The era of unregulated cigars may be going up in smoke

[PigFish]

More democracy in action:

From Juan Williams book on Justice Marshall.

The crin1inal cases took up a lot of Nlarsball 's time. They led bi.Jn into some tricky

si tuations, and ultjmately they were unsati sfying to him. He was looking for cases that would have nationwide and l asting impact on lega l segregati on.

He found one such case in complaints from NA ACP bra nchesabout restrictive covenants in property contracts that banned bl acks and Jews from buying houses in select neighborhoods . Getting decent housing had been a particula rly large problem for bl ack veterans returni ng from the war Whil e black soldiers qualified forhousing l oans, they often could not buy the houses they wanted because of these covenants TI1e Federal Housi ng Admi ni stration added to the NAACP's alarm over the issue because they permi tted bl acks and whites to be segregated in federall y subsidized housing.

Marshall was fam i l i ar wi tl1 restricti ve covenants because they were first devised in his hometown , Balti more. \Vhen well-to-do black businessmen bega n m oving into white neighborhoods i n the earlyJ.200s, se&'Tegationists on the Baltim ore city counci l passed laws rest1icti ng the sal e of property in mostly white neighborhoods. Citi es across the South

followed suit.

Pardon the poor OCR job... The gist of it is in the acts of city councils across the south. -Piggy

[Fosgate]

Anyone ever notice every year we have more "Legal" laws that further restrict our personal life, liberty and freedom? Also they seem to pass more of laws for our safety, our children's safety yet don't have any factual data to back it up or fund the research to find out, gut they have no problem throwing cash as ridiculous research.

http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/22/wastebook-2014-eight-absurd-government-projects-funded-with-your-money/

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/30-stupid-things-the-governemnt-is-spending-money-on

And when it comes to performance standards (or lack therrof) that would get all of us fired at our private sector jobs. Govt employees are untouchable and they have a pension to boot.

[StumpyJoe]

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

Hi TomF,

I've learned something in this thread as well! I learned something about you.

The thing I learned is you should spend more time looking at your signature line...Bill and Ted are offering everyone really good advice there.

Cheers.

[TomF]

Hi TomF,

I've learned something in this thread as well! I learned something about you.

The thing I learned is you should spend more time looking at your signature line...Bill and Ted are offering everyone really good advice there.

Cheers.

Thanks, I do my best...

[planetary]

Thanks for the mostly thoughtful thread, ye friends of Habanos. In my opinion, appeals to idealism and principles must be applied not to the world we want to live in, but the one we have. I'd be thrilled if everyone around us knew enough about science and statistics and medicine to understand make make fully informed decisions and not be taken in my the deniers out there who want to convince you that smoking isn't genuinely harmful. But the truth of the matter is that smoking, of any kind, is a risk. It is also the case that driving cars is a risk, as is eating too much red meat or working a stressful job for decades, or a thousand other things. But most people don't understand those things, or lack the apparatus to reason about them.

What's required is a genuinely educated population grounded in facts and critical thinking. If we had that, and that was the starting point, I'd be a lot more inclined to agree with the libertarian positions espoused here. But the reality is very different, and there is -- at least in the USA -- an expectation that the state has a role to play in establishing safe conditions for most people, most of the time; and a role in evaluating conditions of public safely. It is not merely a question of personal responsibility; it's a question of what fills the void, should the state suddenly walk away from the scope it currently has. Given the educational system in place now, and the role of capitalism in the west, it's easy to imagine that marketing, not education, not reason, would win the day.

Which is the lesser evil: the nanny state which traps people into dependence, or the corporatist state which traps people into marketing lies serving share-holder interests? Would that I could envision a credible alternative. Discussions and appeal to the supremacy of "personal responsibility" read to me like mid-20th century flashbacks which have passed us by. For myself, neither option appeals, and both are death spirals. But at least there's a chance of government being a place of good, and occasional exertions of the will of the people -- so on balance, I'll take the devil I know.

[CdnLimitada]

I know I may be oversimplifying this but would it be fair to say that most of us do not want to live in a society that is only reliant on people's moral compass for it to run efficiently and safely? On the other side of that coin it may also be fair to say that none of us want a state that regulates all aspects of life?

If these assumptions are correct, isn't it just a matter of degrees to which one person has a preference? At the same time, if a government is involved in any capacity isn't there always the risk of a slippery slope? Perhaps it is an inevitable thing to have this circular relearning.

---> Society is ruled by a dictator/supreme being ---> the supreme being(s) over time overstep or too many don't like the way things are run and either a new one shows up or a democracy is formed ---> democratic government slowly gains more and more power and eventually oversteps by reducing too many freedoms ----> Anarchy and overthrow of government ----> establishment of ??? and on and on and on.

There seems to be no perfect solution when you deal with imperfect beings. I am not sure why things have to be black and white or why some pretend to know all the answers when, to me, clearly there aren't any. At least no answers that any societies have been able to figure out throughout history. Some ways of governing work well (never perfectly) in certain parts of the world where in others it would be seen as oppressive or too chaotic.

Personally, I like living in a place where my kids are safe, the groceries stores are stocked with foods that don't have (too many) harmful chemicals, roads are safe, etc. If that means I need to contribute with money (taxes) or with a social contract/law of some sort that says I can't reasonably do some things, that is okay with me. I think the main debate is, what is reasonable? That is something which we will all never agree on fully.

[Orion21]

Personally, I like living in a place where my kids are safe, the groceries stores are stocked with foods that don't have (too many) harmful chemicals, roads are safe, etc. If that means I need to contribute with money (taxes) or with a social contract/law of some sort that says I can't reasonably do some things, that is okay with me. I think the main debate is, what is reasonable? That is something which we will all never agree on fully.

I know on this point we can all agree, but it's beside the point. The whole issue we are discussing is that at some point we are trading our liberty for these perceived comforts. Do you honestly think all the additional regulations and laws that have been passed in the last 15-20 years have made it more likely your kids are safe and the grocery stores are stocked? 15-20 years ago were you much more worried about these issues than today? Living in the USA I can tell you with 110% certainty there is no difference. It says you live in Singapore in your profile, so maybe your experience is different, but the subject matter we have been talking about is based on a article written about the USA.

My whole argument is that these new smoking regulations that have been rolled out over the last 10 years have done little to protect anyone in any real sense and serve merely to control our behavior. We are less free as cigar smokers today than we were even 5 years ago, like I outlined before. 5 years ago when I visited our friends in Toronto we enjoyed a fantastic afternoon and evening smoking cigars at the LCDH and a restaurant. All outside, nothing inside, and we had a blast. Today this is against the law in Toronto and may other civilized places around the world. These punitive regulations and laws are designed to target "unacceptable" behaviors and marginalize people like us to the rest of the population. We all have dealt with the sideways looks, the criticism from friends, family and even strangers for smoking our cigars. This comes directly from government initiatives to deter freedom of choice associated with activities they feel are harmful or unacceptable.

[CdnLimitada]

I know on this point we can all agree, but it's beside the point. The whole issue we are discussing is that at some point we are trading our liberty for these perceived comforts. Do you honestly think all the additional regulations and laws that have been passed in the last 15-20 years have made it more likely your kids are safe and the grocery stores are stocked? 15-20 years ago were you much more worried about these issues than today? Living in the USA I can tell you with 110% certainty there is no difference. It says you live in Singapore in your profile, so maybe your experience is different, but the subject matter we have been talking about is based on a article written about the USA.

My whole argument is that these new smoking regulations that have been rolled out over the last 10 years have done little to protect anyone in any real sense and serve merely to control our behavior. We are less free as cigar smokers today than we were even 5 years ago, like I outlined before. 5 years ago when I visited our friends in Toronto we enjoyed a fantastic afternoon and evening smoking cigars at the LCDH and a restaurant. All outside, nothing inside, and we had a blast. Today this is against the law in Toronto and may other civilized places around the world. These punitive regulations and laws are designed to target "unacceptable" behaviors and marginalize people like us to the rest of the population. We all have dealt with the sideways looks, the criticism from friends, family and even strangers for smoking our cigars. This comes directly from government initiatives to deter freedom of choice associated with activities they feel are harmful or unacceptable.

I still don't understand the stance. Who doesn't agree with that? Smoking regs have become more strict in pretty much every first world country over the last 10 years. There is no debate with that. Do I think some if it is excessive? Of course. In WA state where I visit the in-laws, you can hardly smoke anywhere! It is even worse in Calgary where I am from and visit from time to time. The main question is, where do you draw the line? Is your stance that there should be no regulations at all for anything or is it just smoking that you feel is your right? Yes there is that risk that by the government doing this type of regulation that it will get even worse. Do you have an answer? Is it all or none? I haven't read any solutions.

To answer your question about food safety...yes it is becoming better and not just in Singapore. Not sure why this topic is only US centered. Labeling is becoming regulated. Organic foods are becoming better regulated so that the companies claiming that they are and are actually not are forced to label properly. Hopefully GMOs will also be labeled soon. Again, some may not agree but I want some oversight in these industries. You dismissed my point on this as something that is obvious but you can't seem to connect smoking to these other things that may effect others and not just yourself. Some companies from China were recently caught putting plastic pieces in the rice to increase weight and volume. Do you count on the good nature of people to not do this? How about the incredible amounts of pollution that would happen if there were no regulations? It is bad enough with the regulations! The race for profits and the amount of people that want it all at any cost is too high currently.

Cheers.

[Orion21]

I still don't understand the stance. Who doesn't agree with that? Smoking regs have become more strict in pretty much every first world country over the last 10 years. There is no debate with that. Do I think some if it is excessive? Of course. In WA state where I visit the in-laws, you can't hardly smoke anywhere! It is even worse in Calgary where I am from and visit from time to time. The main question is, where do you draw the line? Is your stance that there should be no regulations at all for anything or is it just smoking that you feel is your right? Yes there is that risk that by the government doing this type of regulation that it will get even worse. Do you have an answer? Is it all or none? I haven't read any solutions.

To answer your question about food safety...yes it is becoming better and not just in Singapore. Not sure why this topic is only US centered. Labeling is becoming regulated. Organic foods are becoming better regulated so that the companies claiming that they are and are actually not are forced to label properly. Hopefully GMOs will also be labeled soon. Again, some may not agree but I want some oversight in these industries. You dismissed my point on this as something that is obvious but you can't seem to connect smoking to these other things that may effect others and not just yourself. Some companies from China were recently caught putting plastic pieces in the rice to increase weight and volume. Do you count on the good nature of people to not do this? How about the incredible amounts of pollution that would happen if there were no regulations? It is bad enough with the regulations! The race for profits and the amount of people that want it all at any cost is too high currently.

Cheers.

Cheers my friend. I am focused on the smoking regulations. Food safety is another topic completely.

I am for common sense regulations. Here is an example of a solution to the no smoking in bars or restaurants thing...make it a choice. Pass a common sense regulation that gives the owners of the establishment the CHOICE to designate their establishment as non-smoking or smoking optional. Give the businesses owners who choose to be smoking optional the incentive to install good exhaust systems in their businesses to suck out the smoke so it doesn't hang in the air. I agree with many on here that I would never want to take my kids to, say, a bowling alley where people were smoking. However, if one bowling alley was outperforming the other because it didn't allow smoking and others decided to change to non-smoking for business reasons I would support that model. Let the markets decide if bars/restaurants that allow or disallow smoking will be successful. I know personally I would spend more money at a bar with friends if I knew I could light up a cigar and enjoy it there. At this point where I live cigar bars are still allowed. I have a great one 3 minutes from my house with a fantastic bar and great setup, but I will tell you the owners had to fight tooth and nail to be exempted from the smoking bans. What pisses me off are the ideologues in government that you can't even reason with.