The era of unregulated cigars may be going up in smoke

[Zigatoh]

Quick point while i digest that lot, TomF I believe stated that we need to abide by the law, not that all laws are just/moral/perfect didn't he?

So do you agree that we should abide by the law, imperfect as it may be, while striving to change it if you so wish?

[Orion21]

God I love the intelligence on display in this thread. Well meaning and well spoken individuals hashing out these topics in a mature way is so wonderful to see.

But as well meaning as the "Chris"'s of our group are you will be on the end of the spear soon enough and all of this back and froth will be moot. My friends in Toronto, please inform the group of your options for smoking now-a-days? When I was in Toronto 5 years ago I was able to meet my friends at the LCDH to enjoy cigars on their patio. We then moved to a restaurant with a huge patio and enjoyed a wonderful meal and more cigars until late in the evening. They would hold their annual Havanathon at a Cuban joint with a roast pig, music etc . . . even Rob showed up a couple of years ago.

Fast forward to today and none of this is possible because of expanding anti-smoking regulations sold exactly how Chris is selling his argument. Where was the Toronto HERF held this year guys? I remember seeing Frank post it was maybe going to be at someone's house?

The government has taken all of this away and for what reason? Chris and crew, please rationalize why this is just fine to allow? As long as they have the "freedom" to smoke in their own backyards or man caves home alone it's acceptable, right? How about when their neighbors start complaining about second hand smoke coming from their backyards? What about when that neighbor runs for city council and expands the law again to ban all smoking within 100 feet of any residence . . . because it's for the kids, right?

Yes, I'm fabricating all of this to support my own argument, blah blah blah . . . but it will happen. And when it happens Chris and crew will just throw up their arms and surrender. Power to the government in it's almighty wisdom. You know better than we do. Protect us from ourselves and Shlomo and his firearms . . .

[StumpyJoe]

Apparently not, the people have spoken as they say, though in the UK it is possible still to run a smoking establishment, though I believe a number of hoops need to be jumped through, air filtering and the like.

I think the Irish have been particularly ingenious in their methods of providing smoking areas for bars as well.

The employment issues outlined by fugu are another fascinating reason why that cannot at present as well..

Salutations BOTL Zigatoh,

You bring up an interesting point about air filtration. I would think filtration would have a spectrum of effectiveness. Stay with me. At one end of the spectrum, Scar's Bar (couldn't help it Brother!) has no filtration at all but allows smoking. He opens the windows and there's a nice draft on nice days but when the weather's bad...well, you get the picture. On the other hand Piggy's Ultra Lounge (couldn't help it Brother!) is the height of technology in his humidifiers but in his smoke filtration as well!!! He is a tinkerer and gave a tinkerer's damn about the problem and made a better mouse trap. He did this on his own...no on told or ordered him to do so.

If I had to take a bet (and I'm not a betting man) I'd bet the farm that Piggy's Ultra Lounge will be more successful that Scar's Bar because while both provide the service of a smoking environment Piggy's would most likely be more enjoyable to be in and I'd be able to see the person I'm talking to...sorry Scar!!! Scar will probably have to do other things to increase patronage...there will probably be a Quiz Night....for shame Scar....for shame! Or, he might step up his game and get a filtration system of his own. Either way the free market system determines who is going to have a successful business model.

I am completely ignorant of the Irish solution to the problem? Could you expand on that and educate me.

Kind Regards!

[StumpyJoe]

... I think that this is an exceptional post!

-Piggy

Piggy,

You know, my dad always told me that when you're given praise or insult you should always consider the source.

I am very honored of your praise.

Humbled,

Mike.

[StumpyJoe]

Quick point while i digest that lot, TomF I believe stated that we need to abide by the law, not that all laws are just/moral/perfect didn't he?

So do you agree that we should abide by the law, imperfect as it may be, while striving to change it if you so wish?

Good Afternoon Zigatoh,

Absolutely. I don't believe in anarchy and I am not a libertarian. Yes TomF did make the admission that not all laws are just or moral. I continued his theme to give some credence to the argument that a great number of the anti-smoking laws are not and are not proposed as just the limitation of smoking but have the end goal to be the eventual elimination of smoking.

But more to the point of your query, if the KKK decides to march in my city and give air to their beliefs...they have the right to do so...and I will defend that right although I believe that speech is horrible. And this again this ties into the protection of the minority...that their rights are not overruled by the majority.

Besides, I love a good conversation. In my opinion, the best current radio talk show host in Dennis Prager. He has a motto on his show...and I'm paraphrasing here..."I prefer clarity to agreement." He accepts he may not change minds...but the best service is to ensure that both sides truly understands the other.

Good stuff!!!

[PigFish]

Piggy,

You know, my dad always told me that when you're given praise or insult you should always consider the source.

I am very honored of your praise.

Humbled,

Mike.

I am an empiricist Mike... While the complement was certainly intended, as usual, I was only stating what was obvious!!!

Cheers! -Ray

[StumpyJoe]

The difference between a residence and a bar/restaurant is that the latter is a place of employment, and a public place of accommodation. People who work in or patronize those establishments have different protections than people who visit my home. I support smoking bans in these places to protect the employees, not necessarily the patrons.

Ideally bars and restaurants would choose whether to allow smoking, and you would see a nice mix of smoking and non-smoking establishments. That would allow employees the freedom to choose whether or not to work in a place that allows smoking. But in reality, when smoking is allowed, almost no establishments have been willing to ban smoking on their own. That means for someone in the service industry, they don't have a realistic choice to work in a smoke-free environment, because those places just don't exist. Bars are too scared of losing revenue if they voluntarily ban smoking (even though study after study has shown this fear to be unfounded). The argument is that if people really wanted non-smoking bars, the market would dictate that bars ban smoking. But that's a consumer-driven argument that A) is rarely borne out in reality, and gives no consideration to employees. If more bars voluntarily banned smoking, we probably aren't having this discussion. Sometimes the free market gets it wrong, and that's why we have laws.

One other point I'd like to reiterate, my support for smoking bans is because of the dangers second hand smoke poses, not because some people find the smell unpleasant. I think it's usually pretty clear to reasonable people whether a smoking scenario is a matter of health or simply distaste. If smoke comes from your apartment into mine, and I don't like it, that's up to me to work something out with you that suits both of us. If you refuse to accommodate me, there's nothing I can do. I don't think you should be forced to stop.

As for the topic of smoking in parks, I don't think a jurisdiction should ban smoking in outdoor public spaces altogether. But as the authority tasked with maintaining the parks, I have no problem with them designating a specific park as non-smoking. The litter issue is a small part of it. But I think a city or town has the right to provide a smoke-free park for its citizens if it so chooses. Just because land is public doesn't mean people can do whatever they want on it. I can't just go plant a garden in most public parks. I can't raise animals in a public park. I can't even be in many public parks at night. Parks can have rules, and one of those rules can be no smoking.

Good Afternoon Chris,

I must admit this is a fun discussion. I have some follow up questions to afford some more clarity of your positions.

In your first paragraph you state...

The difference between a residence and a bar/restaurant is that the latter is a place of employment, and a public place of accommodation. People who work in or patronize those establishments have different protections than people who visit my home. I support smoking bans in these places to protect the employees, not necessarily the patrons.

I just wanted to remind you that both the apartment building and the bar are places of employment. The apartment building will have a property manager, leasing staff, janitorial staff, and landscaping staff. So wouldn't we have to afford them the same protections that you allow for the staff that works at the bar? If so, we must make all multi-family dwellings no-smoking zones...wouldn't you agree?

In your second paragraph you state...

Ideally bars and restaurants would choose whether to allow smoking, and you would see a nice mix of smoking and non-smoking establishments. That would allow employees the freedom to choose whether or not to work in a place that allows smoking. But in reality, when smoking is allowed, almost no establishments have been willing to ban smoking on their own. That means for someone in the service industry, they don't have a realistic choice to work in a smoke-free environment, because those places just don't exist.

I agree with you whole heartedly that this was the case prior to government banning smoking at these venues. Smoking had always been accepted prior to the bans and, I agree with you, a lot of venues were scared to ban smoking themselves (much more so for bars than restaurants...as I recall them instituting bans more readily than bars). Up to that point, if you went to a bar you expected cigarette smoke. However, the current paradigm has completely changed. The standard now is non-smoking. I would think that if the government ban was lifted and the choice left to the owners of restaurants and bars most would stick with the ban on smoking. Sir Issac Newton' s 1st law of motion...an object at rest will want to remain at rest. Why change...more work involved...and you might see business go down...let's face it, non-smokers are the majority. A business man will look at the change as curring the business of smokers and most likely losing the business of most non-smokers (of course social smokers would also on occasion give patronage to the smoking bar). I think in this situation the mix you mentioned earlier of smoking and non-smoking venues would develope over time and there would not be a return to most or all venues returning to smoking.

In your third paragraph you state...

One other point I'd like to reiterate, my support for smoking bans is because of the dangers second hand smoke poses, not because some people find the smell unpleasant. I think it's usually pretty clear to reasonable people whether a smoking scenario is a matter of health or simply distaste. If smoke comes from your apartment into mine, and I don't like it, that's up to me to work something out with you that suits both of us. If you refuse to accommodate me, there's nothing I can do. I don't think you should be forced to stop.

Your argument is centered on two items: 1) the dangers of second hand smoke poses and 2) reasonable people deciding on whether the smoking scenario is a matter of health or simply distaste. My rejoinder for item #1 is the dangers of second hand smoke is overstated (please let me continue). In your paragraph above you state that if smoke comes from my apartment into yours that there is nothing you can do about it...and that leads us to item #2...the unreasonable person will complain that the smoke coming through the adjoining wall is killing them. It's toxic!!! He shouldn't be allowed to smoke that filthy cigar (clearly not a cigar bought from our illustrious host)!!! I believe that you are a very reasonable person Chris. The danger comes from the unreasonable person driving the conversation and the reasonable person going along with it. That poor guy is getting headaches from smelling the smoke from those darn Swisher Sweets...that's not right...I'm sorry sir, you're banned from smoking in your apartment. I think it's amazing and a good reflection on you that in the same situation you think that there's nothing you could do...but again...that's you being a reasonable person.

In your fourth paragraph you stated...

As for the topic of smoking in parks, I don't think a jurisdiction should ban smoking in outdoor public spaces altogether. But as the authority tasked with maintaining the parks, I have no problem with them designating a specific park as non-smoking. The litter issue is a small part of it. But I think a city or town has the right to provide a smoke-free park for its citizens if it so chooses. Just because land is public doesn't mean people can do whatever they want on it. I can't just go plant a garden in most public parks. I can't raise animals in a public park. I can't even be in many public parks at night. Parks can have rules, and one of those rules can be no smoking.

I agree with you, a jurisdiction should not ban smoking in outdoor spaces altogether...but that is what has happening in my jurisdiction and the trend is spreading. It's not a question of specifying a specific park as non-smoking...it's all of them. ALL OF THEM. Let that sink in. Just that alone should make a reasonable man like you stop in his tracks. I ask you Chris...is that reasonable?

I know I can't plant any plant I want in a park...I don't have a green thumb anyways. I'm not going to move in my heifers for some easy grazing in the park. And I understand that all my public parks close at night and I can live with that. I understand how parks can have rules. This is to ensure that the park is not misused, damaged, or used in an inappropriate manner. But by your own admission, second hand smoke in an open park has a negligible affect on the health of others. I cannot smoke in a single park in the city I live in. Not a single one. Chris, I ask you, who is the unreasonable party here?

By the way...I am not very good at this posting thing and don't know how to format this any better than I already am. I apologize if the formatting is jarring.

All my best.

[luv2fly]

Fantastic discussion fellas! Reading this has been educational. Not sure where I stand on the legal side. Don't like being told my habits are bad. if I ask my wife it would open a can of worms I am not ready to eat.

Just wanted to say I am glad to see this constructive debate.

[Fugu]

I agree with you whole heartedly that this was the case prior to government banning smoking at these venues. Smoking had always been accepted prior to the bans and, I agree with you, a lot of venues were scared to ban smoking themselves (much more so for bars than restaurants...as I recall them instituting bans more readily than bars). Up to that point, if you went to a bar you expected cigarette smoke. However, the current paradigm has completely changed. The standard now is non-smoking. I would think that if the government ban was lifted and the choice left to the owners of restaurants and bars most would stick with the ban on smoking. Sir Issac Newton' s 1st law of motion...an object at rest will want to remain at rest. Why change...more work involved...and you might see business go down...let's face it, non-smokers are the majority. A business man will look at the change as curring the business of smokers and most likely losing the business of most non-smokers (of course social smokers would also on occasion give patronage to the smoking bar). I think in this situation the mix you mentioned earlier of smoking and non-smoking venues would develope over time and there would not be a return to most or all venues returning to smoking.

Careful, I'd say - this is mined terrain! You take the argument of 'positive' effects of the smoking bans (non-smoking now being the standard, smokers a minority) as a reason why the smoking ban on bars could easily be lifted again. With that circled reasoning you effectively justify and even advocate the effectiveness of general smoking bans and thus give reason for its further and general extension.... Something I don't expect you to have in mind.

[StumpyJoe]

Careful, I'd say - this is mined terrain! You take the argument of 'positive' effects of the smoking bans (non-smoking now being the standard, smokers a minority) as a reason why the smoking ban on bars could easily be lifted again. With that circled reasoning you effectively justify and even advocate the effectiveness of general smoking bans and thus give reason for its further and general extension.... Something I don't expect you to have in mind.

Salutations Fugu!

Ya got me! Yes, I do recognize that there was at least one positive effect of the smoking ban. But at the same time I infer that the ban itself was a gross overstep of government control...hence making the recommendation of a return to sanity and letting the free market again have a say as to what can work in a free society. Putting Americans of Japanese decent into internment camps during WWII is recognized now as a massive government overstep...not to mention a halt to jurisprudence for a minority group. Wait...bad example...nothing good came of that. Unless you count how the 442nd, manned completely in non-commissioned ranks by Americans of Japanese decent and who came from the internment camps, proved to the world and every American citizen that they were true American patriots.

If I don't recognize that there was a benefit of the ban, no matter how unintentional it was to those who instituted them, then that is me dening a fact. I am not prepared to lie to further my argument...and no, I do not believe that you are implying that...I take your caveat as a BOTL protecting and giving council to another BOTL...thank you Fugu.

So in recap. Was there some positive to the general smoking bans? Yes. Do I need a wet nurse all my life trying to mop up my runny nose. No. I don't need a Nanny and I certainly don't need a Nanny state. I want to act and be recognized as an adult. I make my decisions and if they injure me...well that's the costs of being the boss (who doesn't love BB King?).

Now I must continue to be an adult...and handle the two hours of yard work before me....wish me luck!

[scar]

"The difference between a residence and a bar/restaurant is that the latter is a place of employment, and a public place of accommodation. People who work in or patronize those establishments have different protections than people who visit my home."

I agree Chris. There are plenty of protections for these people. Do you believe they need more? Where does personal responsibility for their own health factor in? Is your fellow man smart enough to decide what is safe for him? I say that by supporting laws, that say you're not smart enough to think for yourself so we will decide for you, that it must be what you believe. That is my opinion. I will let others decide for themselves ( I believe they are more than smart enough to do so).

You also say that your home is different. What if you were to employ a housekeeper or a maintenance man. Would the current protections, and the future ones that you see fit, now apply to your home? Would your housekeeper now make the rules in your home? After all she wasn't smart enough to chose to take a job in a non smoking home so you helped pass a law to help her. Throw out your humidor you are now in violation of law!

"I support smoking bans in these places to protect the employees, not necessarily the patrons."

Why not the patron Chris? They are not any smarter. Don't they need your help too?

"But in reality, when smoking is allowed, almost no establishments have been willing to ban smoking on their own. That means for someone in the service industry, they don't have a realistic choice to work in a smoke-free environment, because those places just don't exist."

If there is such a demand for these places why don't they exist? You do know what supply and demand is right? When there is demand people step up to meet it. Maybe your numbers are flawed, or maybe you have another agenda (most people who think they know what is best for the masses usually do).

I see you live in Indianapolis. Indianapolis has a population of 852,866 (2013). I don't know the exact number of restaurants in your city, but a quick internet search showed reviews of over 4200. If 4200 were reviewed there must be many more that were not. I didn't search bars but for the sake of debate lets assume that there must be a vast number of them also. Do you really expect me to believe that in a city your size with a huge population demanding smoke free environments, and the smoke Nazi's passing laws to help them, that these places don't exist? I call BS! The others, who I will state again are smart enough to make up their own mind, can decide for themselves.

I could go on but frankly I am tired of typing. If you fell you are entitled to a job on your terms go out and find one. If you can't, why not put your money where your mouth is and open your own business. Then you can have your way. The ignorant folk, whose rights you are trying to take away, have already done this. Be personally responsible for yourself. Take a risk. Make a hard choice. Yes I know it's hard. The hard choices are still choices, don't pretend you don't have any. Quit feeling like you are entitled to have someone else provide you with what you want. Be personally responsible, there's that word again, and get it for yourself. The only person that owes you anything is you. And please leave your neighbor alone so he can have the same choices. He deserves it as much as you.

[scar]

"and Shlomo and his firearms . . ."

LOL. Now that is funny.

[Fugu]

I take your caveat as a BOTL protecting and giving council to another BOTL...thank you Fugu.

That's how I wanted it be understood... !

[wabashcr]

"I support smoking bans in these places to protect the employees, not necessarily the patrons."

Why not the patron Chris? They are not any smarter. Don't they need your help too?

"But in reality, when smoking is allowed, almost no establishments have been willing to ban smoking on their own. That means for someone in the service industry, they don't have a realistic choice to work in a smoke-free environment, because those places just don't exist."

If there is such a demand for these places why don't they exist? You do know what supply and demand is right? When there is demand people step up to meet it. Maybe your numbers are flawed, or maybe you have another agenda (most people who think they know what is best for the masses usually do).

I see you live in Indianapolis. Indianapolis has a population of 852,866 (2013). I don't know the exact number of restaurants in your city, but a quick internet search showed reviews of over 4200. If 4200 were reviewed there must be many more that were not. I didn't search bars but for the sake of debate lets assume that there must be a vast number of them also. Do you really expect me to believe that in a city your size with a huge population demanding smoke free environments, and the smoke Nazi's passing laws to help them, that these places don't exist? I call BS! The others, who I will state again are smart enough to make up their own mind, can decide for themselves.

I'm not going to address everything you've said, because there are quite a few non sequitur points, like a maid who could freely work for any number of non-smoking employers.

There's plenty of demand for non-smoking bars and restaurants. Paranoid proprietors are afraid banning smoking in their establishments will hurt their bottom line (a fear that has been proven time after time to be unfounded). The free market doesn't work when the supply side refuses to accommodate demand. But as I said, this is irrelevant. My concern is for the employees, who can't affect the market the same way consumers can. If there are no non-smoking workplaces for service industry employees, whether that's because of lack of demand or stubborn supply, that means those employees don't have a choice if they want to work in the service industry. So it really doesn't matter how smart any of them are, or how responsible they are for their own health. Service industry jobs are a necessary reality for a good portion of our population, and if we allow smoking everywhere, they don't have a choice in their health.

Indianapolis and the surrounding counties have banned smoking in all bars and restaurants, and it's great. We have exceptions for tobacco shops and lounges, which I fully support. I visit a lounge in my area every now and again. The people that work there are great. One is even an FOH member. But because there are thousands of non-smoking bars and restaurants in the area, if they don't want to work in a smoking environment, they can freely work elsewhere. That's what freedom of choice looks like, when there are actual, viable alternatives. I'm quite certain employees working in cigar lounges near me do so specifically because it's a cigar lounge, and not because there are no other available service jobs. Likewise, patrons go there specifically because it's a smoking lounge. Every other establishment in the area is non-smoking. They go there to smoke.

[wabashcr]

Good Afternoon Chris,

I must admit this is a fun discussion. I have some follow up questions to afford some more clarity of your positions.

In your first paragraph you state...

The difference between a residence and a bar/restaurant is that the latter is a place of employment, and a public place of accommodation. People who work in or patronize those establishments have different protections than people who visit my home. I support smoking bans in these places to protect the employees, not necessarily the patrons.

I just wanted to remind you that both the apartment building and the bar are places of employment. The apartment building will have a property manager, leasing staff, janitorial staff, and landscaping staff. So wouldn't we have to afford them the same protections that you allow for the staff that works at the bar? If so, we must make all multi-family dwellings no-smoking zones...wouldn't you agree?

In your second paragraph you state...

Ideally bars and restaurants would choose whether to allow smoking, and you would see a nice mix of smoking and non-smoking establishments. That would allow employees the freedom to choose whether or not to work in a place that allows smoking. But in reality, when smoking is allowed, almost no establishments have been willing to ban smoking on their own. That means for someone in the service industry, they don't have a realistic choice to work in a smoke-free environment, because those places just don't exist.

I agree with you whole heartedly that this was the case prior to government banning smoking at these venues. Smoking had always been accepted prior to the bans and, I agree with you, a lot of venues were scared to ban smoking themselves (much more so for bars than restaurants...as I recall them instituting bans more readily than bars). Up to that point, if you went to a bar you expected cigarette smoke. However, the current paradigm has completely changed. The standard now is non-smoking. I would think that if the government ban was lifted and the choice left to the owners of restaurants and bars most would stick with the ban on smoking. Sir Issac Newton' s 1st law of motion...an object at rest will want to remain at rest. Why change...more work involved...and you might see business go down...let's face it, non-smokers are the majority. A business man will look at the change as curring the business of smokers and most likely losing the business of most non-smokers (of course social smokers would also on occasion give patronage to the smoking bar). I think in this situation the mix you mentioned earlier of smoking and non-smoking venues would develope over time and there would not be a return to most or all venues returning to smoking.

In your third paragraph you state...

One other point I'd like to reiterate, my support for smoking bans is because of the dangers second hand smoke poses, not because some people find the smell unpleasant. I think it's usually pretty clear to reasonable people whether a smoking scenario is a matter of health or simply distaste. If smoke comes from your apartment into mine, and I don't like it, that's up to me to work something out with you that suits both of us. If you refuse to accommodate me, there's nothing I can do. I don't think you should be forced to stop.

Your argument is centered on two items: 1) the dangers of second hand smoke poses and 2) reasonable people deciding on whether the smoking scenario is a matter of health or simply distaste. My rejoinder for item #1 is the dangers of second hand smoke is overstated (please let me continue). In your paragraph above you state that if smoke comes from my apartment into yours that there is nothing you can do about it...and that leads us to item #2...the unreasonable person will complain that the smoke coming through the adjoining wall is killing them. It's toxic!!! He shouldn't be allowed to smoke that filthy cigar (clearly not a cigar bought from our illustrious host)!!! I believe that you are a very reasonable person Chris. The danger comes from the unreasonable person driving the conversation and the reasonable person going along with it. That poor guy is getting headaches from smelling the smoke from those darn Swisher Sweets...that's not right...I'm sorry sir, you're banned from smoking in your apartment. I think it's amazing and a good reflection on you that in the same situation you think that there's nothing you could do...but again...that's you being a reasonable person.

In your fourth paragraph you stated...

As for the topic of smoking in parks, I don't think a jurisdiction should ban smoking in outdoor public spaces altogether. But as the authority tasked with maintaining the parks, I have no problem with them designating a specific park as non-smoking. The litter issue is a small part of it. But I think a city or town has the right to provide a smoke-free park for its citizens if it so chooses. Just because land is public doesn't mean people can do whatever they want on it. I can't just go plant a garden in most public parks. I can't raise animals in a public park. I can't even be in many public parks at night. Parks can have rules, and one of those rules can be no smoking.

I agree with you, a jurisdiction should not ban smoking in outdoor spaces altogether...but that is what has happening in my jurisdiction and the trend is spreading. It's not a question of specifying a specific park as non-smoking...it's all of them. ALL OF THEM. Let that sink in. Just that alone should make a reasonable man like you stop in his tracks. I ask you Chris...is that reasonable?

I know I can't plant any plant I want in a park...I don't have a green thumb anyways. I'm not going to move in my heifers for some easy grazing in the park. And I understand that all my public parks close at night and I can live with that. I understand how parks can have rules. This is to ensure that the park is not misused, damaged, or used in an inappropriate manner. But by your own admission, second hand smoke in an open park has a negligible affect on the health of others. I cannot smoke in a single park in the city I live in. Not a single one. Chris, I ask you, who is the unreasonable party here?

By the way...I am not very good at this posting thing and don't know how to format this any better than I already am. I apologize if the formatting is jarring.

All my best.

Joe-

I'll try to answer as best as I can in my limited time. I enjoy the discussion, but I must admit it's getting to the point where I'm not sure how much more I can add.

As for apartment complex workers, I'd say the amount of time they spend in any single apartment where they'd be exposed to second hand smoke would be very limited. Also, they're not generally employees of the resident, but employees of the apartment owners. I'd fully support the apartment owners' right to ban smoking in their spaces. But I don't think there's a need for a governmental ban. It's just not the same as being trapped in a smoky bar or restaurant all day everyday. I don't know where the line is as far as acceptable amounts of smoke exposure. But if you look at it on a case by case basis, I'd expect a consensus could be reached.

Your point about repealing smoking bans is an interesting one I hadn't considered, mainly because it's unrealistic. But I think you're right. If the bans were lifted, I think we'd see a majority of establishments remain smoke-free. Then employees would have a more reasonable say in their workplace environment. But I think this also points to the idea that the smoking bans were necessary to get us to this point. I see you've discussed this point with Paul, so I won't belabor it. I think we're more or less in agreement.

I think despite some fundamental differences, we're actually not so far apart on this. I agree governmental smoking bans have often gone too far, including many examples you've provided. I agree the tide is heavily against smoking in general. There are those who oppose smoking for reasons I disagree with, and those voices in many cases are the loudest. What it boils down to for me is that I think some smoking bans are good. I'm not going to oppose something I believe in just because it may lead to something that hurts me down the road. For most the battle lines are clearly drawn. You're either for smoking or against it. I don't see it that way. Black and white views have never suited me. It may be naive in terms of practicality, but it's how I feel. I know it doesn't make me popular on a cigar forum. That's ok. I'm not trying to stir the pot or ruffle any feathers.

As for practicality, if this all comes down to a fight between the pro-smokers and the anti-smokers, I think we all know who wins. I believe our best hope at maintaining some of our smoking freedoms is a common sense approach that appeals to the rational among the anti-smokers. Right now we've reached a compromise of sorts where I live, one that I can accept and appreciate. I can't smoke in most public places. In some cases that's good, others I disagree with. But in exchange for those concessions, there are still some places I can smoke, like cigar lounges, and of course at home. While there are certainly those who want to take those away, too, I think the prevailing sentiment on the anti-smoking side is ok with leaving smoking alone as long as it doesn't affect them. If they wanted to, they could have taken away our smoking lounges and the right to smoke at home. The libertarian fear-mongering element among us will say it's only a matter of time. They could be right, but they could very well be wrong. I believe the approach from those who want to protect some smoking freedom will play a role in determining how it all plays out.

[PigFish]

I think I would like to clarify one point here. The one about fear mongering.

One must ask why this topic is being discussed in the first place (not on this forum) but in society.

It is the result of fear mongering prior to my voice. While one can speculate on whether I am fear mongering, the question posed on what the eventual outcome of the exponential effects of this law and laws coming built on this laws precedent has already, at least partially become part of the record.

What is known and empirical is what has proceeded this law and whether those that believe in it were shaped via the process of fear mongering themselves. One need only research “tobacco settlement” and read the governments position on the matter, to understand fear mongering and then look at the many ‘good willed’ people amongst us to see who has been taken in by it!

Therefore, fear mongering is the normal mode of the statist. I am not speculating… look at this law and those that formed from it.

The statist is in fact in fear of freedom. He is in the fear business. He fears that I might make a bad decision, that the decision will affect him, and he should be protected from it.

In a nutshell, smoking in bars, is no different than any other statist law (governmental overreach). It too is based on fear.

In this debate, one thing actually appears to have come from it. I did not bring it out but StumpyJoe did. Even the statist sympathetic voices appear to have cracked to the idea that “it might” have been better to leave some spaces where smoking could exist.

This in itself argues against governmental overreach. Given some time, and a less activist government, I had faith that a brewing group of active non-smokers would have made many institutions smoke free via their voices and their ability to vote their dollars. In that way, broad sweeping laws were never needed. It was the fear of me that brought them out.

Ginning up fear of me makes it easy to tax me, my behavior or legislate me. This is not my opinion, look please at the record! While the rest can speculate about this, all you need to do is research “tobacco settlement” to see exactly what happened and why.

Of course I was told that tobacco settlement money was to be used ‘heal’ the blighted lives affected by tobacco. Where is that money now? I digress. Most of you have forgotten about that, or this debate would not be taking place!

These laws are shams, used mainly to increase revenue or outlaw aspects of freedom that the left does not agree with. You don’t have believe me, read about the many laws like this one, and tell me if they succeeded and solved the problems that they were supposed to? Then look at the platform of those pushing more of these laws and ask yourself why did the last one not solve the problem when they said it would?

The show must go on… as they say!

If you looked at laws (and the treasury money that the statist spends) as a relative that poorly manages his finances, you have to ask eventually, "my God man, what did you do with the money I gave you last time?" Why did the plethora of laws that came before this new one, not solve the problem?

The ‘loving moderate’ is a foil here, bless his heart. He is an ostensible giver. But one is a giver when he gives what he possesses. When he gives what others possess, while generous possibly, he is in fact a thief… You therefore must decide the generosity of such individuals.

As far as fear mongering then, the fear mongering came before me. It is in the record to read. The progressive loss of liberty is also now in the books. The progressive loss of freedom is in the law, open to all to see. The affect of oppressive government is also in the record books. We call it history!

Even the premise of me being a fear monger is wrong. As wrong as the rest of the supporting argument, I would argue!

The fear of freedom is the tool of the statist, he just never admits it. As perviously stated, first he creates a villain. In the end there is generally a pot of gold in it for him. With it he grows government more and takes more hills from which he can lord over and protect his position.

I am simply an alarm clock. A device that warns you that the future is coming and you should wake up and do something about it. If I am a fear monger, then history is one also!

-Piggy

[Orion21]

Great post Piggy. I want to redirect everyone's attention to the fact that this debate started as a debate about the legitimacy of taxation of tobacco, morphed into a smoking ban debate and now has become a philosophy lesson. My founding father's originally revolted over TAXES on tea they felt were unjust and punitive (levied without representation). In the same way the FDA, which is an unelected regulatory body, is given the power to regulate my freedom of choice. This all comes under the disguise of a public health debate. Government does use fear mongering to further their desires. Just read this quote from the article to try and justify the regulation of cigars:

"“It’s enormously frustrating because while the administration has failed to act, the health of millions more Americans are being damaged,” said Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley, a Democrat"

What a F@&king joke! But this is what these people will say to further their agendas. Any level headed logical person knows that the smoking of cigars is not endangering "the health of millions of Americans", but that doesn't matter. It's accepted as fact because welling meaning people just sit passively by and don't question the numbers or motives of SOB's like Jeff Merkley.

[PigFish]

Great post Piggy. I want to redirect everyone's attention to the fact that this debate started as a debate about the legitimacy of taxation of tobacco, morphed into a smoking ban debate and now has become a philosophy lesson. My founding father's originally revolted over TAXES on tea they felt were unjust and punitive (levied without representation). In the same way the FDA, which is an unelected regulatory body, is given the power to regulate my freedom of choice. This all comes under the disguise of a public health debate. Government does use fear mongering to further their desires. Just read this quote from the article to try and justify the regulation of cigars:

"“It’s enormously frustrating because while the administration has failed to act, the health of millions more Americans are being damaged,” said Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley, a Democrat"

What a F@&king joke! But this is what these people will say to further their agendas. Any level headed logical person knows that the smoking of cigars is not endangering "the health of millions of Americans", but that doesn't matter. It's accepted as fact because welling meaning people just sit passively by and don't question the numbers or motives of SOB's like Jeff Merkley.

... thank you my friend! -R

[TomF]

One thing I've learned reading this thread; anarcho-libertarians seem to really hate the idea of democracy.

[scar]

One thing I've learned reading this thread; anarcho-libertarians seem to really hate the idea of democracy.

That's funny. I don't recall voting for anyone in the FDA. That's the people who will be regulating my cigars. Maybe your definition of democracy differs from mine.

[scar]

Furthermore, the USA was founded as a constitutional republic.

[Orion21]

One thing I've learned reading this thread; anarcho-libertarians seem to really hate the idea of democracy.

My friend, Democracy is a buzzword. It's marketing . . . it's an illusion. We live in a Democratic Republic where the vast majority of power is centralized in Washington. There are not even 500 people who decide how our lives will be run. There are 9 (currently 8) appointed Justices that decide what is legal and not legal (abortion, voting rights, State's right etc.) and they are basically lifetime political appointments. The whole idea of a true democracy is actually anarchy because everyone would be required to vote on everything to approve or deny it. Our Republic was designed to streamline that process, but the founders didn't foresee how huge it would grow. There wasn't a Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, FDA etc all set up to mandate most everything for us that was outside the legal system. Our States were supposed to protect us from the Federal Government becoming too powerful, but even State's Rights have been eroded considerably over the past few decades.

I'm not blaming anyone in particular for all of this. I understand most people are very comfortable living their lives day to day. The point of this whole thread was to highlight how policies and laws are being created and passed to curb our freedom of choice to the point where we might not have the "right" to enjoy cigars in any "public" place (including our own homes). What I have a problem with are the people who support these laws and regulations thinking it will somehow magically stop at their doorstep someday. That it's ok to ban my cigar smoking in parks, bar's and public spaces, but the people creating these laws wouldn't dare come into my home and tell me what to do. My point is, of course they will. It's only a matter of time.

[TomF]

My friend, Democracy is a buzzword. It's marketing . . . it's an illusion.

Like I said...

[Orion21]

Like I said...

Have a great day! Thanks for adding to an excellent discussion with your astute observations!

[PigFish]

Democracy in action!

The West Hollywood Fur Ban went effect on September 21, 2013. The ordinance is one of the first its kind in the United States. It also encourages the promotion of West Hollywood as a destination for cruelty-free and animal welfare events and the promotion of West Hollywood as the Humane Capital of the United States. The City of West Hollywood is one of the West Coast’s premiere shopping destinations for luxury fashion and known worldwide for its unprecedented commitment to animal welfare.

Even a guy with my imagination can't make this stuff up!!! -LOL