Smoking Bans

I'm in NY a lot and I can tell you who hates this law...comics.It sucks that we can't smoke on stage anymore. At first we were getting away with claiming that we were on stage and the cig was considered a prop - it is still considered a prop in NY on Broadway plays though.But, clubs are so small in the city that people began to follow through with the smoking ban, and now we can have a drink on stage but no cig to follow. Again, it sucks. Honestly, yes it is, perhaps, in close quarters, as with the comedy clubs in the city. I guess peoples health is at risk. But as a smoker, fuck them.I forget which comic had this joke but it went something like: "If I don't give a shit about my lungs what makes you think I care about yours?". All joking aside though, I am willing to be democratic about it. If the majority of society wants to do away with smoking in public places, cool.It's my habit not theirs so I get it. But again, it sucks.I don't however agree that on public property it should be banned. That decision should be left to the owner of the property.To Taz:Would you equally reject public marijuana smoking?How about specified "coffee shops" where legal marijuana is smoked?I know that's off topic Straggler but I'm curious if marijuana cares with it the same rejection as cigs seem to have.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi Straggler, I agree. The current laws seem effective enough and for the most part, my friends and I who do smoke have found it ok to deal with. I usually go outside after a set and have a cig and it's cool. Anyone who is a smoker and is demanding about it should reevaluate the reasons why they feel their rights are being infringed upon. It's similar to when I go out to the West Coast(LA - Cali). You can legally smoke pot in your parked car since it is considered private property. It freaks you out at first if you're not ready for that, but like you said, the freedom to do so is nice...and I did so! All I wanted to do in LA was drive some where and "park". I worry though that some may take issue with that type of segregation. People will eventually complain.BUT, one thing that has worked out here in the states, and may be applicable for the "coffee shops", are cigar bars. No one seems to take issue with these either. They are every where here in Miami due to our large Cuban community and I've seen them work out well in other states. People have a different opinion of cigar bars and, I think, cigars in general.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi Huntard, Oh the dilemma...hmmm, what to do, what to do? Roll a fatty good sir with nothing but pure White Willow, wouldn't want to ruin my lungs wih tabacco.I'm not surprised though, which is why I asked Taz about public and private pot smoking. I didn't think pot had the same negative stigma as cigarettes, for now though. If enough of these places become popular, or, Jebus willing, it is legalized completely, eventually the smoking ban will absorb pot smokers as well - like cigar smokers.Perhaps though, people won't want second hand cigarette smoke because of the health issues, but second hand weed, well, that's just cost efficient.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

I would suspect that, to some degree, they are all harmful. There's a new(?) brand of cigarettes that claim to be "all natural". I smoked one and it was smoother, but I assume harmful nonetheless. Were you a smoker before? I heard this from former smokers a lot. Honestly I do too, except for the occasional cigar after dinner in a steak house. - (that allows it).

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Brownies, bro!!!

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

If people don't enjoy the smoke, eating is definitely the way to go.You just have to know how to make it.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi Stile,As always, great post.I think you hit the crux of the matter, the financial gain/loss that the government, and insurance companies with strong lobbiest, are concerned about. A very good point.But, let's not get too ahead of the issue. Remember, it's all checks and balance with the government; one side of the coin can't profit for too long before the other side feels the burden.My point: I think you are right that the insurance companies have hurt the tabacco industry, and in turn have profited from it, or, maybe spent less because of it. But, I think you have under estimated the power of the Tabacco Lobby.They are very strong and are also tied to pharmaceutical companies, that provide post-smoking effect medicines, and need the tabacoo companies to keep making these products.Perhaps I too am going with a Conspiracy Theory, but it seems like both sides have always maintained a certain level of control, for and against, the tabacco products, and I see no reason to think they won't maintain some level of control now.Perhaps not so much with this administration, but eventually the ball will roll back into their court and they'll sway a few politicians.For now it seems like the insurance companies are winning, and spending less because of it. But the tabacco industry is still pumping out their product at the same rate and people still smoke, so perhaps it's not so much that tabacco will suffer, more so I think people will get screwed by their insurance companies if they are smokers.It's an addictive product. It makes people sick. If the government and insurance companies were really concerned with the publics health they would simply outlaw the product, like they did with DDT pestisides. Point is they don't want to be too extreme to either side because BIG money is made on both sides, so it profits both camps to keep things balanced.Health care providers needs sick people. Tabacco makes people sick. Even if no one wants to admit it, they depend on each other like cops and criminals do.Your thoughts?- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi Straggler, Then feel very lucky about that. It is a different issue in the states with privatized insurance. Once the private sector gets a hold of it it's all about profit. The tax on cigarttes is more of a way for the government to say "hey, look, we're doing something about it, we care, we're taxing the shit". But what happens is the people buying it, which hasn't decreased in amount, are simply paying more for cigarettes and in turn the government gets their money.How else do you tink the tabacco lobby gets what they want? - "Fuck it, tax the shit out of our product, people are still going to buy it, what do we care?".The government is happy collecting the extra tax money, they get to look good in the publics eye by showing how they're "seriously taxing cigarettes" because they're "against smoking and the health risks it causes", and Joe Douche Bag is getting taxed up the ass for a product that legally addicts you to it causing you to need it rather than want it, so you're gonna fucking buy it at any cost.So I'm not too big an advocate for heavily taxing products, especially addictive products, because it gives all of the power to big buisness. And usually the tax payer feels the burden of government greed.Legalize the products and tax them fairly, YES. I'm all for that. Which would still be a great tax revenue.But, tax it heavily to line your pockets with money, while giving the illusion that you are doing it for health reasons, NO. That's bullshit.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

The point is that "feelings" and "I personally don't like this" IS how people decide what is right or wrong and vote guilded by these feelings of dissatisfaction. Then why don't they simply outlaw the product?If the health risks are sooo high and they are sooo concerned then why not make the product completely illegal to make and sell?Why, because the "fucking doctors", whether they are right about the health risks or not, don't decide what becomes policy or law. We the people decide through votes - unless, again, the product becomes illegal - like with pot. Your "opinion" or "feelings" about pot are irrelevant, becuase the product is illegal, but tabacoo is legal, and as long as it is legal then the opinions of the users, which are the main source of revenue for the product - (both for the tabacoo industry AND the government tax on tabacoo) - are of value. Tabacoo is not illegal, so NO the government has no say so as to what you do with the legal product.Would you run a welder inside your home with your kids around? Would you run your car in your garage with your kids in it? Would you BBQ in your home with your family sitting inside?NO - this is common sense. So should smoking in your home with your kids be.Laws to regulate this are supid and need not be inforced. People continue to rely on the government to regulate things that should be common sense and all that does is make us more dependant on the government to tell us what we should do.It is the same with abortion. It's not that I'm pro killing babies because I am pro choice, I'm pro human intelligence and pro independent thinking. Make your own choice and don't be a fucking idiot about it.Smoking with your kids in the house is stupid to do, if you are someone who lacks the ability to make that decision then maybe your particular DNA shouldn't exist. Stop making laws to keep people from doing stupid things, fuck'em if they can't be adults about it. If we start allowing government control for these moral issues then we've lost our ability to decide whats right and wrong for ourselves and we might as well stop taking part in a democratic process because we've proven ourselves to incompetent to make conscience decisions about petty matters.Man up and make your own choices for yourselves and let the government handle real issues, which they seem to need to concentrate on a lot more.- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

"Feeling" like something is good or bad and saying "I personally don't like this..." does not remove rational determination from the equation.- I have a "feeling" based off of my rational analysis of the situation.- "I personally don't like this" on the basis of my rational interpretation of the situation.Both seem fine to me, unless we deem the person unfit to make a rational determination on their own? Yes, and the need to tell someone else what to do with their body was also a factor.You also do not establish how my "feeling" or "I persoanlly don't like this" is made irrationally? My "feelings" and "intuitions" have a basis for them, which I believe, are rational. So, what do you do when 2 sides, or many sides, differ in their opinion, you go to a vote. Both sides can present their case and we'll democratically give the majority the win. But to inforce it without letting others decide democratically seems injust.Now, note that I'm not saying smokers would win the vote, I think we will lose. BUT, my point is not just that we take this to a vote, BUT, why don't we take it to a vote? IMO, because Big Tabacoo will suffer tremendously, and, since they lobby VERY well, the government steps in to "handle the situation" and pass out a few laws to give the illusion that this is some how about peoples health risk.IT'S NOT.As long as the government can regulate the taxes on Big Tabacoo they make huge tax profits. IF the American public took it to a vote and cigarettes get baned or outlawed completely then there is no more HUGE tax revenue from the tabacoo industry, and Big Gov can't have that.So they fuck around a bit, ban it in a few places, other places they don't, they get the public to argue amoungst itself about whether it's "fair" or "not fair" to ban it, and they let it drag on and drag on for as long as they can and make as much tax revenue from this product that they can.It is not in the governments best interest for this to go to a vote, and why should they have to when people like yourself are willing to let them make the decisions for us, which they can then manipulate for their benefit.As you can see, they've done absolutely nothing to Big Tabacoo. Tabacoo is not hurting one bit. The only ones who suffer, as usual, are: (1) The people who are buying cigs at outrageous prices. (2) Those who truly do enjoy cigars and cigar bars and now don't get to enjoy this. (3) The owners of the establishments that had to close down due to their only income being from cigar smoking patrons.Now, what is gained from from these 3 things not existing?And if they did exist, what suffers? I understood the points to the discussion. Maybe my point was lost in my reply.No the government shouldn't have the right to do it, for reasons that I stated above, but also, do you really think that the ban is for health reasons?The problem is that these bans, in certain areas and not the whole nation, are an illusion, a distraction, something to rally a few supporters with and pretend like the government cares.If it truly was for health reasons the product would be outlawed completely. It is not. It is simply regulated BECAUSE it is not in the best interest of the government to rid themselves of this very lucrative product.So they ban a few areas and create this illusion so those sensitive to smoking feel like something is being done. But again, this is a bullshit illusion that is transparent, at least to me.Why let a bunch of local bars suffer just so the government can continue filling their pockets with unjust tax revenue from the working class people?Ban the product completely. Why can't we do that? Do people have the "right" to smoke all of a sudden? Fuck it - I smoke - but I'm totally cool with making the entire product illegal. But guess who don't want that? The same people giving you the bullshit about health issues.Why don't they take it to a vote a really let the American public decide what do about cigarettes? No. This is the government protecting ITSELF from the idiots who will vote and make this product completely illegal. No. The government does tell you where to consume alcohol, because we've given it the power to do so, it can't do shit unless we allow it to.But, by now this is almost a moot point, since so many are willing to allow more and more governemnt control. It starts with an inch - next you know you're taking a pregnacy test - "Oh shit, is abortion still legal?" If that's what the citizens living in that country/state/county/etc decide for themselves then yes, the government can inforce the laws that it's citizens voted for.Have you forgotten that they work for you? I was using one of the terms used by the pro-life people. Sorry. And you are right. No. The point I'm trying to make is this: if a democratic society wants to leaglize murder, and everyone, or the majority vote for it, then ok, murder is legal.BUT, do you think that if taken to a vote we would simply be stupid enough to vote murder to be legal? Are we the people that incapable of deciding that murder is wrong? Do you need government to create the law for you or do you want them there to inforce the law for you?If you choose the latter, then you should let this go to a vote and let the public decide AND THEN the government can inforce whatever WE decide. As it is though, that has not happened, because the gov doesn't want it to and because we haven't asked for it - or made enough of an impact if we have asked for it in the past. It's not about making the law, it's about allowing the government to make the law instead of you, the citizen, and rightful boss of your government, deciding what should be law.The government is there to inforce it once the citizens have voted for it. I agree that it's not about morality and ethics.If they had interest in the publics health many would not be without health care. If they truly had an interest in your health then they would make the product illegal - like I made the point in an earlier post to Stile about DDT pesticides.If you truly think/feel/believe that this is an issue about the publics health and the government is trying to help you then, in my opinion, you are allowing yourself to be lied to.- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

You can always make a case for individual issues, but if your attempt, with these laws, is to reduce the death toll, you are not going to do that by simply outlawing seatbelts.People will always do stupid things and get themselves killed. Cars just happen to be one of the ways, and only in major accidents where maybe a seatbelt would have saved their lives...maybe.So what would the seatbelt law actually be effective for? Another safety precaution for another thing we created that when used incorrectly can, under certain circumstances, cause death? - Why?Why persue this one particular product(cars) and case(seatbelts), and make laws to govern certain specifics about it? Not wearing a seatbelt only matters if you get in a severe enough accident, and then maybe a seatbelt would have helped, maybe.It is against the law for me to drive without wearing my glasses. There is an actual law that requires people to wear their glasses while driving, but common sense would tell you that if you need glasses how else would you see without them, so how could you drive without them? Do you think we actually need this to be a law?If that law suddenly disappeared, without any fuss, just erase it off the books - so to speak, do you think there would be an automatic increase in deaths due to people not wearing their glasses? Or do you think it would be buisness as usual, with only really stupid people, which I'm sure has happened, refusing to wear their glasses while driving, and the rest of normal society wearing them as required 'cause we're are not that incapable of knowing whats right for us after all?How effective are these laws and are they really protecting us from ourselves?

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

I believe that you can surely find some statistics, conducted by the states, that will probably show a decline, but I question the honesty behind such statistics. For the simple reason that the state benefits from the the tickets issued, so it is in their best interest to show positive results from the these statistics.But, my point was that sealtbelts in cars do help when used and IF one is in an accident that is severe enough for the seatbelts to be effective. I think airbags, which are automatic, are much better than seatbelts.Overall though, we will not reduce the amount of people who die from stupid things...like not wearing a seatbelt, or any other dumb thing that humans neglect to do. So, seatbelt enforcement is good, maybe, but not overall. People will do what they want. Seatbelts are just another ticket the police can issue you when they stop you for a traffic violation. It is just another source of revenue and the fact that it reduces deaths, if in fact it really does, is the angle by which the state can continue to enforce the seatbelt laws. Deny the evidence no, you're right. We cannot deny the evidence specifically. BUT, we can question the states motive behind such statistics and question whether or not they are being honest. If you can, like me, realize the value of such a law for the state then you may start to doubt statistics shown to us by the government. This reminds me of the movie "Scent of a Woman" with Pachino, when he drives the Lambo through the backstreets of NY. Crazy shit does happen and yes that is a funny story. If I use it you will get a huge credit, which is to say, I'll personally thank you...by email. lol Yes, but would you not agree, because the law does exist, that if it did not exist people would still wear their glasses? Whether the law exists or not people will make the choice on their own. The results of the seatbelt laws being enforced, if I was to try and find one positive thing about it, is that more information is brought to the publics eye about the positive results of wearing the seatbelts, and in my opinion, that has been why people have taking to use the seatbelt more often, and NOT because of some minor law that really isn't enforced that much. I've only dealt with it after being pulled over for something else.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

No. It's just that there aren't as many motorcycles than there are cars, so the fines are minimal. Where as with cars, everyone has one, so it benefits those imposing the law to do it on an object that people can't seem to do without.Sure the state "technically" owns your drivers licence, since they issue it, but you use your car to go to work, where you pay taxes, use roads and tolls, buy gasoline, and pretty much keep the economy rolling. If it wasn't for us, the citizens, using our cars and going to wrok and paying taxes and using the roads and paying for tolls, the state would have shit for revenue, so, maybe they should be cautious as to who owns who here.Everyone give back their drviers licences, just for a year, and don't use any cars, see how quick the state drops to their knees an is willing to negotiate on that whole "we own your licence" crap.This won't happen of course because we are not that motivated to gain control and are much more willing to accept being controled, but we forget the actual power we as citizens have so we remain subdued and controled and told to "either deal with it or shut up about it".Basically, we as citizens have given up our control to the states and allowed them to impose anything they so desire without being able to challenge it because we are too busy to give a shit.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Yes, but follow all of the laws that are attached to each of these things, whether you like it or not, or give up your "privilages" if not.Roads, defense, and if we get healthcare, will still come from our tax dollars, which I agree that we should have it this way. But the state doesn't "own" shit. These services are services made available when AND IF we choose to get our asses to work and feed the machine that drives this country. We citizens are the fuel, our sweat and our labor maintains this government, this country, they provide us with a service, they don't "own" the rights to any of it. As long as you're one man bitching, you will reserve that right. Do it as a large enough group where you can get your "bitching information" out to a mass audience, and you will be shut down.Why didn't they allow Al Jazeera to braodcast in the US again?

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

YesThink of it like an argument with a creationist, if the Bible didn't exist would we be a bunch of murderers and rapist with no morality? NoSeatbelts are a new feature, relatively speaking. People, in my opinion, have just become more educated on the benefits of using it, just as we once did on the benefits of not murdering each other. Laws are only there to scare honest people, I doubt they do much as a means of teaching things properly.Education has been the key, I think. But I guess we differ on that, cool. I don't. I do it because of the safety reasons, and I did it before any law was even thought of, in my state. Show me the evidence for that, specifically for the "law".I do not doubt that it has risen, but so has the use of any product after a while, when it's benefits are fully understood and we educate oursleves and our family about it. I do not doubt the results, but in my opinion, this has been due to education and not fear of being given a ticket. Perhaps I'm being slightly optimistic in thinking that people learned due to education and not fear tactics, maybe I'm wrong. I am not saying the evidence is right OR wrong. It's probably true.But, ask yourself, if you were the state and you made good money by issuing tickets, would you attribute the "rise in usage" and "decline in deaths" to your law oOR to people having learned to use the product propely and being better educated on it? - Which would you prefer and benefit from, if you were the state?Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky