Seattlest Q&A: The Smoking Ban

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002669010_smokingguide07m.html

Too bad tumor people, you can't stink up my air and ruin my clothes any longer. Maybe you weak addictive personality types will have to go back to sucking your thumbs for security.

Nobody likes your stench, it's not your right to foul other peoples air. Go die of cancer on your own time.

the same law has been enforced here in NY for a few years now...

if i had a cross section of my lungs to show the difference of before and after i think that would speak volumes. it's simply the one of the most effective law that the government has used to protect the health of its citizens.

And thus, the voters decided what that point is.

Individual freedom does not, and should not "stop at the point it begins to harm others." I have the freedom to put fertilizer on my lawn (which pollutes the environment), to become obese (which causes burdens on the health care system), to not have a job (relying instead on social services to feed and clothe me). All of these things, to some degree, "harm others." You have to decide how much harm is worth enduring to permit the rights of others to behave as they wish. Personally, I don't mind having stinky clothes after I go to a bar if it means that other people get to enjoy themselves by smoking.

The smoking ban isn't about controlling people's behavior, it's about making workplaces safe for workers. The government regulates workplaces a lot via OSHA - that's why your boss has to give you safety goggles if your work demands it. Secondhand smoke has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to cause injury to workers chronically exposed to it. Although the 25' rule is a little extreme, it's meant to keep workers safe, not to curtail individual freedoms. In this country, individual freedom stops at the point it begins to harm others. As it should.

Speaking of Initiatives, and that idiot, Eyman, he's debating tomorrow night:

Rep. Ross Hunter to Debate Tim Eyman

The Role of Government in our Lives

Tim Eyman and Rep. Ross Hunter will have a civilized debate next Friday Dec. 2nd at the First Congregational Church in Bellevue as part of their Hot Dogs and Hot Topics series.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The forum is entitled The Role of Government in Our Lives and willl be moderated by Wendy Aman. The event is free of charge and will take place in Fenwick Hall at the Bellevue First Congregational Church located at 752 108th Avenue NE, Bellevue, WA 98004.

From 6 PM to 7 PM there will be hot dogs, chips and desserts for sale. From 7 PM to 8:30 PM, Mr. Eyman and I will address a variety of topics including:

Is government meeting the needs of our citizens?

What are the components of state and local governments that are most helpful to the citizenry?

What components are failing?

Why do citizens feel powerless to impact decisions?

Does money play too much of a role in the election process?

And, are we getting leaders in office or those who are the best fundraisers?

We will take questions from the audience.

DATE: Friday December 2nd

TIME: 6:00 PM - 9:00 PM

LOCATION: Bellevue First Congregational Church

752 108th Ave N, Bellevue, WA

For more information on this event: http://www.fccbellevue.org/news/forums/

In 2006 I'm sponsoring Iniative 66 whereby we have a ban on the use of all permutations of "fricking/freaking/friggin" in lieu of the word Fucking. My freedom to hear/read the word Fucking at all times will not be oppressed by these other words. Do you hear me, people????

The government didn't do this, Seth, a majority of your fellow citizens did. Your fellow citizens finally got fed up with having to find one of the handful of bars, bowling alleys, poolhalls, and what-not that ban smoking, so that the MAJORITY can go out and have a good time. When I go to a place with a 'non-smoking section,' I still usually come home smelling of smoke. I think the _minority_ should have to go to the trouble to find the small number of places to pollute the air, and now you can. You can go be a "Real American" (I cannot believe you said that! It's like you're a cartoon character!) and smoke outside or at home. There is one thing I like about cigarettes -- they kill stupid people, and I do support a person's right to die.

Seth, this has been great fun. But I fear that your comment-baiting tactic worked only on Seattlest staff, myself included. Aside from 8bitjake (hi Jake), might we have scared off any potential Seattlest non-staff commenters for good? I feel like we should all hug now.

Some behaviors are more harmful than others. Smoking is harmful, but is it harmful enough that the government has an interest in taking away people's choice to smoke in a fricking bar?

Loud music is harmful to people's ears--should bands have a decibel limit to prevent ear damage among the bartenders at Neumos?

Here's another one--Should carriers of HPV be prevented from having sex? Transmitting that virus to women drastically increases their chance of cervical cancer.

I guess I just draw the line a little further out than most people. It's because I'm a Real American who believes in freedom, not having the government be my mommy.

Yeah yeah, your right to swing your fists ends at someone else's nose

They had recourse, though. They could go to some bar that didn't allow smoking. Anyway, it's over. Seattle's smokers will be swinging their fists violently on the sidewalk, 25' from the door, through a hailstorm of stage coughs from passersby.

Now you've completely lost me. Murdering someone is BEHAVIOR by your inherent definition. That's why we have laws, is because some subset of humans will behave like assholes and idiots if left to it without others intervening. Speech is one thing, but behavior directly impacts other people in society, and it has always been the role of the goverment (city, state, whatever) to step in and deal with a situation when people's BEHAVIOR is obviously harmful to others. They haven't made smoking illegal, Seth, they've made it illegal to do it around other people who previously had no other recourse and could get sick from it, most notably those who don't smoke but work where people smoke all day long (e.g. bars).

Ah yes. I'm a long-time fan of the comparison between anti-smoking legislation and fascism. Nope, no differences there -- history be damned! And I've also always loved the freshman-level understanding of Constitutional rights as "license to do whatever the hell I please." Onward, Seth, to ever more vacuous and faux-political insights!

I think we should repeal the seatbelt laws. Also the fireworks laws. When the government is regulating BEHAVIOR--smoking, seatbelts, etc...I get pissed.

Seth, you almost had me there (and I'm a huge fan of the smoking ban). The car/NYC angle is not a bad argument-- people in this country can't fathom being parted from their cars like an addict can't fathom foregoing a fag, and those suckers kick out huge volumes of nasty stuff all day long. But it isn't the fumes that directly kill people (ignoring the greenhouse effect for now), as you've pointed out by distracting yourself from your own argument. Which begs me to ask: should we repeal the seatbelt laws too? Cause then we wouldn't be impinging on people's rights and whatnot...yet the car accident death-rate would then go up even further.

How about our innative process sucks ass. Special interests can buy a place on the ballot by paying gathers less than minimum wage. Then pass all sorts of stupid laws and then get them voted on by spending millions on spin and lies. That is not democracy that is corruption.

When I run for legislature in a couple years I am going to run against Tim Eyeman and his fat cat friends.

So smoking bans reduce air pollution and save lives.

Then what about a driving-a-car ban? When I lived in NYC, I didn't have a car and inhaled noxious exhaust fumes every day. But that was OK since car-drivers are the majority?

50,000 people a year die in car accidents. If car driving was banned, that number would drop 100%.

It's unfortunate that smokers seem to develop brain damage in addition to their lung damage. To think that a person's "right" to pollute the air everyone else breaths ("Freedom!") trumps the other person's (the MAJORITY, in fact) right to go out and breathe uncontaminated air - well, c'mon, that's just idiotic. Less than 20% of the population of Washington is smokers. This was a vote by the people, not the "gummint" taking away your rights to bear arms.

On the flip side - two things were wrong with the initiative: 1) the 25-foot ban is ridiculously large. Similar bans in other states tended to go with a 10-foot ban. Businesses in WA that made outdoor smoking areas built to that, and shouldn't have the 25-foot ban enforced on them, and 2) having this start in _December_? C'mon - have it start in the spring, when people can get outside without freezing their asses off, and give them a little time to adjust to the new reality. It's been said that quitting a smoking addiction is harder than quitting cocaine, and from what I've seen, I can believe it. A little easing of the transition would've gone a long way.

In short: There's no constitutional "right" to smoke, and there's certainly no right to pollute the air of the majority. The Democratic process worked, the majority spoke, and you have to live with it. If you don't understand the concept of living in a Democracy, that's unfortunate, but to inaccurately quote Benjamin Franklin just makes you look like a petulant ignoramus.

But at least you have a place on the Web to voice your opinions. Now _that's_ freedom!

ps - what's with this crappy blog software that forces people to put in HTML tags to get a blank line? Ugh.

Oh please, politicians were playing the Rosa Parks card before she was even in the ground (see: newly nominated Alito in a front-row seat for corpse-viewing).

As to the PATRIOT Act, accessing library records adds to public safety and health in the rarest of circumstances. Smoking bans work in a much more direct, efficient manner. Public smoking bans have been consistently linked with a subsequent drop in heart attacks: 27% in Pueblo, CO; 40% in CA; nearly 60% in Helena, MT.

If I hate freedom, you hate people not dying.

And I can't believe you'd play the Rosa Parks card. Too soon, Audrey. Too soon.

Isn't the PATRIOT Act about ensuring "public health" (in the sense of not getting incinerated) and "safety"?

Oh dear, simple Seth:

Despite what those with black lungs and jerking knees would have you believe, the smoking ban is not an issue of minority rights or civil liberties, but one of public health and safety. Due to these spurious assertions, Rosa Parks is spinning in her newly-dug grave. Save the Franklin quote for something it actually pertains to, like the PATRIOT Act.

All the same, enjoy the back of the bus, second-class smoking citizens!

Wow now that is a cat fight!

Q. Since that pro-smoker cock-sucker Seth Colon loves smokers so much does that mean we can all go light up our cancer sticks at his house?

A. Yes, he lives at 23948503 Greenlake Drive in the Greenlake area. Please let yourself in, front door is unlocked.