freaks... more
passion involved with abortion).
"you are one uptight dude"
Actually my message is to mellow out, not get so worked up, quit
being so uptight... not uptight here. Give the crazy commies a
break, quit harshing our power buzz... resistance is futile.
|3.8.06 @ 2:17PM|#
Captain
"We ban theft because there is a real, tangible, quantifiable
injury to the victim."
Nope. Taking your wallet is not an injury. It is an annoyance. You
arbitrarily assume that property loss is an injury. But ownership
is just a cultural convention. If we lived by "losers weepers"
rules in our culture, you couldn't claim an injury. Failure to
discriminate again.
Now if the guy had to hurt you to get it, then we could take about
a real tangible injury.
|3.8.06 @ 2:26PM|#
We ban theft because there is a real, tangible, quantifiable
injury to the victim. If I'm walking through the park and someone
steals my wallet . . . . I have actually suffered a real loss. If
I'm walking through the park and I happen to smell some cigarette
smoke I have suffered nothing but a transitory irritation. There is
no real injury, other than my temporary discomfort.
I was going to make a sarcastic remark about this, something about
people trying to say that real loss and temporary discomfort are
one and the same, but Not That's response to this comment makes my
efforts moot.
|3.8.06 @ 3:08PM|#
"people trying to say that real loss and temporary discomfort
are one and the same"
Read carefully, and you will see that is not what I am claiming. It
is a very finely graded continuum. The argument is about where to
draw the boundary between those things which warrant state
intervention or not. Too many people here think that there is some
real line between one type of harm and another, rather than
realizing that it is an ever-moving target that is negotiated
between citizens via a process that includes a recognition of both
majority and minority power. Libertarians often claim that the
distinctions they make are based on reason and principle... failing
to recognize that the underlying assumptions/principles they use to
draw logical conclusions are just as arbitrary as the
opposition.
I belabour the point here because the H&R crowd tends towards
attacks on the motivation behind the actions of those that oppose
their viewpoint rather than the merit of their position (pretending
that the libertarian position is the logically consistent one). The
ban supporters are not less informed, intelligent, moral,
reasonable, or principled than those that oppose them. They don't
base their support for the ban on hate or a need to control. They
just disagree with you on what actions warrant intervention.
|3.8.06 @ 3:21PM|#
"The ban supporters are not less informed, intelligent, moral,
reasonable, or principled than those that oppose them. They don't
base their support for the ban on hate or a need to control."
And you know this, how?
What it really boils down to is this: Do you believe in might makes
right?
There is no way to either support, enact, or enforce these bans
without subscribing to that principle (at least on this
subject).
The libertarian position consistently rejects the initiation of
force, might does not make right.
|3.8.06 @ 3:30PM|#
"The libertarian position consistently rejects the initiation of
force, might does not make right."
That is the assumption, but when put into practice, it advocates
force for certain pragmatic goals just like everyone else (e.g.,
state force to protect your property from theft-- again, the
argument is about where to draw the force line, not whether a force
line exists). Anti-smoking ordinances only apply force after
someone has broken them, just as anti-theft ordinances apply force
after something has been stolen. In that sense neither initiates
force, they react with force.
The only position that avoids state force is anarchism. Once you
allow state force in, you are arguing about where to draw the
line.
As WC Fields said....
You know the story.
Captain Holly|3.8.06 @ 3:36PM|#
Too many people here think that there is some real line
between one type of harm and another, rather than realizing that it
is an ever-moving target that is negotiated between citizens via a
process that includes a recognition of both majority and minority
power.
If I understand you correctly, you're basically stating that
whatever a majority wants, a majority gets. Because unless you have
some solid distinctions based on "reason and principle" the
majority will always eventually get its way.
That, and the fact that you seem to be incapable of distinguishing
between real and imagined hurts makes me wonder if you're simply
not trolling here.
|3.8.06 @ 3:37PM|#
>>thought California already has the most
restrictive
>>auto-emission regulations in the country.
>
>When you have as many cars as California does, you've
>still got some nasty air. Plus, air pollution and wind
don't
>have a hell of a lot of respect for political boundaries.
California's air is *much* better than it used to be, despite the
much larger number of people and cars. Compare some 30 year old
pictures of LA with ones from today if you don't believe me.
California's problem isn't the number of cars, it's the number of
*old* cars, as California's climate is gentle on cars. One badly
polluting old car, literally, puts out as much pollution as
thousands of 2005 era cars. California, bizarrely, taxes new cars
at much higher rates than old cars, which exacerbates the problem.
If they were serious about pollution, new cars would be real cheap
to register, and old cars would be expensive so as to encourage
their demolition and recycling. The "poor lobby" would be all over
that, so it's politically impossible to do the right thing.
|3.8.06 @ 3:45PM|#
California's air is *much* better than it used to be,
despite the much larger number of people and cars. Compare some 30
year old pictures of LA with ones from today if you don't believe
me
Oh, I believe you. I'm just willing to bet that if you take any
cubic foot of outside air in California, extract the pollution from
it, and then determine where that pollution comes from, car-based
pollution will vastly outweigh cigarette pollution.
Which is why I have little respect for people who use clean air as
a justification for anti-cigarette laws.
|3.8.06 @ 3:49PM|#
"...(e.g., state force to protect your property from theft--
again, the argument is about where to draw the force line, not
whether a force line exists). Anti-smoking ordinances only apply
force after someone has broken them, just as anti-theft ordinances
apply force after something has been stolen. In that sense neither
initiates force, they react with force."
Huh????? Theft requires the thief to forcefully take something.
Otherwise it would be charity from the victim, not theft. The
states use of force is reactive
The anti-smoking ordinances apply were there is no use of force. In
those private places, lighting up would be (and was) permitted by
the owner. The states use of force is pre-emptive.
"The only position that avoids state force is anarchism. Once you
allow state force in, you are arguing about where to draw the
line."
I'll give you that one. Although the libertarian position draws
that with what is known in legal terms is a bright line, a single
bright line. Not a multitude of inconsitent ones.
|3.8.06 @ 4:53PM|#
Jeffiek,
I can steal from you without force (using stealth). This is why I
am not talking about murder or assault, where force is part of the
action we are reacting to. In theft, force is used in reaction to
an action that doesn't (inherently) involve force. The law against
such action is pre-emptive in the same sense that the smoking bans
are.
The trouble with the "bright line" thing... it is different for
every individual libertarian, as far as I can tell, and it usually
involves personal taste (i.e., it is drawn around the activities
that are important to me--despite the ability to refer people to
the concept of negative obligation, since obligations are as
probematic to define as rights).
In this sense libertarians are just like everyone else.
Holly,
I think you misunderstand my position. The term "recognition of
majority and minority power" involves the complex calculation that
the majority has to make. I may be in the majority on one issue and
the minority on another. If I choose to trample too heavily on the
minority when I am in the majority I can set up a practice that
will bite me in the ass later. If I am in the minority and make
much ado about nothing, I may, similarly, set up a situation
whereby minority positions are ignored as "whining." I think the
smoking issue is one of those issues that results in just this
trend amoung the mainstream. That is why I think it is not the best
strategic use of energy.
|3.8.06 @ 5:30PM|#
"I can steal from you without force "
And people wonder how lawyers can argue what the meaning of the
word is is.
|3.8.06 @ 6:09PM|#
With all due respect only a moron would argue that smoking a cigarette on the sidewalk and stealing someone's wallet are morally and legally equivalent.
|3.8.06 @ 6:41PM|#
Scott,
Not what was being argued, but I don't expect you to take the time
to think about the argument in an environment where this
"[once] the anti-smokers succeed in wiping smoking off the face of
the earth, I doubt they'll be content to say "Cool; now that we've
reached our goal let's just go home and live our lives." ... So who
will the next official evil group be?"
statement (and others like it) are taken at face value without
questioning the thinking that underpins their assertion.
Sincerely, a moron.
|3.8.06 @ 7:15PM|#
I think it is time for a law that protects smokers from "second hand good intentions". It is necessary because every day, smokers are bombarded with unwanted hot air from anti-smoking zealots that smells like shit and causes extreme discomfort and also just because there should be a law that makes being an insufferable busybody a capital crime.
|3.8.06 @ 7:51PM|#
I humbly suggest the government of California, assist Calabasas in freeing itself from the tyranny of big tobacco, by withholding all cigarette tax revenue from the city.
|3.8.06 @ 8:32PM|#
"I think it is time for a law that protects smokers from "second
hand good intentions"."
Those anti-smoking commercials on TV are helping me a lot. I watch
far less TV.
|3.8.06 @ 11:50PM|#
Not That -
You're attempt to paint this particular libertarian position into a
corner of inconsistency fails everytime you equate theft to other
non-force anoyances such as smoking.
One of the very tennants of freedom is property rights. If I can
not secure my food, shelter, and clothing, then I am not free.
Anyone willing to take property from me, is therefore committing a
forceful act against my freedom.
A losers-weepers society may not agree with this position, but a
free society must.
I do agree with your point that people aren't attempting to
institute these bans for hate or control - they are doing so
because they believe they this will make society a better place to
live.
This however doesn't mean that they are correct. Good intentions
and paved roads, ya know?
Anyway... you, and they, are simply arguing tyranny by the majority
and nothing else.
Any attempt to disguise this in "gotcha" games only seeks to
obfuscate the underlying premise of freedom, in particular property
rights.
|3.9.06 @ 3:39AM|#
Probably too late in the thread to be seen, but I gotta say
it:
I can't see how smoking in public places is anymore defensible
than emptying one's wastebasket onto the sidewalk.
I'll take the analogy to the next logical step, Warren. Freedom of
speech- that antiquated thing that should be limited with our
Living Constitution(tm). The 'garbage speech' that some people spew
is like emptying one's wastebasket onto the sidewalk. It must be
stopped.
|3.9.06 @ 5:17AM|#
The logic of forcing people to set a good example for the
kids�which also would justify banning fat people and motorcyclists
from public places�reduces adults to the level of children whenever
they venture out of their homes.
But maybe fat people really should be banned from public places,
except in the those cases where non-fat people cannot be reasonably
expected to appear...
|3.9.06 @ 4:55PM|#
SixSigma...
Nice to see someone actually address the point I am making (at
least partially-- since I haven't equated theft and smoking...they
are different points on a continuum...grey, not black and white,
dominates in the realm of politics).
"One of the very tennants of freedom is property rights. If I can
not secure my food, shelter, and clothing, then I am not free.
Anyone willing to take property from me, is therefore committing a
forceful act against my freedom."
This is treated as an axiom by libertarians. My point is that it is
not axiomatic for most people. It is required if you want to define
theft as injury, but it is not necessarily true. I can operate
rationally under a different set of assumptions (e.g., only
physical force counts as force, or psychological irritation counts
as force, take your pick). Individual property rights are not
logically required for a free society to operate. Failure to see
that the assumption that they are is an unanalyzed premise weakens
any attempt to engage others who do not automatically equate
property rights with freedom. It can also lead to the unsupported
premise many here express: that attempts to regulate a behavior are
motivated by anti-freedom-need-to-control urges.
To say that I am arguing tyranny of the majority is an inaccurate
schematic of my argument regarding the process by which
heterogeneous groups come to consensus on issues. The point is that
there will always be a need to balance the rights of various
interest groups within a society. When a minority position losses,
it is not always because their position was not considered in the
equation. When harm to the minority it minimal and benefit to the
majority is large, minority harm may be accepted. When harm to the
minority is large compared to majority benefit, minority harm may
outweigh majority benefit. Many cities in current US society seem
to consider the harm to smokers minimal. Calabasas is an outlier in
the discussion.
|3.9.06 @ 5:38PM|#
"I see, it's too expensive to uphold people's rights, so that
makes it "indefensible". Let's see, our scocial structure would
crumble if; we were to�
Legalize drugs
Repeal zoning laws
Privatize Social Security
Etc."
Oh, really? Waaaaaaaaaite a minute, is that sarcasm? Isn't that
some of the basic Libertarian ideology?
Part of me is growing out of smoking (for my personal benefit,
noone else's), but another part wants to keep puffing well past
it's criminalized or tolereated (my life-style choice, DON'T JUDGE
ME!)
Noone cares about the people that don't give a hoot about whatever
is being loudly shouted about. Most people don't care, or tolerate,
smoke. This country is not driven by the majority, it's driven by
the loudest. That pisses me off. Moderates, please join me in a
chorus of "I DON'T CARE!" and drown out the extremes.
Coudn't there have been a compromise? Business owners could still
allow smoking in their establishment, but place a sign outside
stating "We Allow Smoking". Maybe add an extra tax on businesses
that allow smoking as well. See, incentive not to permit smoking,
smoke-haters know where NOT to go, and smokers still have their
places.
However, at least in Cali, it's only a matter of time before it's
illegal to even smoke in your home. If you can't step outside, then
you are smoking inside. Many smokers with kids step outside. Follow
me so far. Therefore, the state of California is forcing parents to
harm their children! It'll also make the home "toxic" for the next
resident.
I've tried to be a curteous smoker. I ask if the people around me
mind if I smoke, even in my own car with someone I think may be a
non-smoker (but never my home.) I excuse myself if there is an
issue.
There are things I find offensive, and I actually would fight for
someone's right to do some of them (your choice, not my problem.)
There's a vast difference between what I'd tolerate and what I like
(i.e. gangster rap.)
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245