close

Discovered in

tml60

tml60
1,708 Favs

Find other sites about

Related Sites

  • Smoking Bans Motivated By Narcissism | United Liberty | Free Market - Individual Liberty - Limited Government

    I agree with you whole-heartedly. Before that, I want to address one sentiment: First, I'm not a smoker, so let's make it clear. Second, Smoking has been going on through time eternal. Entire cultures and civilizations have matured, with smoking as one one of the cultural backdrops. ... more

    Reviewed by reidercody Feb 16 2009, 07:38am ( 14 reviews ) • unitedliberty.org

    6,925 views
  • Showing 12 of 14
  • Reviews of the site
  • Join StumbleUpon or login to add a review! default avatar

  • Rated by geriartic1943 on Aug 03, 8:07pm

    I have never smoked but I suffer from COPD from second hand smoke. I don't like to be around smokers that are smoking.. That said, I am also against government mandating such things. While billgoode says these laws are for the overall good of society I must state that unless society is willing to outlaw all things that are bad for everyone. That is not something that society can possibly do. It will create more problems than cure, leading to more crime and suffering for society.

  • Rated by billgoode on Jun 20, 7:52am

    From the page: "one step closer to having the authority to intervene in other aspects of that private establishment, including what food is served, what drinks are served, what people are allowed in (which should be left to the discretion of the owner), what music is played, how loud the music is played," Hate to break it to you, but all of those things, with the exception of WHAT music is played, are already regulated at least to a certain degree by city and state governments. Last I checked a restaurant wasn't allowed to knowingly serve rotten meat, a location is required to have a liquor license to sell alcohol, stores/restaurants aren't allowed to discriminate against customers based on ethnicity, zoning laws and public noise ordinances determine how loud a venue can realistically play music. These type of regulations are put in place for the overall good of society, and a smoking ban in restaurants and other such places is not only legally sound, but further supports the cause of public health and safety that are supported by other regulations such as those mentioned above.

  • Rated by reidercody on Feb 16 2009, 7:38am

    I agree with you whole-heartedly. Before that, I want to address one sentiment: First, I'm not a smoker, so let's make it clear. Second, Smoking has been going on through time eternal. Entire cultures and civilizations have matured, with smoking as one one of the cultural backdrops. I'm not here to debate the merits of smoking, we all know it's harmful, but so are a lot of things that we participate in. Now, all of sudden in the last two decades, we've all become fanatical to the point where we seem smoking as "disgusting." Why haven't all the generations preceding us, thought it disgusting. Truth be told, it's no more disgusting than any other vice, it's just popular, trendy and faddish to say that, given our ' force it down your throat mentality." I'm sure if you had been born in an earlier time, you would have not thought smoking disgusting, in fact you probably wouldn;t have eevn given it a thought. It's the indoctrination into the way that we embrace ideas, counting them as positives or negatives to our thought process.the overload of information and the judmental aspects attached to it, make you thing it's disgusting in this day and time. In an earlier time, you most likely would not have those sentiments. We're truly conditioned by Ad, TV, News, etc.

  • Rated by remedyvisual on Feb 12 2009, 11:56am

    Yeah it's terribly narcissistic to ban all-day exposure to powerful carcinogens for restaurant and bar staff.

  • Rated by commerican on Feb 10 2009, 1:46pm

    While I would prefer the gummint not meddle with people's affairs, I also hope that smokers are responsible and caring enough to avoid smoking inside or near other people who do not smoke. Were this the case, I doubt very much that legislation would even be required. We can even leave aside the health aspect by changing the source of irritation. Suppose instead of smoke, imbibers use a spray bottle of vinegar and spray the area in front of their faces to enjoy the feeling. We all know vinegar is pretty safe, and even if a tiny droplet got in the eyes, it probably wouldn't be too bad. But how many of us would allow someone to spray the air near us with vinegar? How many of us would find it perfectly acceptable and not bothersome at all? We also know that vinegar doesn't give people a buzz, so of course no one does this. Yet even if they did, it wouldn't be nearly as irritating and discomforting as cigarette smoke.

  • Rated by gdamac on Feb 09 2009, 9:25pm

    This article is a pure joke. Why do smokers have the right to smoke wherever you want? Is there anything else we have a right to light on fire where ever we want? Can I smoke mug wart wherever I want? Or burn incense? Or sage? No. You're addicts, deal with it. As a former bartender and waiter, I say my right to work in a smoke free environment trumps your right to smoke a cigarette inside a restaurant. And to kalipsocs, thanks but I will tke years of study and research over what you would bet good money on 8 ways to Sunday. Whether you refuse to believe them, or not, facts are facts.

  • Rated by Everary on Feb 09 2009, 8:59pm

    Article = Good, Comments = Great.