March 29, 2005


Ireland celebrates success of smoking ban (Jodie Ginsberg, 3/29/05, Reuters)

Ireland's pioneering smoking ban has won widespread support, figures published today show, despite fears the law is putting pubs out of business.

The ban on smoking in restaurants, pubs and workplaces, introduced exactly a year ago, had been expected to meet widespread resistance in a country where the pub culture of a drink and a smoke were considered part of its life blood.

Instead, the sight of smokers huddled outside pub doors is now as familiar as a pint of Guinness.

"The general support for this health initiative is extremely high and has increased further since its introduction, even among smokers -- and exceeds all expectations," said anti-smoking lobby group ASH.

Figures from an independent survey conducted earlier this month for the government's Office of Tobacco Control show 93 percent of people think the ban is a good idea.

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 29, 2005 9:03 PM


Nah... Just their freedom.

Thank goodness all the liberty-loving Europeans have immigrated over to America during the past two centuries, where they won't have to worry about such arbitrary infringement of property righ...


Posted by: Semolina at March 29, 2005 9:07 PM

Yes, that's precisely how liberty works.

Posted by: oj at March 29, 2005 9:10 PM

What's precisely how liberty works? Are you talking about the part where I buy a piece of land, erect a building, invite people in, and then get told by the state that I cannot conduct a legal activity there?

Yeah -- that's how liberty works. Precisely.

Posted by: Semolina at March 29, 2005 9:14 PM

No, you're told you can't conduct illegal activities there.

Posted by: oj at March 29, 2005 9:53 PM

When they had to choose between booze and cigaretts, It was no contest.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at March 29, 2005 10:00 PM

See, Orrin doesn't like smoking. Therefore it's immoral. He doesn't like cell phones or video games or soccer or "Gomer Pyle, USMC" so they're immoral too. And he'll spin you a fascinating tale involving dancing philosphers, historians without number, Jesus Christ and Oliver Cromwell to prove to you that all those things are immoral, just because he can't admit that the has the same lust for power as all men and he's just trying to rationalize it behind a cloak of Conseervativism. It's extremely tiresome and these days it's only when I'm at a very low ebb that I get suckered into the same old argument. Usually, I just roll my eyes and say, "Oh, Orrin, you so crazy!" Try it. It's much more fun than banging your heart against that poor mad brother's wall.

Posted by: Governor Breck at March 30, 2005 6:40 AM


Precisely. Although a proto-totalitarian argle-b argling about liberty is an excellent example of irony.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at March 30, 2005 7:10 AM


"93 percent of people think the ban is a good idea."

That's how liberty works.

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2005 7:49 AM


Yes so long as you're likewise of the opinion that it is totalitarian for the 93% to ban pedophilia.

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2005 7:56 AM

Doesn't a majority of this country say that Terri Schaivo should die? Were Jim Crow laws just because a majority of the country supported them? Or the Nuremburg Laws? Just because a majority wants something doesn't mean that it's the correct thing to do. Now, I'm not trying to draw a moral equivalence between the murder of a helpless woman and a bunch of Micks smoking in bars, (although you just did the same thing with pedophilia and smoking - see my previous post about how you equate things you don't like with grossly immoral activities) but it does seem a little hypocritical of you to be flogging the "Majority rules everything!" idea only when convienient to your beliefs.

Posted by: Governor Breck at March 30, 2005 8:23 AM

OK, so you've reduced this down to a semantics game.

That 93 percent of the people approve the ban is representative of how democracy works. It has nothing to do with liberty.

Smoking bans are state-imposed violations of liberty.

Pedophilia -- at least, pedophilic activity -- is one individual's violation of another individual's person AND liberty.

In the strictest sense, sure -- banning pedophilia is restricting liberty. But there's a clear difference between the two.

Posted by: Semolina at March 30, 2005 8:25 AM

Semantics? No. Philosophy. That's precisely how liberty works. You're ar5guing for license.

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2005 8:35 AM


They're killing her aren't they?

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2005 8:36 AM

And you support that?

Posted by: Governor Breck at March 30, 2005 8:43 AM


No. The right to life precedes liberty and is inalienable.

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2005 8:47 AM

Except when the majority wills it, as you've noted here. Oh, feh, never mind. I've got a job to do. "Oh Orrin, you so crazy!"

Posted by: Governor Breck at March 30, 2005 8:58 AM


Isn't it interesting how some around here who use the law and majority opinion to defend Terri's starvation are the same ones who assert that their rights to smoke, sell booze at 2;00 am and buy chicken sandwiches at airports on Sunday are inalienable and beyond majority restriction?

Posted by: Peter B at March 30, 2005 9:02 AM


Just because the majority takes life does not mean it had the right to do so.

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2005 9:05 AM


Actually they're quite consistent--anything that inconveniences them as individuals is intolerable. It's the elevation of self uber alles.

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2005 9:07 AM