At midnight tonight, Ohio's ridiculously restrictive new smoking law will go into effect. I am torn. On the one hand, I sympathize with Thomas Jefferson, who swore eternal hostility to every form of tyranny over the mind of Man. On the other hand, I sympathize with the Pilgrims and Puritans, who began the long process of building America and didn't feel obliged to put up with any nonsense while doing so.
There is one thing I can tell you for sure, though: the new law will in no way contribute one whit to making Americans any more prepared to resist willing martyrs of Jihad. It will, however, make some further contribution to transforming Americans into wussies so terrified of death that they will willingly give up any amount of personal liberty in exchange for an incremental improvement in their statistically-projected lifespans.
So, fellow Ohioans, all I can tell you for now is: good luck with that.
ID:23857
 Dec 6 2006, 6:27 pm
|
|
|
Dec 6 2006, 6:36 pm
|
|
Elation
 |
Or, y'know, smoking is gross
|
I agree with that guy, its downright atrocious.
| |
It's still a freedom that people have died to protect. I love this country more than my own life, and even I can say we could use a few changes.
That sucks Gug. You could always come join me ere' in PA, the weathers nice and we can smoke wherever we want to. | |
It's the smokers who are too lazy and vain to invent a second-hand smoke filter which would hold their drugs and be exhaled into. They could patent it and sell it to their fellow addicts. They're not American enough to embrace the capitalism!
| |
You will be healthy or we'll shoot you!
| |
You know, I never thought I'd see smoking and religious freedom brought up in the same post.
Now I've seen everything. It's like I've been devoured by Cthulhu. | |
It's unbelievable, isn't it? The same law went into effect here in WA last year. Ugh.
The next thing you know, they'll start banning certain types of foods that aren't good for you. Oh wait... | |
Second-hand smoke is the foulest thing ever invented by mankind, so any ban on smoking in public places is just fine by me.
SilkWizard - It's not as if people like eating trans fat. Do you think it should be legal to serve food containing arsenic? Because I don't. Banning trans fat is just a logical extension of that. | |
Where in Ohio do you live? I'm just across the border in Beaver County, PA
| |
I don't see any problem with this new law...
People don't need to be smoking indoors on any property but that of the private type, anyways (and then only with the express consent of the owner/occupants of said property) Actually, now that I've mentioned consent, I'd say that people should be allowed to smoke on any premises, provided they can get the consent of all other occupants! Have fun running around the restaurant asking everyone to sign the release form! Wait, we might as well just ban it altogether to save people the trouble... Done? Good... The fact is that being a smoker shouldn't grant people any priveleges... It's a curse they've all brought upon themselves, and if something comes up that makes their life worse, then I'm tempted to call that a Good Thing... Maybe it will push them that much closer to making the right choice and quitting... I'm not really pro- forcing-my-ideals-on-others, but I am pro- not-forcing-your-problems-on-others... I can't exactly have sex in public places, right? Why should people be allowed to smoke? | |
Being an Ohioan, I can already taste the fresher air of public places, and it's only started today.
I'm personally not a fan of being stuck in "smoking" sections of restaurants (for the company I carry), only to have a bunch of foul twits blowing their fumes in my face. Nor do I like sitting in a room reasonably distant from all smokers to still find that their smoke can come and "smoke me out," so to speak. I personally think that smoking is outright stupid. And that's not to mention that all of the sidestream smoke has this horrible smothering effect to anyone that doesn't spend their life with a ton of paper-wrapped chemicals lit up and dangling from their mouth. That these businesses are protesting it astounds me. "People can't smoke inside so now we lose business." Right, the cornerstone of a restaurant is the fact that they can stick a small ash-tray in a table and tell people to light up. If they can't attract customers with the actual services that they offer, perhaps they need to change their strategies anyways. | |
SuperSaiyanGokuX wrote:
I can't exactly have sex in public places, right? Why should people be allowed to smoke? Well, I think you've made the wrong analogy. However, along the same lines, I can think of more of a problem, something that involves the consent only of the person doing it. What's more, it's something that quite famously got someone in trouble. Peewee Hermon, and his masturbation stint. So he has an addiction to masturbate. Maybe he thinks he needs it to survive (and with a laugh like that, he probably does). Maybe smokers feel the need to smoke a lot? Well, neither case should be doing it out in public; a smoker can handle his or her business "later," and so can Peewee. | |
I'm agreeing with Crispy here.
You Americans champion your freedoms and proclaim proudly how they would 'die for their rights' (sometimes I wish you guys would start practising what you preach. Hint hint, Silkwizard. =P). This is fine however- freedom is an important thing! BUT, die for something goddamn worth dying for. =P Smoking is GROSS. Would you defend your right to eat mud? Would you defend your right to drink toilet water*? Thank god we have communists like Hiead on our side. ^_~ *ironically both eating mud and drinking toilet water are much more defendable rights than smoking anyway, since smoking kills other people, whereas the other two don't. | |
Sex in public places tends to be banned for moral reasons. If that was all smoking was then I'd support people's right to do it. However, banning smoking is more along the lines of banning sex in public places due to fluids passing disease. The unwilling have a health issue imposed upon them.
| |
If a business wants to allow smoking, then they ought to have the freedom to do so. If certain customers don't like to be around smokers, they won't do business there. It's that simple.
What about bars? What about Bingo Halls? Hell, not even our local cigar bar is legal anymore. It's one thing to protect people's rights. This law actually takes some of our rights away under the guise of protecting them. | |
Meh, the same people who say you shouldn't be able to smoke pot in your own home then get pissed when they turn around and start banning other stuff....
It's not about freedom at all. It's about people wanting to not let others do stuff they don't like and then getting pissed when other people do that *exact same thing*. People only spout "freedom" when it comes to activities they don't oppose. Freedom of religion, but not in the bedroom. Freedom in the bedroom, but not what you eat. Blah, blah, blah. At this point, after knowing the government wiretap illegally, detains persons indefinitely, has participated or sanctioned torture, etc. I can't get too worked up about the government taking steps to limit smoking and consumption of manufactured trans fats. It's kinda like getting shot by someone and then worrying when they wrinkled your shirt.... | |
Well, this law was passed in New York about four years ago, so I say: haha, you guys got owned too! Okay, well, smoking killed my grandma last month so I quit smoking, and everytime I pass by somebody smoking a cigaratte I hold my breath. I now hate cigarattes. My grandma lost her life because of something she quit 20 years ago and because the side-effects of a cigaratte are long-term, it caught up to her at the age of 68. I realized how stupid cigarattes are. I call them cancer sticks now. Honestly, a cigaratte is cancer on a stick. I have no idea why I used to smoke them, and I hope it does not catch up to me like it did to my grandma. 68 is young nowadays. I wish cigarattes never existed.
| |
Ahh, there's a better fit, Hiead!
I was just going for the "something pleasurable, and often addictive, that others around me might not enjoy my doing" aspect, but it could go one step further with the "only one participant" detail... I don't see why businesses would bother fighting this, though... People still have to eat, and drinkers/singles will still want to go to the bar... If they're all smoke-free, then there's no competition in this respect... None of these businesses are losing out... (and you can't tell me that all of the smokers will just stay at home for the rest of their lives) Of course, I guess there are those that are on the state border, where a person can conveniently enough just travel a few more miles to get to a smoking establishment, but meh... | |
If a business wants to allow smoking, then they ought to have the freedom to do so. If certain customers don't like to be around smokers, they won't do business there. It's that simple. Here's the thing, though, due to the rules of competition, ALL establishments will have to allow smoking, or they'll be the ones missing out... Which restauranteur or bar owner wants to be the guy in town who loses all of the smokers' money because he made the "wrong" choice? So, you wind up with everyone allowing smoking, and you wind up giving the non-smokers no choice... | |