The era of unregulated cigars may be going up in smoke

[scar]

I agree with you Ray. I just may not be making it clear through the keyboard.

[TomF]

Yes, I deny I am violating civil rights by allowing smoking.

That wasn't my point. I'm not saying that smoking bans are are good thing. I'm saying that making strawman arguments are not helping you win your case. Come up with something better.

[scar]

I have made it clear that everyone has other choices than being in my bar. They do not have to try and make me comply to their version of what is best. If you want special treatment get it yourself. You are not entitled for me to supply it for you. How much more help do I need in stating my case?

[TomF]

I have made it clear that everyone has other choices than being in my bar. They do not have to try and make me comply to their version of what is best. If you want special treatment get it yourself. You are not entitled for me to supply it for you. How much more help do I need in stating my case?

If you don't want to abide by the laws of society, which I happen to believe for the most part benefit society as a whole, you have other choices than to own a bar.

[scar]

TomF

Do you feel you have a right to make rules in my bar? Why not just find a place more to your liking? Better yet Spend your own hard earned money on a bar and allow your patrons to make the rules as they see fit. I wish you the best.

[MrGTO]

Im gonna go buy a gun and start randomly waving it around in my kitchen. If a few bullets fly out the window and hit the kids in the park, too bad. They should have been wearing vests! Its my property and I'll do as I please.

I have never seen a well researched paper that has been peer reviewed stating that random gun shots in my kitchen can be dangerous, therefore it must not be true!

Happy Friday!

That is just silly.

[MrGTO]

What is silly to me is that everybody gets worked up about the smoking debate but nobody gives two sh1ts about the garbage the manufacturers put in (or take out of) your food and drink.

[shlomo]

That is just silly.

Yes it is. Like many posts here.....lol

[StumpyJoe]

That wasn't my point. I'm not saying that smoking bans are are good thing. I'm saying that making strawman arguments are not helping you win your case. Come up with something better.

TomF, salutations!

It was your point. You were the person who brought up civil rights. A point that was not brought up until your introduction of it. I can understand the emotion that brought the point up, however, reason and not emotion should be the governing factor here.

The argument was centrally located on whether or not a smoking establishment, in this case a bar, would be such a great harm to the general public. Your introduction of civil rights is a red herring. Civil rights has no bearing on the topic. At no point did Scar mention that a smoking member of a minority group would not be welcome in his establishment be welcome.

The question is does smoking have a place in society. If it does not, please say so..although on this forum I think that would be odd. If it does have a place in society, should it be limited, and if so how? And please understand that the limitation can run to the elimination of its place in society.

Kindest Regards.

[StumpyJoe]

If you don't want to abide by the laws of society, which I happen to believe for the most part benefit society as a whole, you have other choices than to own a bar.

Kindest returns TomF,

By your argument, if the laws of society outlaws all left-handed redheads should we execute them all?

By comparison,a bar which allows me a single malt while I enjoy a Punch Punch...is that so Draconian?

Interested in your reply.

[TomF]

Kindest returns TomF,

By your argument, if the laws of society outlaws all left-handed redheads should we execute them all?

By comparison,a bar which allows me a single malt while I enjoy a Punch Punch...is that so Draconian?

Interested in your reply.

My reply? Look I don't like anti-smoking laws any more than you do. I do think they are stupid and draconian. That said Scar's argument is deeply flawed and your analogy concerning left handed people is silly and absurd. I think libertarians live in a fantastical dream world, and they are all also all over the internet if I want to debate them This is not the place for that.

This thread has gotten way too political for this forum and this is not what I'm here for. Goodnight gentlemen. Keep on smoking and carry on...

[PigFish]

If you don't want to abide by the laws of society, which I happen to believe for the most part benefit society as a whole, you have other choices than to own a bar.

The laws of society! I love it. This is of course why I constantly remind people that in free societies, democracy is a process, and not a viable form of government. Mob rule has never worked. It destroys the rights of the minority, just like it is doing in this case!!!

This statement alone says so much. When our friend (host) Rob decides to close up shop, due to those rules of society, who feeds his familty?

Better yet, he move is business off-shore and flies his home country the bird...! Now there is a solution... Just go out of business... -LOL

These same people will be arguing about the evil corporations taking business off-shore because they are greedy!

Yes, there are reasons that I have my positions and they are beyond me being a cigar smoker. I am a libertarian because this (above) is your typical statist answer. Destroy industry and then get pissed because jobs move off their shores.

A few posts back it was unacceptable that a waiter has to breathe smoke while working. Now the bar owner is being told he made a bad decision to own a bar. Happiness only comes when the bar owner bites the dust. Where is the empathy for him and his family? Where is all that concern for those working in the bar now?

This thread is 'so much' what is defective about leftist thinking. If I were not busy wiping tears from my eyes, I would be laughing hysterically.

To many of you there is no repercussion to excessive government, again, not until it costs you your job!!! Then you blame our friend here like the bar owner. When he takes your advice and closes his doors, who pays his bills? How about the bills of his employees that needed their jobs? How about the landlord who owns his building, the hardware store across the street that benefits from the additional window traffic that the bar brings? How about the liquor vendor, the glass maker, the beer brewer, the janitor that cleans the place up, the band that wants a start and plays there on Saturday...?

I simply cannot fathom the narrow-mindedness of the statist perspective, it is friggin' flat earther syndrome. Anyone remember "split logs not atoms?" Now we cannot even split logs because burning wood causes too much pollution. It never ends....

Take the dreams and wishes of 100 statists and every human endeavor will be outlawed!!!

Hugs and kisses from your resident libertarian... -Pig

[StumpyJoe]

My reply? Look I don't like anti-smoking laws any more than you do. I do think they are stupid and draconian. That said Scar's argument is deeply flawed and your analogy concerning left handed people is silly and absurd. I think libertarians live in a fantastical dream world, and they are all also all over the internet if I want to debate them This is not the place for that.

This thread has gotten way too political for this forum and this is not what I'm here for. Goodnight gentlemen. Keep on smoking and carry on...

You are correct TomF, my argument is absurd. In point, it is Reductio ad absurdum, which is similar to the straw man argument that you leveled at Scar.

Your argument was that one must abide by "the laws of society." By applying the concept of ad adsurdum we can come to the conclusion that so long as the ruling is a "law of society" that it cannot be wrong or debated. We then introduce an absurd law...such as outlawing left-handed redheads...and we can note that because it is a "law of society" it does not make it moral or just. Therefore we can extract that just because something is a law...such as NOT employing someone based upon their race, religion, etc...see the civil rights thing I'm doing here...does not make it just or moral.

Libertarian or not...we live in our own special imperfect world...and that is where this discussion stands. Not in a "dream world" as you describe it. The fact is that others want you and I and all our other BOTL to stop smoking is where the discussion is at. I politely request that you have a wonderful cigar and consider the fact that a great many around you want you not have the right to enjoy that cigar...because that is the world we live in today.

I would also disagree with you in that this is the PERFECT venue to discuss this matter. If as BOTL we cannot discuss this amongst ourselves then we will be silent and powerless the day they outlaw smoking...except marijuana....and I still don't know how that makes any sense at all.

I hope and pray that you have a fine smoke when you consider my argument.

[Zigatoh]

I think Fugu said it best, about the legislation being imperfect but far better than the alternative of nothing.

Still just seeing - rules lead to end of days, and laws are bad because most people want them and a few don't.

Pigfish seems quite happy that there is a law(just one?) defining criminality, but who defined it? And who gave them that right? And who gets to change it?

But pigfish is unhappy because it got changed in a way that limits his freedom to do what he likes when he likes.

Like fast drivers and drink drivers and mobile phone using drivers and public self fondlers ( see below) his freedom has been lessened.

Now the vast majority of the UK are quite happy that they can now enjoy a drink or meal at pretty much any bar or restaurant without smoke. And by vast we're talking a silly ratio of happy with this to unhappy.

I'm happy with it too, you put one smoker in a restaurant and this can literally ruin the meal for everyone else there.

The smoker can still eat there, just not smoke for a bit. Or go outside for a smoke. No one in the restaurant is allowed to openly masturbate during their meal either no matter how much they want to, they can still do this at home during a meal however, I recommend cold food for this. (absurdity added as required)

I kid you not, recently I was in a chemotherapy suite surrounded by patients receiving various unpleasant but potentially life saving treatments and their significant other or friend - one husband popped out every half hour or so and came back stinking of cigarette smoke

Maybe he should be allowed to light up in there so he doesn't Have to leave his partner to enjoy a nice cigarette?

Anyway, I digress, it's a shame there are less and less places to smoke a fine cigar. And if it ever comes to it I will rant and rage about not being able to smoke in my own garden or house(once the kids have moved out).

I do wonder still about who should define that criminality if it's not the vast majority and their chosen mps and so on?

[scar]

"Now the vast majority of the UK are quite happy that they can now enjoy a drink or meal at pretty much any bar or restaurant without smoke. And by vast we're talking a silly ratio of happy with this to unhappy.
I'm happy with it too, you put one smoker in a restaurant and this can literally ruin the meal for everyone else there.

The smoker can still eat there, just not smoke for a bit. Or go outside for a smoke."

If a vast majority prefers a smoke free bar or restaurant I assume a vast majority would choose to be smoke free or go out of business. The silly ratio of bars/restaurants that wish to give their customers a choice should be allowed to don't you think? Or do you believe even with all of your vast choices your fellow man should have none?

[Zigatoh]

"Now the vast majority of the UK are quite happy that they can now enjoy a drink or meal at pretty much any bar or restaurant without smoke. And by vast we're talking a silly ratio of happy with this to unhappy.

I'm happy with it too, you put one smoker in a restaurant and this can literally ruin the meal for everyone else there.

The smoker can still eat there, just not smoke for a bit. Or go outside for a smoke."

If a vast majority prefers a smoke free bar or restaurant I assume a vast majority would choose to be smoke free or go out of business. The silly ratio of bars/restaurants that wish to give their customers a choice should be allowed to don't you think? Or do you believe even with all of your vast choices your fellow man should have none?

"The silly ratio of bars/restaurants that wish to give their customers a choice should be allowed to don't you think?"

Sorry, what? Are you saying that most bar and restaurant owners Want people to be able to smoke in their establishments? That would surprise me.

"Or do you believe even with all of your vast choices your fellow man should have none?"

At what point does my fellow man have no choices, in this one very small thing they have the choices as outlined if they wish to smoke.

I feel for you as a business owner who is obviously directly effected by this, but how many laws would have to be repealed if they negatively effected someone or some handful (comparitive to the whole) of people?

And no offense intended but it's not like the anti smoking movement is new, these rules have been a long time in coming so for a business to go out of business due to any of these changes shows a remarkable lack of forward thinking. Obviously this is a tricky subject due to the forum subject matter and the business of the owner of the forum, but I assume Rob has been altering his business model as required to carry on, he obviously also has other business interests for example.

[scar]

Zigatoh

I will try to be more clear. If a vast majority of people want a smoke free bar the vast majority of bars will choose to be smoke free or risk going out of business. That leaves the few bars who may choose to give their customers a choice. Should they have that right?

[Zigatoh]

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..

[scar]

It's a sad day and age when people already have a vast amount of choices but that's not good enough. They need them all to hell with their neighbor. And some how they fell good about about it. I will never understand.

[wabashcr]

Cheers Chris,

I see your points and have some follow up questions.

You replied that if my home is an apartment and the owner of the apartment building allows smoking that I should be "allowed" to smoke. How does this not apply to the situation of the bar-keeper? He owns the bar just as the apartment owner owns the apartment building? Is it because there are separating walls in the apartment building?

What if the bar had separating walls? Would it then be permissible for the bar-keeper to allow smoking then?

What if I am a non-smoker who shares a wall with your apartment and I complain that I can smell your smoke through the wall? Because that complaint will be made. What if the walls are well sealed, however, I smoke a cigar on my patio and your patio door is open?

Another point you made about smoking in parks should be allowed. But at the same time you recognize the city should be allowed to ban it. Which is it? Is your hesitation because of people littering the park with cigarette or cigar butts? That's called littering and a person can be cited for that. Is there another reason to ban it that I cannot see?

And I also do not understand the case by case basis. If as you say my smoke in an open air environment has a negligible affect on another person's health what other cause can there to be to ban smoking in that situation?

Your point about the anti-smoking "mob" is very interesting. It conjures the idea of mob rule, doesn't it? It certainly does for me. I fear the idea of mob rule, when the majority can rule over the minority because they will it. That is not a democracy, and yet that is what I think our esteemed colleague Piggy is pointing out. While I m not a libertarian, I understand that laws are made for two reasons...for the greater good and to protect the minority. One should not supersede the other. It is a tough balancing act and right now I ask you to see how the laws are not balanced with the concerns of the minority.

Yes there is a lot of money in tobacco and that has done a great deal to stem the tide of legislative death for tobacco. The attack on tobacco is now being waged on the taxation of tobacco. I ask that you look at the prices that our Australian BOTL pay (the price difference posted on the 24:24 are brutal) and compare that to what we pay. I cannot afford to buy a box of cigars that costs $600-800 to purchase. That will drive myself and others to stop smoking...I am being very realistic about this. When that happens there will be less money in tobacco and the laws to stop smoking will have less resistance to be passed. We are moving in that direction.

As for our friend Scar, he owns his establishment and he should set his rules. If I don't want smell smoke while drinking it's easy enough to choose another bar. But I can understand the issue of the employees. Let's look at a possible solution to this dilemma.

The free market. Scar creates a new bar which allows smoking. All potential employees are told this when they are applying for a job. As an adult they make a decision to work for Scar. Everyone is an adult and acts like it. Now let's assume that employees start complaining and Scar reminds them what they signed up for. Some employees decide that they made a rash decision working at Scar's joint. Scar may have to increase wages to get employees to work at his establishment. He may have to provide additional health insurance or even look into life insurance policies to entice people to work there.

Let's say Scar's business model now provides to the community an environment where people can smoke and drink. If Scar's business model is not viable his bar goes out of business. However, if it is successful isn't he providing something to society which allows adults to enjoy themselves as adults in an adult setting. What is wrong about that? Should that be illegal?

Hope you could lend me your thoughts. Interesting discussion.

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.

[canadianbeaver]

Just spent a couple of hours having a smoke at the beautiful lounge, Iwan Ries, in Chicago. I goo there every time I visit. Bring my own cigars and drink, pay $15 fee for myself and Mr Beaver. This would be good for a month.

The fellow that runs the lounge, Richard, I consider a friend and we enjoy a smoke together and if I am on my own, others join us too.

I don't think the point is to suddenly stink up bars and restaurants. I think it is to add lounges like this to cigar shops or have them for cigar lovers. Perhaps cigar clubs.

[PigFish]

You are correct TomF, my argument is absurd. In point, it is Reductio ad absurdum, which is similar to the straw man argument that you leveled at Scar.

Your argument was that one must abide by "the laws of society." By applying the concept of ad adsurdum we can come to the conclusion that so long as the ruling is a "law of society" that it cannot be wrong or debated. We then introduce an absurd law...such as outlawing left-handed redheads...and we can note that because it is a "law of society" it does not make it moral or just. Therefore we can extract that just because something is a law...such as NOT employing someone based upon their race, religion, etc...see the civil rights thing I'm doing here...does not make it just or moral.

Libertarian or not...we live in our own special imperfect world...and that is where this discussion stands. Not in a "dream world" as you describe it. The fact is that others want you and I and all our other BOTL to stop smoking is where the discussion is at. I politely request that you have a wonderful cigar and consider the fact that a great many around you want you not have the right to enjoy that cigar...because that is the world we live in today.

I would also disagree with you in that this is the PERFECT venue to discuss this matter. If as BOTL we cannot discuss this amongst ourselves then we will be silent and powerless the day they outlaw smoking...except marijuana....and I still don't know how that makes any sense at all.

I hope and pray that you have a fine smoke when you consider my argument.

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

-Piggy

[Zigatoh]

Abide by the law of society /= laws cannot be wrong or debated - so the argument is a fail from the get go.

Making up a bullshit law does not prove that laws are not moral or just.

(eg 10 commandments, I introduce 11 "thou shalt kill" - this violates 1 and therefore proves that God is not infallible)

But I do agree that many people want other people to stop smoking, mainly around them, and that this is a good place to discuss it :-)

[StumpyJoe]

Abide by the law of society /= laws cannot be wrong or debated - so the argument is a fail from the get go.

Making up a bullshit law does not prove that laws are not moral or just.

(eg 10 commandments, I introduce 11 "thou shalt kill" - this violates 1 and therefore proves that God is not infallible)

But I do agree that many people want other people to stop smoking, mainly around them, and that this is a good place to discuss it :-)

Perhaps I was not clear in my argument. The type of argument I used was reducio ad absurdum. Here is a short pedigree of this form of argument...

The use of such reductio argumentation was common in Greek mathematics and was also used by philosophers in antiquity and beyond. Aristotle employed it in the Prior Analytics to demonstrate the so-called imperfect syllogisms when it had already been used in dialectical contexts by Plato (see Republic I, 338C-343A; Parmenides 128d). Immanuel Kant's entire discussion of the antinomies in his Critique of Pure Reason was based on reductio argumentation.

If this form of argument worked for Aristotle, Plato, and Kant it's probably still good to use today.

My argument centered around the infallibility of the laws of society. TomF referred to the "laws of society" which were created by man to govern his fellow man. The laws of society however have man as their author and source of authority. My point of argument was that man is fallible and as such the laws he creates can also be fallible. By doing this I illustrate the fact that just because a law exists, given the fallibility of man, does not make the law automatically just. I went to the absurd point of outlawing left-handed gingers because it's funny...and absurd...trying to make this fun for the whole family...unless you're a left-handed ginger...and if you are...sorry about hitting too close to home.

I could have just as easily pointed out a former law proven to be unjust...which I did...when I referenced civil rights labor laws which were an extension of the 14 amendment. I could have also pointed out slavery, indentured servitude, debtors prisons, or any host of other laws that proved that man can create unjust laws. Again, the point being that just because a law is in place does not mean justice is being served. As you put it, "Making up a bullshit law does not prove that laws are not moral or just.". I agree that some of the laws of society are bullshit. And I am aware that I took your quote out of context.

As to your point of creating an eleventh commandment... I would not be so quick to put words into the mouth of The Almighty. But let's take your argument from a purely Philosophical point of view and see where it strayed from mine. The laws created by God infer that He is the authority of the law. If one looks at God from a classical Judeo-Christian sense then God is found to be infallible. Of course if you don't believe in the last statement then you are not referencing that paradigm. Let's get past that as, again, we are working on this argument from a philosophical point of view. If God is perfect than His law is just. This is where the authority of the law and its infallibility differs from the laws of society.

Additionally, your argument doesn't hold as it is in contradiction to the 6th commandment of "thou shall not murder/kill" (depending on the Bible you're reading from). A contradiction is a failure in an argument because one is creating an impossible premise.

An example of this would be:

1) God is all-powerful

2) God creates an immovable object

3) God lifts the immovable object.

If God lifts the immovable object then it proves it was not immovable . In your example God creates the 11th commandment which contradicts the 6th commandment.

Hope you have a fine cigar Zigatoh while you consider the above. I had three cigars yesterday (JL #2, PL Montecarlo, and a Monte Petite Edmundo) while enjoying this stimulating conversation. And I am incomplete agreement with you that this is a perfect venue for this civil discussion.

[StumpyJoe]

"The silly ratio of bars/restaurants that wish to give their customers a choice should be allowed to don't you think?"

Sorry, what? Are you saying that most bar and restaurant owners Want people to be able to smoke in their establishments? That would surprise me.

"Or do you believe even with all of your vast choices your fellow man should have none?"

At what point does my fellow man have no choices, in this one very small thing they have the choices as outlined if they wish to smoke.

I feel for you as a business owner who is obviously directly effected by this, but how many laws would have to be repealed if they negatively effected someone or some handful (comparitive to the whole) of people?

And no offense intended but it's not like the anti smoking movement is new, these rules have been a long time in coming so for a business to go out of business due to any of these changes shows a remarkable lack of forward thinking. Obviously this is a tricky subject due to the forum subject matter and the business of the owner of the forum, but I assume Rob has been altering his business model as required to carry on, he obviously also has other business interests for example.

Good Morning Zigatoh,

Just getting caught up on the conversation from last night. I can easily say that this is the most fascinating topic I've ever been a part of since my time as a member on this forum. I think I've been reading the forum for about 11 years and been a member for the last 10...and as you can see by my post number I normally read and not correspond but this is a stimulating conversation.

I am in complete agreement with you that the anti-smoking movement has been around a long time, and while some of the laws are older, we regularly get a fresh batch of unpleasant laws on an ever increasing basis. I don't know if you are a business owner but I would say that the problem of business owners is not a remarkable lack of forward thinking. I took a lot of small business courses at college and was even part of a small business with some friends (completely unrelated to tobacco and not a bar). And I can tell you that the unending stream of regulations that pours from government is not something that a small business person is well equipped to deal with, regardless of how competent they are.

Additionally, the fact the misery of the "ain't-tobacco" movement has been with us for so long does not engender that their movement is correct or plays fairly. Slavery as an accepted institution was prevalent from antiquity until the late 1800's. Just because the pain has been here for so long doesn't mean we lay down and let the pain keep coming.

As for our esteemed Pirate in Chief, I would imagine his expansion in other business endeavors stems from his business success and accumen, and perhaps not as a direct reaction from government regulation issues extending to his tobacco interests...of course, he has in the past acknowledged the challenges he faces up to and including contemplating going off-shore. I ask you to consider that for a moment...a successful businessman having the thought of moving his operation off shore to continue his business successfully. He is not selling an illegal commodity after all. Rob, if I am incorrect in this please correct me in front of the others, but this was my understanding of things. I accept I can be wrong in my assumption as I do not have access to you inner sanctum...speaking of which...what's the address to the warehouse?

With all that said, I think we are closer to agreement than otherwise protrayed. I, like most non-smokers, would enjoy most of my dinners out in a non-smoking facility. But have you had a meal while enjoying a cigar? I have; after watching a biographical movie of Winston where he does have a cigar with a meal. There is a distinct charm in it, although I wouldn't make a habit of it...it really is quite decadent. How would I enjoy that being an option available to me. Or having a cigar after the meal with a port or brandy...heck, I probably look good in a smoking jacket, fez cap, and a monicle....hmmmm....maybe I taking this too far.

What I'm saying is a return to the option of having a public house that allows smoking will not take over the business paradigm and result in all bars turning into "smoke "me if you got 'me" bars. Will people willingly work in a bar like that? I think the answer is yes. They may be better paid and have better benefits than their counterparts in non-smoking establishments, but that's maybe what it takes to entice employees to work there. I used to ride a motorcycle for years. The first concept they taught me was riding a motorcycle was all about "managing risks." We're all adults, let's manage our own risks. While riding a motorcycle is risky, I always had a big grin on my face when I rode one...kinda like having a cigar. Like I said, I think we're closer in agreement than apart....

May a great cigar be close in your future.