Conservatives, when it comes to no smoking...?

First, Blue and Weapon X need a good blasting for the ignorance of their posts. Not only are their posts entirely untrue but they make a huge blanket statement that could never be considered substantiable by any reasonable person.

Once again it is a typical part of the Demagogue ploy to blame all problems from bad weather to dirty diapers on us awful, mean, nasty, selfish Conservatives . . .

--------

Now let me point out that these Demagogue trolls are scampering about giving thumbs down to any post which does not laud liberals and slam conservatives.

--------

You need to consider a few things.

First, there is the health of the smoker, which apparently isn't an issue if he/she still smokes knowing the facts;

There are 600 (I.e. sodium cyanide, arsenic, warfarin, etc, etc) deadly toxins ADDED to cigarettes during the manufacturing process.

Nicotinin is used industrially as an insecticide and is the principal ingredient in Mustard Gas and other chemical warfare agents.

Second, there is the health of healthy people around the smoker, which suffers considerably.

Third, there is the health of those who have asthma or other respiratory conditions which respond poorly to cigarette smoke. I can't enter or leave any building without traversing a gauntlet of smokers gathered around the door, so close that their smoke blows right into the building each time the door is opened. This is true at hospitals, hotels, restaurants, theaters, and every workplace I have ever been.

I have to carry and often use a rescue inhaler for exactly this reason, and frequent use of it is detrimental to my health. No matter where I go, be it a parking lot, public park, bicycle/fitness trail or even a remote campground, whenever a group of people is encountered, SOMEone is emitting that toxic smoke. It is virtually inescapable unless I decide I don't need to breathe anymore.

Fourth, there is the extensive property damage done by smoke. After any fire, any wooden structural supports which receive smoke damage are presumed compromised and often have to be replaced. Hotel rooms where people smoke are totally unsuitable forever to anyone who does not smoke. The only way to cure the problem is to strip and repaint the walls and replace all the carpets and furnishings. Cars in which people smoke are similarly unsuitable and cannot be made usable by people with serious smoke allergies.

Fifth, there is the cost of insurance and fire protection necessitated by smokers. Buildings which allow any smoking at all must understandably pay a considerable amount more for insurance to cover damage from fire, smoke and even the occasional carpet crater from falling ashes.

The list just keeps going and going and . . . , but I am very much against the social irresponsibility exerted by the tobacco industry and inherent in its customers as well as the corruption of its vassals in Congress, be they liberal or conservative.

--------

Oh, the US tobacco industry is alive and well. It is just that it no longer supports the American paychecks from which it draws its sustenance.

Like the rest of the industry, it has outsourced to China. Does that mean the industry has changed its stripes and the industry argument is invalid? I'd be interested to see your logic on that one.

--------

Danny --

Consider the fact that most bars have a poor ventilation system and retain most of the smoke, and that the workers in the bars are exposed constantly to these conditions throughout their work shift. Bearing in mind what is IN that smoke, the resulting conditions can be similar to the black-lung disease suffered by miners but can happen much more quickly. Bear in mind that most deaths in fires are caused by smoke inhalation.

And about choosing a different route between classes,

1) Why should *I*, the one who is just going about his routine, be forced to modify my path of travel and take excessive amounts of time getting where I need to be just because someone else has chosen to place his PRIVILEGE to smoke at a higher priority than my RIGHT to breathe?!?!

That would be like me eating ten jars of sauerkraut and then walking along in front of you with the inevitable gastric byproducts polluting your air, except that in the case of the gastric pollution, that is at least natural, is not a chosen event and does not endanger your life.

2) What happens when EVERY route available has at least one person smoking and there is no way to get from point a to point b? This is not an unreasonable question, as it happens routinely. I know because I have a lot of problems with smoke, and so I always know quickly (in a manner which places my health and even my life at risk) when I have encountered it.

--------

Stonewall, You ignore the lingering effect of that smoke, and you ignore the extreme sensitivity many people have to that smoke. It is not our fault, and we are not making it up.

Yes, a few seconds of exposure ARE going to hurt me. Those few seconds ARE going to make me sick for the rest of the day and interfere with my ability to do my job or complete my studies as well as to maintain my health during the flu season, where illness attacks any weakened immune system.

Think about it, really.

I am an on again off again smoker and a conservative who to some degree shares your opinion. I think it is reasonable to ask people not to smoke in government funded buildings and public owned places. I do feel that smokers, private owned businesses, and the tobacco industry is being unfairly punished through taxes and smoking bans. Every time the government wants to find money for new projects/ programs the taxes on tobacco goes up with the justification that it is a health problem. I can not argue against it being unhealthy but the latest statistics show that obesity is leading smoking in the top cause of death. Why is it that the candy, soft drink, fast food, and sugar companies are not being equally punished. There are also smokers who do not drive but they are subject to breathing in car exhaust. Does this mean that automobiles should be banned?

This all depends. Were you walking behind him out in the open air? If so did you really have to walk that close to him? If you stayed back far enough you would not be worse off than you would from car pollution. Once you start buying into the public good argument then most everything can be banned. Tobacco companies contribute to both parties and are a great source of tax revenue that is why nobody will make tobacco illegal.

Princess is more right than she knows, some people are already succeeding in getting perfume banned in the workplace because they are allergic to it.

If it's a government/tax payer owned facility, than yes, I agree with the smoking ban.

But

If it's a privately owned facility (like a restaurant or store) than I am 100% opposed to smoking bans. The government has no right coming into someones private property and telling them they can't allow them or their patrons to smoke. And for the whiners that say "I don't want to breathe smoke at a restaurant." I say, then don't go there. Nobody is forcing you to frequent any restaurant that allows smoking. Find a place that doesn't allow smoking inside. Otherwise, tough sh*t! Who are you to impose your will on others simply because you dislike smoke.

And btw, I absolutely hate the smell of cigarettes, but that doesn't cloud my judgment on individual liberty.

The truly radical conservative view would be to decriminalise a large number of these antisocial activities, including most drug taking, as they are part of government intervention and do impact personal liberty.

However, most Conservative parties throughout the world would accept that it is necessary to intervene to prevent the excesses of individualism affecting others. After all, we don't have the freedom to walk down the street with a gun and shoot somebody. Why should we have the freedom to pollute the atmosphere for others? Extremism of either left or right, religious or secular, is a danger to society as a whole and if people are not prepared to behave in a socially responsible way, we have no choice but to legislate.

I work at an University in a conservative state and it has banned all smoking on campus outside of a few scattered outdoor smoker pits. I think its a good idea and has probably also resulted in an increase in productivity from employees that smoke. Smoking should not be allowed in public areas.

Just wanted to say real fast, all of you that are saying that Republicans are in the pocket of “Big Tobacco” and so are promoting smoking, answer me this, where did Al Gore get his money? Take a look at the link and see for yourself.

Eh. In the 1950's everybody smoked. Pregnant women smoked. People smoked on trains, at work, in theaters...and the world didn't come to an end. Plastic causes breast cancer. Fish is filled with mercury. Acutane makes you want to kill yourself. Everything is toxic if you study it long enough.

What really kills me is the smoking in bars law. If you're sooo damn concerned about getting cancer, then why are you in a bar drinking? And skin cancer is the most common type of cancer, but I bet you don't slather on SPF 45 every morning. Stop being so worried and walk a little faster. They have the right to smoke, and you have the right to walk another route to class.

You are right. You should be able to smoke on your private property or on someone elses private property who has given you permission to do so, however, in public places it should be banned. You aren't allowed to drink alcohol in public. I also think that it should be left up to the individual private restaurant whether they would like to ban smoking or not. After all you're not forced to patronize them and if you know they allow smoking then don't go there.

Sure you have the right to breathe clean air. I suggest not following so closely. Seriously, the few seconds of outdoor exposure isn't hurting you.

That person pays to attend the institution also. Toughen up man. You're talking like a lib.