Tuesday, October 02, 2007

And yet more dumb laws....

So Tennessee's ill-conceived and poorly-written smoking ban took effect yesterday. The law was sold, as these things often are, as being "for the children". The Guv has let some real motives slip in interviews and statements, however: it seems he's concerned about my health. He thinks I should use this ban as a chance to quit.

Hey, Phil, if I decided to take up setting myself on fire tomorrow, arguably even more hazardous to my health than smoking, it would still be none of your damn business.

44 comments:

triticale said...

I agree that it is none of my damn business, but I am asking you, please don't set yourself on fire.

Jason said...

I actually couldn't disagree more, but hey, its your world. I'm just a walkin thru it.

DBA Dude said...

Well at least you can still smoke in some bars - over here it is banned in any enclosed space.

The "big new idea" over here is that they have revised our Highway Code to include advice on not smoking while driving - got me so steamed that I had to post a rant about it last week.

DirtCrashr said...

They're pulling that same crap out here.

comatus said...

I used to think what a book you could write about the generation-long run-up to this: the political science, the astroturf PR, the monolith-industry conspiracies, the point-by-point demonization, all carried out in the activist media. Then it dawned. Those books were already written, during the run-ups to Prohibition, Jim Crow, the Jewish Question. Those are the books you read to learn how to do it.

We think we have a lot of "rights." What we have are a lot of "privileges," temporary indulgences and passing tolerations. Given time, we will all have our turn in the barrel. Welcome to the future, citizen.

comatus said...

Bars? You still have bars?
Clock's ticking.

Stan said...

Two words: chewing tobacco, you can do it almost anywhere.

bullwinkle said...

Well, drinking is legal and you can't do that anywhere you please. Does that bother you as well? I don't think waiting to smoke in private will kill you. I think this law is long overdue. My employer was not enforcing the previous rules related to no smoking on the job. Now, he has to eat this law. I can finally be free from it at work. I love this new law. Don't worry, you will get used to it. And if not, you can always quit smoking. That would be better for you in the long run.

Yosemite Sam said...

Bullwinkle makes me want to take up smoking just so I can blow it in his or her face.

bullwinkle said...

Bullwinkle makes me want to take up smoking just so I can blow it in his or her face.
---------------

This is just the type of attitude that brought on the smoking ban.

Yosemite Sam said...

Read my comment Mr Moose.

I DON'T SMOKE. I DON'T EVEN LIKE THE SMELL OF SMOKE. But your holier than thou, I know better then you attitude makes me sick.

Mr. Moose said...

Too bad... you missed my point because you are such a jughead. I drink but I obey the laws around drinking and driving. IMO, laws are created for a purpose. Namely because people abuse common sense. Personal habits are personal. The world does not belong to any specific group to force their negative habits upon others. Freedom is relative as long as it is not offensive to others. Common sense says you should keep your habits to yourself. But then common sense is not common at all today.

Tam said...

"My employer was not enforcing the previous rules related to no smoking on the job. Now, he has to eat this law."

So, rather than manning up and quitting to go find someplace to work that was a smoke-free environment (and you knew what you were getting into when you hired on, don't kid yourself), you cheered the guns of the state as they forced your employer to see things your way.

You're no friend of mine, Bullwinkle, and no friend of common sense, either.

bullwinkle said...

No... I was not willing to find another place to work, since I have invested 29 years. BTW, it was not just me who complained about it. My employer employs thousands. The company had daily issues about it. This may surprise you but the company was just hoping that this law would pass so they would not have to deal with it.

bullwinkle said...

If you want to throw blame, throw it at the workplaces that only made a half hearted attempt to separate the smokers from the non-smokers. We have fans all around us that suck the smoke in and then blow it in our faces. Cigarette smoke stuffs up my sinuses. I should not have to endure that on my job. My employer did their best but people were sneaking around smoking out of the designated areas when management was not around. They occasionally got caught. Management was more fed up with it than we were. Much of our management does not smoke, do you think they actually have smpathy for smokers? I don't think so.

bullwinkle said...

My father died of cancer at the age of 66. He was on oxygen for 10 years prior to his death. The cause of death was cancer, directly linked to smoking. The cancer started as a spot on the lung. I also had another family member who had throat cancer which was directly linked to years of smoking. You don't have any hope of convincing me that smoking won't harm you because I lived with smokers. I saw what it did to them. I know more about it than "YOU" do.

Yosemite Sam said...

"Too bad... you missed my point because you are such a jughead."

I got your point clear as crystal. You hate smoking and have no problem using the power of the state to enforce your personal preference. I dislike smoking but I would never think of using the guns of the state to force people to my will.

"I drink but I obey the laws around drinking and driving. IMO, laws are created for a purpose. Namely because people abuse common sense."

Common Sense says that these types of laws never have and never will work. People drank during Prohibition and will continue to smoke regardless of the law.

"Freedom is relative as long as it is not offensive to others"

Well bucko, I'm offended by your fascist spewings, and I think you need to shut the hell up. Now all I need to do is get the government to enforce my personal preference and get your computer confiscated.

Do you not see that according to your criteria, we have no freedom at all?

Bullwinkle said...

Try it ... BET YOU CAN'T DO IT

Yosemite Sam said...

Try what?

Bullwinkle said...

I have not broken any laws with my speach. You can't do anything to me. This debate was on going way back months before the decision to ban went through. I was involved via heated debate in the TN forum.
Smokers have not lost their right to smoke, no more that I have ever lost my right to drink. I have to drink responsibly based on the current laws. Smokers have to smoke responsibly based on the current laws. I see nothing wrong with either law. If you feel restricted here, well that's too bad. I'm just as restricted as you are. I can live with change and it appears that you can't. What can I say, change is good. That's what I hear.

Yosemite Sam said...

You do seem to have reading comprehension problems. I'll do this again.

You said:
"Freedom is relative as long as it is not offensive to others"

This implies that anything that someone might find OFFENSIVE should be disallowed.

So I replied with a HYPOTHETICAL scenario.

To wit:
Well bucko, I'm offended by your fascist spewings, and I think you need to shut the hell up. Now all I need to do is get the government to enforce my personal preference and get your computer confiscated.

Do you not see that according to your criteria, we have no freedom at all?

Therefore if you take your philosophy to its logical conclusion, there will be no freedom. Someone will always take umbrage with some habit or activity that YOU like and will seek to ban it.

"Smokers have not lost their right to smoke, no more that I have ever lost my right to drink."

But you know that this is BS because people like yourself have no intention of stopping at this law. The next step will be to ban smoking in the car and then in a person's home. Then a total ban. Of course, this will not stop smoking, so a new anti smoking SWAT force will need to be created to deal with all those recalcitrants.

Yosemite Sam said...

"What can I say, change is good. That's what I hear."

I think that is the most moronic thing you have said so far.

It's a slogan without the smallest iota of thought behind it.

Bullwinkle said...

I personally don't care what you do in your own home, your own car and FYI, I wrote letters to TN Senators in support of only a partial ban. I appealed to them to leave specific places for smokers to socially gather. I tend to think they found a level of compromise. There are still public places to smoke AKA (Bars & 21 And up establishments. The partial ban is not the end of the world. Ohio has a full public ban, bars included. Because of people like myself, we don't have a full ban as of yet. And to that I say I don't support any other restrictions related to smoking. And what prey tell was your involvement in the issue?

Bullwinkle said...

You can call me a fascist, a communist a nanny, whatever, I don't care but while you sat back doing nothing, the people who wrote the Senators had a level of say. I suspect that you did nothing so why are you crying now?

Mr. Moose said...

Yosemite Sam ... You have said nothing I haven't heard before.
Look, I held up my end of this debate long before today. People threw the constitution at me and everything else. You might want to read the preable. It's very clear that our rights have always been subject to changes from the beginning. The Constitution was written as a Grey document in accordance with current and future laws that may be needed. There is almost nothing that can't be changed via laws passed down within the authority that it has established. I hate to burst your bubble but the Constitution gives government exclusive rights to adopt laws at any time. Namely, "Anything that is a source of public aggitation" Smoking was and has been a source of public aggitation. So it can be addressed by the powers at hand. You may assume that I don't know law but ... ARE YOU SURE...?

Bullwinkle said...

Do yourself a favor and look up what this phrase means:

"To insure domestic Tranquility"

It's in the preable of the Constitution.

Have a good day!

Yosemite Sam said...

"I hate to burst your bubble but the Constitution gives government exclusive rights to adopt laws at any time. Namely, "Anything that is a source of public aggitation"(sic)"

Funny, I can't find that phrase in either the U.S. or Tennessee Constitution.

www.usconstitution.net/const.html

http://www.harbornet.com/rights/tennesse.txt

Anyway, you didn't address my points.

1.) What effect does this law have other than to get people ready for even more smoking restrictions, as has happened in other states?

2.) If freedom should be restricted by what others feel to be offensive, why do you think that this will stop with smoking regulations/restrictions?
--------
"To insure domestic Tranquility"

Uh, that doesn't imply that minority rights should be trampled to keep the majority happy. That is simply part of a list of reasons why the writers of the U.S. Constitution thought a Constitution should be established. They felt that a more centralized government would make the nation less fractious, thus ensuring Domestic Tranquility.

Bullwinkle said...

Nobody's rights have been trampled on. The right to smoke has not been removed. I just don't see it the way you do. Neither did the lawmakers! So, I guess your opinion does not count.

And I'm sorry but smoking bans have held up in the face of those claiming that it's unconstitutional in every state bans have been adopted.

You have valad points, all of which were addressed during the months long debate. Again, the lawmakers did not agree with you. Like I said, I have debated this long ago. You are too late to debate your side of the issue because it's a done deal.

I don't expect the Ban to go any further unless smokers want to be staunch and bring all the more heat down upon them. A few bad apples have always spoiled it for the rest. We shall see.

Dr. StrangeGun said...

And Bullwinkle comes in with the "nanny nanny boo-boo" offense.

"So, I guess your opinion does not count."

Tolerance and diversity, so long as you agree, right? You've made no friends here, BW. Public smoking should be handled by business owners, not the government, and frankly I think this new law is rather statist and overreaching. In fact, there's a rather telling story about how it can backfire on the news lately, about Peerless... they have a completely isolated smoking lounge that's now useless to them as nobody's allowed to smoke in it.

Bullwinkle said...

I don't really give a hoot what you call me. I supported the partial ban and it passed. And I don't care if you like me or not.

Yep, I debated the very business you are speaking about. My answer was: Any business owner has the right to try to get an exclusion via special smoking room. That is between him and the lawmakers. Good luck with that.

Most businesses won't forgo such an expense. Business owners by and large don't have any interest in catering to smokers anymore. The investment would never pay off.

Employers see smoking as an unhealthy habit. My employer just laughed when the smokers suggested they make smoking rooms for them.

Sorry, those are the facts.

Yosemite Sam said...

"Yep, I debated the very business you are speaking about."

I guess you define debate as whining and stamping your feet, not addressing a single point that is raised and then saying you won when you get the government to break it all up and force your viewpoint down everyones throat. I guess that is debating by the German definition.

Yosemite Sam said...

I'm still waiting for you to answer my 2 questions.

Bullwinkle said...

Yosemite Sam ... I don't have the answers to your questions because I don't feel the same way you do. I don't have to worry about changes because to date we have never been able to stop change. Be it, good or bad. However, I have an advantage over you in that I have resolved myself to know that things do change. Sometimes I like the change, sometimes I don't But that's life.

It's like when they raise taxes. You can cry all you want but you will have no choice but to pay them.

I don't call this statement as stamping my feet:

"Any business owner has the right to try to get an exclusion via special smoking room. That is between him and the lawmakers."

The story I hear about Peerless is that they may have to pay the fines. And if they are ruled as in violation, the fines may increase. Sure there are ways around it but I don't know anyone who wants to go to jail over non compliance. That I don't have to worry about. Peerless is the one testing it out. I expected that to happen. It may turn out in their favor. I'm OK with that. The end result still remains to be seen. Regardless of the outcome, not many places of business are willing to upfront major costs to create special smoking rooms. The return is just not there. That is simple math.

Since you have such burning concerns, you can appeal your issues related to the Ban to the Lawmakers, for what it's worth. The smoking Ban is a done deal. I can assure you that they won't waste any time discussing your worries about what may or may not happen in the future. But by all means... go for it.

I speak with a sense of the current day we live in. Smoking had it's day and the support for it is no longer there.

It's a new era and smoking is just not a major player in it.

Yosemite Sam said...

"I don't have to worry about changes because to date we have never been able to stop change."

Even the tiniest bit of thought should inform you that this is patently untrue. Change is stopped, turned around, or redirected all the time. If you are so non nonchalant about change and smoking was dying out anyway, then why did you need and advocate for a government ban?

"I speak with a sense of the current day we live in. Smoking had it's day and the support for it is no longer there."

Maybe so, but the wheel turns. There was a King in England, King James I who detested smoking and tried to ban it. Guess what, people continued to smoke. Realize this, smoking will no more go away than any other drug. People enjoy the buzz it gives them and will continue to smoke their coffin nails, government ban or not.

If prohibition laws worked so well, then the War on Drugs would be a rousing success.

But enjoy and gloat over your victory. But, don't expect much sympathy when the government comes after whatever vice you enjoy.

Bullwinkle said...

I'm not worried. Thanks and again... Have a good day!

peabody said...

Yo, brudda moose: After your mother died of syphilis, did you suck Tory ass to get sex banned too? You sound like the type.

Bullwinkle said...

peabody ... you have no class ay all but it's OK. Yours is the same type of immature response that I'm used to seeing from sore losers. I guess you think you can write to lawmakers in such a manner and get support for your cause. It's easy to see why the lawmakers chose to take sides with people who use civilized language. You just have no class. Have a good day!

Anonymous said...

Yeah, ole bullfecal will be singing the praises of the government-nannies knows best line right up to the day that it's ass gets gored, and then it will whine how, "This wasn't suppose to happen to me."
For further ref I suggest you consider the great "trans-fat" controvesy.
And people like you will be right at the head of the cheerleaders when the gov decides that smoking outside is bad also.
And you know what? I don't care what your father died from. HE chose to smoke; I doubt that anybody forced him to buy those things. And how long did you live in his house? Why aren't you dead from the dreaded "second-hand-smoke"?
But I forget, logic never has worked for people like you. On the other hand, neither did prohibition.

Full disclosure - my wife of 40+ years smokes(wish she didn't - but that's NOT negotiable), my Mother and Father both smoked(and died in their 80's)
emdfl

comatus said...

Now that we're all "having a nice day" we'll probably quit feeding the troll. Please note that this character will never "have a nice day." He's so wracked with social guilt that government couldn't keep his dad alive forever, his life is consumed with this sick passion. Seen it before; sad to watch.

Proof once more that's there is nothing so pitiable and depraved as a man in the depths of a government addiction, the most dangerous bad habit of all.

Bullwinkle said...

What you are attempting to say is that you think smoking is not harmful. I disagree. Smoking is the leading cause of Emphysema. Emphysema leads to Cancer. The effects of second hand smoke have always been questionable but it's like allowing your children to ride around with a drunk behind the wheel. Are you willing gamble with your loved one's lives? Just because you can't see it does not mean the risk is not there. Common sense says that lungs are not in your body to purposly abuse. What makes sense to purposely suck smoke in them? If you love smoke that much, light a fire in your fireplace, close the flue and see how much you really love smoke. People are not born with cigarettes in their mouth. It's not natural to smoke. Cigarettes are loaded with lethal chemicals. Many of which are very addictive. Smokers are addicted. While, I do have a level of sympathy for their them in their addiction, people (CAN) quit. I have seen it done. Those who don't quit, just don't want to. These are the ones who can't or refuse to restain in a public setting.

You need to get educated....

http://www.mamashealth.com/emphy.asp

comatus said...

You see, you prove my point.
Rave on.

Tam said...

It's actually a little scary to get a look at the beast from this close up. At least now I know where our rights have been going.

There's nothing creepier to see than a domesticated human.

how about that said...

From my understanding of how it went down, the tobacco companies, restaurant association and a large percentage of employers all supported the Ban. Smokers really had very little hope of staving this off. How could smokers win over that kind of support against them?

comatus said...

Mmmm-hmm. Current case of federal reserve banks asking government for a dress code law: they don't want hats or dark glasses in the lobby, but are afraid of losing customers if they post that. So, use the law to be Bad Cop, everyone's in the same boat, no more robbers of course. It's just like junior high school, forever.