Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It does have a lot in common with the prohibitionists. I DVR'd the documentary from PBS. Banning smoking everywhere and their arguments against are eerily similar and for anti-smoking advocates to get the right man in office to ban production and sale of all tobacco products and closure of buildings that allow it is only a hop, skip and a jump away. Once smoking is completely banned (if noone has learned from the past) is not going to solve anything. It'll just create a "black market" scenario (at least in my opinion).
We have an income tax because prohibitionists discovered that if they could cut off the government's dependence on alcohol taxes then big alcohol would have no power in the fight against regular citizens paying the government. It worked, but alcohol never went away and people never stopped drinking, and now we have an income tax. Would someone propose a new type tax, eliminating money that tobacco companies give to government....similar to what happened back then? I wouldn't be surprised. I'm not saying smoking is healthy. People in my family smoked and some of them had no ill effects from it and then again, at least 2 other ones did. The ones that did suffer effects did not get cancer, but one had emphysema and another had C.O.P.D (that was also suffered by HER mother, so there was a genetic predisposition there).
It does have a lot in common with the prohibitionists. I DVR'd the documentary from PBS. Banning smoking everywhere and their arguments against are eerily similar and for anti-smoking advocates to get the right man in office to ban production and sale of all tobacco products and closure of buildings that allow it is only a hop, skip and a jump away. Once smoking is completely banned (if noone has learned from the past) is not going to solve anything. It'll just create a "black market" scenario (at least in my opinion).
We have an income tax because prohibitionists discovered that if they could cut off the government's dependence on alcohol taxes then big alcohol would have no power in the fight against regular citizens paying the government. It worked, but alcohol never went away and people never stopped drinking, and now we have an income tax. Would someone propose a new type tax, eliminating money that tobacco companies give to government....similar to what happened back then? I wouldn't be surprised. I'm not saying smoking is healthy. People in my family smoked and some of them had no ill effects from it and then again, at least 2 other ones did. The ones that did suffer effects did not get cancer, but one had emphysema and another had C.O.P.D (that was also suffered by HER mother, so there was a genetic predisposition there).
Yes, I agree. The anti-smoking movement and Prohibition are eerily similar. We even have "smoke-easies" wherever smoking is banned. Something that was not mentioned on Ken Burn's documentary was that little Carrie Nation with her hatchet was also an anti-smoker. Several states also prohibited tobacco as well as alcohol. There was an anti-drinking slogan that went something like "I hate to kiss a drinker." Sound familiar? The anti-drinking campaigns were done incrementally, just like with the anti-smokers. You can see on a couple of the posts on this thread that some anti-smokers would like to ban smoking everywhere outside, not just parks, and in condos and apartments as well. It's the slippery slope that was predicted when the ban on smoking in bars was first proposed.
It seems like we will never learn.
It's too bad we can't have an altitude of "Live and let live or "It's none of my business" or "Different strokes for different folks". Sentiments like these reflect an altitude of tolerance which used to be more common in Austin.
Many Texas cities have smoke bans in parks as a result of fires.
here we have had about 3 major fires that were due to cigarettes. Homes were threatened? What is the problem???
You guys need a break from smoking anyway. A little time out in areas is good for you.
As for the people listing how much secondary smoke you have inhaled, good for you, but if there is a chance that only one person, from the Million in Austin, might get sick then I say regulate that crap.
It seems some people are more predisposed to cancer than others, it may not affect you but it affect others.
Smokers need to be more sensitive to the well being of others. Their health is more important than your darn smelly nasty cigarette.
Wow.......So let's look at the facts here. The Austin City Council, in response to drought conditions, enacted a smoking ban in Austin parks b/c that was the only legal way they could enforce burn bans....
And so far in this thread TexasHorseLady has said that this action makes the austin city council like Nazis, and the people effected by the smoking ban are like the victims of the World Trade Center....
You don't think that there is something inherently wrong with saying a smoking ban in Austin Parks is akin to the Holocaust and 9/11 rolled into one? Do you have any shame, THL? Even if you try to weasely say it's to a lesser degree, you really belive that those 3 events should share a sentence? They are comparable in your mind?
And yes, I got the weasel phrasing you threw in there. Sure, maybe it's to a lesser "degree" but the "attitudes" behind banning smoking because of wildfire risk (or for a health risk), is the same as eugenics and a holy jihad....yeah, that's the ticket.
So you don't agree with something the city council does, and then it becomes okay to say they have the same attitude as the fanatics that make up Al Qaeda? Some people on this board think smoking should be banned, and have given sound reasons why they support it, and rather than just disagreeing with them, you have to take it one step further and say they have the same "attitudes" as Nazis.....? Al Qaeda kills innocent people with planes...do you REALLY think that CaptRn and I have the same "attitude" as those people? Wow, it's one thing to call us "whiners" THL, but to say we have the same "attitude" as mass murderers...that's low even for you. That is the Glenn Beck school of arguing. "I don't need to support my reasons, or explain my feelings. You are either with me, or you are a Nazi."
For someone who claims to be a student of history THL, I really have to wonder about you......
I guess if you don't have a logical platform to make an argument, you have to compare everything to 9/11....
Next up, THL stubs her toe on the way to the kitchen, and compares it to the pogrom of the Jews in Warsaw. Then she explains why her truck running out of gas is the worse thing since the inquisition....you find MY attitude "grossly offensive" TexasHorseLady? You compare people who disagree with you to Nazis and terrorists. THAT'S offensive. For someone who claims to be a champion of personal liberty, you sure don't believe in rigourous debate, or loyal opposition. Nazis and Al Qaeda, wow.....what a horrible horrible thing to say..
I guess you all better hope that CaptRn and I don't get our pilot's license!! We don't like smoking and are willing to blow up buildings to make our points....
I think that post flew right the heads of some people on this thread. She clearly differentiated between the anti-smokers and terrorists.
She said the attitude of self-righteousness and intolerance was similar. She clearly stated that is was to a lesser degree.
She did not equate anti-smokers with terrorists.
There's a lot of false equating going on this thread. Somebody smoking on a park bench DOES NOT equal being trapped in a confined space with people smoking. And somebody smoking on a park bench is NOT THE SAME as somebody blowing smoke in your face.
A cigarette butt left by an irresponsible smoker IS NOT THE SAME as cigarette butts everywhere.
It's also curious that smoke from a grill is somehow to be tolerated, but smoke from a cigarette somehow can not be. It either case, just move away if it bothers you.
And there is a huge difference between temporary smoking ban while we are in a severe drought to a permanent ban. The permanent ban is only being proposed in the spirit of never letting a crisis go to waste.
That core attitude of self-righteousness and intolerance is the same core attitude that can be observed in intolerance to gays. There's a similarity to an attitude of "I can't stand people smoking in that bar" to "I can't stand that that bar caters to gays!" (There's a simple solution: just don't in there.)
Last edited by austinrebel; 10-20-2011 at 10:05 AM..
Ever been in an elevator with someone who smokes? Doesn't smell very pleasant either. The only difference is that people don't generally spray their perfume on you. And you don't have to walk 20 feet out of your way to get to the entrance of a building because you don't want to walk through a crowd of people all spraying perfume. But smokers don't just stink themselves, they force those of us that don't to smell like smoke too. If someone were walking around spraying perfume everywhere near you, you'd probably be upset. Why is is OK for smokers to blow smoke everywhere?
Really - how often does this happen to you? Is it so bad that we need laws to protect your nose? Are people such wimps that this is a big issue?
Smokers can't blow smoke everywhere.
Some people from other countries don't routinely bathe. Many of these people work in technology fields. Unless I had to work side by side with such a person, I wouldn't really care.
Many Texas cities have smoke bans in parks as a result of fires.
here we have had about 3 major fires that were due to cigarettes. Homes were threatened? What is the problem???
You guys need a break from smoking anyway. A little time out in areas is good for you.
As for the people listing how much secondary smoke you have inhaled, good for you, but if there is a chance that only one person, from the Million in Austin, might get sick then I say regulate that crap.
It seems some people are more predisposed to cancer than others, it may not affect you but it affect others.
Smokers need to be more sensitive to the well being of others. Their health is more important than your darn smelly nasty cigarette.
Those bans are temporary where smoking has been banned due to fires. This discussion is about permanent bans. If we were to ban smoking permanently due to fires, then we would have to ban all outdoor grilling permanently too.
If your standard is that if one person in a million in Austin could get cancer from SHS so it should be banned is true, then we should also ban alcohol in Austin, since it clearly causes more deaths than that. Alcohol causes cancer too, you know.
Those bans are temporary where smoking has been banned due to fires. This discussion is about permanent bans. If we were to ban smoking permanently due to fires, then we would have to ban all outdoor grilling permanently too.
If your standard is that if one person in a million in Austin could get cancer from SHS so it should be banned is true, then we should also ban alcohol in Austin, since it clearly causes more deaths than that. Alcohol causes cancer too, you know.
Are there studies on fires started by grilling?? I am really asking cause I don't know the stats. If there is data to support that theory then yes it should be regulated too.
But the Data that I know is that 3 fires were started here due to people flicking cigs and these caused thousands of trees to be burnt, threatened homes, etc
As for the alcohol connection, I don't care if people wants to give themselves cancer by drinking OR smoking. What I care about is hurting people by drinking or smoking.
Are there studies on fires started by grilling?? I am really asking cause I don't know the stats. If there is data to support that theory then yes it should be regulated too.
But the Data that I know is that 3 fires were started here due to people flicking cigs and these caused thousands of trees to be burnt, threatened homes, etc
As for the alcohol connection, I don't care if people wants to give themselves cancer by drinking OR smoking. What I care about is hurting people by drinking or smoking.
It only stands to reason that grilling could cause fires. That is why it is currently banned. It's the open flame and sparks combined with flammable materials that are the problem.
The reason grilling and smoking are prohibited is because we are a very severe drought.
The fires in Bastrop were caused by power lines, not smoking or grilling.
Eventually the drought will end and grilling and smoking outside will not be an issue, in terms of fires.
If the drought does not end, we will have worse problems than smoking. Austin will look like Saudi Arabia if we don't get some rain eventually.
I think that post flew right the heads of some people on this thread. She clearly differentiated between the anti-smokers and terrorists. No, she clearly said their "attitude is the same". The only minor distinction she made was "it's all a matter of degree", but then finished that sentence with "the attitude is the same". She used 225 words, and only the 6 words of "it's all a matter of degree" vaguely, sort of, kind of tried to maybe soften the comparison that she directly made with the other 95% of her post.
She said the attitude of self-righteousness and intolerance was similar. No - she said "it's precisely that kind of attitude" and "the attitude is the same". Not similar - "the same". Again though, even if she said it was "similar", what she's very specifically comparing is those who favor the smoking ban (for whatever their reasons are, even if she thinks the reasons are self-righteous) with the terrorists who flew the planes into the Twin Towers.
She clearly stated that is was to a lesser degree. She "clearly" stated no such thing. What she said was "It's all a matter of degree" (not a "lesser degree"), then made sure to follow that up with "the attitude is the same".
She did not equate anti-smokers with terrorists. As she wrote it, what she did was equate people who are in favor of the ban with the terrorists who flew the planes into the Twin Towers. She was very specific about that comparison. Perhaps she just wrote it badly, but that's what her posting says, in her own words.
There's a lot of false equating going on this thread. Somebody smoking on a park bench DOES NOT equal being trapped in a confined space with people smoking. And somebody smoking on a park bench is NOT THE SAME as somebody blowing smoke in your face.
A cigarette butt left by an irresponsible smoker IS NOT THE SAME as cigarette butts everywhere.
It's also curious that smoke from a grill is somehow to be tolerated, but smoke from a cigarette somehow can not be. It either case, just move away if it bothers you.
And there is a huge difference between temporary smoking ban while we are in a severe drought to a permanent ban. The permanent ban is only being proposed in the spirit of never letting a crisis go to waste.
That core attitude of self-righteousness and intolerance is the same core attitude that can be observed in intolerance to gays. There's a similarity to an attitude of "I can't stand people smoking in that bar" to "I can't stand that that bar caters to gays!" (There's a simple solution: just don't in there.) Yes, because being next to a gay guy in a bar can harm or even kill you. Talk about "a lot of false equating going on".
Some posts above were deleted. Doing a deep dive into terrorism metaphors and making personal attacks will get the thread closed. Keep the discussion in Austin and keep it civil to keep it open.
FWIW, a swipe directed broadly at people who hold a particular point of view is NOT a personal attack, even if you've previously taken that point of view in the thread. It would be friendlier and a better contribution to the discussion not to make such swipes, but it is allowed here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
