Smoking bans and party affiliation

[Pseudolus]

Seeing what the correlation is, locally.

[Malik Shabazz]

I'm a registered Democrat and I'm on the fence.

Oooh, does it hurt. I should have worn a cup. ;-)

[udjw828]

I'm a Libertarian and I oppose all bans vs. private businesses...


:burn:Smoke 'em if you got 'em!!! :exams:

[Griffin 4]

I'm a registered Democrat and I'm on the fence.

Oooh, does it hurt. I should have worn a cup. This would help.

[lawfi5h]

I'm a registered Democrat and I'm on the fence.

Oooh, does it hurt. I should have worn a cup. ;-)

Resisting.....obvious.......waffle.......comment.. ...

[Happy Spiaggia]

Cigarettes aren't addictive.

Just ask Bob Dole.

[MNBridge]

I'm a Libertarian and I oppose all bans vs. private businesses...


:burn:Smoke 'em if you got 'em!!! :exams:

Same -- Where do I vote!!

[Pseudolus]

If, in general, you're more likely to vote R than D, choose the 4th option. If the opposite, choose the 8th option. If you never vote for either, or if you are just as likely to vote for either, choose the 9th option.

[Pseudolus]

:bump: ...looking for votes... :bump:

[udjw828]

If, in general, you're more likely to vote R than D, choose the 4th option. If the opposite, choose the 8th option. If you never vote for either, or if you are just as likely to vote for either, choose the 9th option.

I vote Lib when possible. I will generally support R over D because I agree with R more on fiscal issues and D with social issues, and I feel the gov't squeeze more on my wallet than on social issues. At least at this point...

[Colymbosathon ecplecticos]

I will generally support R over D because I agree with R more on fiscal issues...

You are in favor of massive deficit spending???

[udjw828]

You are in favor of massive deficit spending???

I did say generally agree...remember, I'm for less gov't in my life, and the Reps generally make me pay less in taxes than the Dems, who want to get deeper in my wallet...

[Colymbosathon ecplecticos]

I did say generally agree...remember, I'm for less gov't in my life, and the Reps generally make me pay less in taxes than the Dems, who want to get deeper in my wallet...

I think generally people want less government interference in their lives. But debasing our currency reaches much further into your wallet than simply paying for current consumption today.

[EweTupper]

fallout leans Democrat? Now I've seen everything.

[thing]

I think generally people want less government interference in their lives.

Other than telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, now, die, I think the Republicans have done a fine job of getting government out of our personal lives.

Oh, and smoke. What we can smoke, anyway.

[fallout]

fallout leans Democrat? Now I've seen everything.

I supported kerry over bush in the only US presidential election I have ever cared much about.

How would you classify me?

[EweTupper]

I supported kerry over bush in the only US presidential election I have ever cared much about.

How would you classify me?A class unto yourself.

[fallout]

A class unto yourself.


Some might even say, classless.

[Jasper07734]

In general I'm pretty firmly Libertarian on fiscal issues, and pretty firmly right wing extremist Republican on social issues. I hate smoking, and dealing with smoke, and I benefit from smoking bans, but I am against them on principle, for two reasons:
1) I don't believe that there is an inherent "right" to experience smokelessness everywhere you go. If you resent that deeply that a particular establishment is smoky on a regular basis, then don't go there.
2) I resent the government intrusion factor. They want to regulate smoking behavior, but at the same time they levy taxes on tobacco products. IMO, that strikes me as government wanting to have it both ways.

[Actuary321]

In general I'm pretty firmly Libertarian on fiscal issues, and pretty firmly right wing extremist Republican on social issues. I hate smoking, and dealing with smoke, and I benefit from smoking bans, but I am against them on principle, for two reasons:
1) I don't believe that there is an inherent "right" to experience smokelessness everywhere you go. If you resent that deeply that a particular establishment is smoky on a regular basis, then don't go there.
2) I resent the government intrusion factor. They want to regulate smoking behavior, but at the same time they levy taxes on tobacco products. IMO, that strikes me as government wanting to have it both ways.I could understand the 'sin tax' of taxing tobacco products in an effort to discourage their use and to offset some of the negative social costs. But the problem is government then becomes dependent on the tax and so a decrease in smoking becomes a negative.

And if you think they wanted it both ways, read up on the tobacco settlement. Basically, they fined the tobacco companies and made them help people kick the habit and give money to the government to help educate people and assist them to stop, but if too many people stopped and sales went down, the companies wouldn't have to pay as much.

[whisper]

1) I don't believe that there is an inherent "right" to experience smokelessness everywhere you go. If you resent that deeply that a particular establishment smoky on a regular basis, then don't go there.

Sure - but that is not the issue. Just like its not a right to smoke where ever you go.

The question is:
1.) Do you have a say in other people exposing you to harmful chemicals?
2.) Do you have to accept people exposing you to harmful chemicals in an activity that is not explicitly tied to being exposed to said harmful chemicals?

There is nothing intrinsic about smoking when it comes to running a restaurant or a bar. Banning smoking in a bar doesn't hurt the core of the business (as compared to banning serving alcohol in a bar - for example).

Most of the arguments against smoking bans are self-contradicting. Property owners are not sovereign entities. They do not have unlimited say on what goes on their property.

There is a real argument against smoking bans - which most people who are against the bans don't make. The argument is that second hand smoke is not harmful.

[twig93]

1) I don't believe that there is an inherent "right" to experience smokelessness everywhere you go. If you resent that deeply that a particular establishment is smoky on a regular basis, then don't go there.

Before smoking bans, that basically meant that you couldn't leave your house. Forget bars and restaurants, we're also talking concerts, sporting events, shopping malls, museums, public transportation, even office buildings.

The smoking bans have been gradually ramping up over time. But if you think your argument has merit, you have to consider what this country was like 50 years ago wrt smoking.