I oppose overturning custom and convention with disregard for property rights and voluntary association in an attempt at perfecting and levelling society. But then, I'm a conservative. There's not many of us left, I fear.

"84 percent -- said they were concerned about the health effects of secondhand smoke."

Which are negligible.

"Eighty-seven percent said workers should be protected from secondhand smoke."

Including those who smoke, even at the loss of their jobs, despite the health effects of second hand smoke being negligible.

This same argument was used repeatedly here in Washington before its smoking ban was passed, yet the state has told waitstaff who have lost jobs because of the smoking ban they are ineligble for unemployment benefits because they can find jobs at Indian casinos, which have a seen an increase in business from being exempt from the smoking ban. So much for protecting workers health.

Carter:

There's nothing conservative about allowing the few to harm the many, nevermind themselves. You're thinking of libertarianism, which requires disregard for our fellow man.

I don't mind the 2nd-hand smoke so much it's the cig butts all over G-d's creation that bugs the heck out of me.

Why must you pretend your nanny-state liberalism is conservatisim? It's weird and dishonest. So is pretending second hand smoke is harmful and unavoidable.

I think they throw the cig butts intentionally to piss nannies off. Sort of like "flippin them the bird". The chewing gum stuck on sidewalks in Chicago is much worse than the cig butts. But nobody seems to care about that, home of Wrigley's and all.

Bartman: Interestingly, before smoking the ban I was very conscientious about that. Not any more, of course.

Carter: Regarding your last comment, if you're a member of a distinctly minority group that the majority doesn't like or approve of (or even wish to tolerate much longer), it's best not to go around confirming all their worst stereotypes.

b: Why should I continue to be polite to those who rudely infringe on me? It's silly for those who voted to push smokers outside to then complain about cigarette butts outside. But then it's typical of lefitsts to complain about the consequences of their own desired policies.

Well, gosh Carter, maybe because you might just convince someone like me that you shouldn't be allowed to smoke in your own home and in open spaces because you're too immature & self-centered to behave responsibly, and that cigarettes should be banned altogether.

Nicotine is not the only thing that's addictive, banning cigarettes would mean giving up millions of dollars in tax revenues.

"you might just convince someone like me that you shouldn't be allowed to smoke in your own home"

In your smoke-free utopia would you have the police arrest me and send me to jail for doing so?

If smokers were courteous the bans wouldn't be required.

Carter:

Conservatism (Judeo-Christianity) proceeds from a very simple insight--some things are more important than the self. The insistence on smoking as a right is a denial of that core insight..

Carter:

You're not exactly putting a dent in the notion that smokers are selfish a**holes.

I read that some companies are requiring their workers not smoke at all, even in their own homes.

Smokers expect the rest of us to pay for the damage they do--companies are sick of paying their inflated health care costs.

Prior to the smoking ban I was courteous. I politely never smoked in establishments that were non-smoking. It's anti-smokers who rudely insist that others property rights be overriden to suit their own petty preferences.

"some things are more important than the self"

I get it, it's only the liberals who favor smoking bans for selfish reasons, when you do the exact same thing your doing the Lord's work. Hallelujah!

Carter:

So we've established that you agree smoking in public is discourteous. All we've done is codify good manners because smokers continued to be discourteous. Property rights never include a right to do evil thereupon.

No, smoking bans were passed out of petty selfishness and spite. You've won on the bans, why must you insist everyone pretend your motives are altruistic? That's another leftist trait. And hyperbolically labelling a relaxing hobby such as smoking evil only diminishes the magnitude of things deservingly called evil.

No, they're no different than drug bans, alcohol restrictions and the like. Smokers are ill and need help. Meanwhile, we need not tolerate them spreading their filth.

'Evil', 'ill', 'spreading filth' - not only are these terms vastly disproportionate, they are evidence of an unhinged mind, a mind in the grip of, to borrow Theodore Dalrymple's phrase, an "insistent and intolerant monomania".

"Meanwhile, we need not tolerate them spreading their filth"

Spreading filth like TB and hepatitis B? You're on a bit of a slippery slope here.

Carter:

Exactly--except for the fact it isn't a self-inflicted psychological pathology, TB is an excellent analogy. We've always quarantined people who could spread disease in the general population.

Since when are you in favor of restricting those with TB?:

"TB that is resistant to multiple drugs is rampant in many parts of the world, including Peru, Russia, the Baltic nations, Hunan province in China, the Dominican Republic and parts of South Africa, according to Dr. Castro. Some of the cases of TB diagnosed among Hmong refugees resettled in this country are drug-resistant, which makes them far more difficult and costly to treat. Personnel with the CDC's Division of TB Elimination have said in various reports that "immigration is a major force that sustains the incidence of tuberculosis" in the United States "

"Immigration has had an increasingly important effect on the epidemiology of tuberculosis in the United States"

"For the first time in 2004, there were more TB cases among Hispanics than any other racial/ethnic group. Slightly more than half of all U.S. TB cases were among foreign-born individuals, who were 8.7 times more likely to have TB than U.S.-born individuals"

You aren't, of course. You only wish to restrict smokers. The only reasonable conclusion is that there is nothing principled behind your oppostion to smoking. Which is fine, that's what the liberal position is. What I don't understand is why you can't be as honest as the liberals and admit it.

To the contrary, one of the main reasons to legalize unlimited immigration is so that we can process them and screen for political, medical, and other undesirables. Not admitting smokers would make perfect sense.

Yes, we all get that one symptom of your self-absorption is the need to think that we're out to get you because we don't want you killing yourself or annoying us with your butts.

Same thing can be said about STDs oj, we're sick of paying their inflated HC costs.

It's an indication of the inconsistancy and unpricipledness of your argument you think second hand smoke is a greater health threat than TB, and that you complain about the costs of smokers but are oblivious to the costs of treating an 'unlimited' number of immigrants for TB.

"we all get that one symptom of your self-absorption is the need to think that we're out to get you because we don't want you killing yourself"

I don't think you are out to get me, on the contrary, I dispute the notion you care about me as an individual at all. You have an ideological, unpricipled and irrational oppostion to smoking, which has nothing to do with actual people, other than yourself.

"annoying us with your butts"

Exactly. Smoking annoys you (in part because you envy smokers), it causes less harm to society than (say) alcohol and illegal aliens with diseases, but it annoys you, so you want to see it banned. There is no principle behind it, it is in no way consistent with conservatism, it is not motivated by altruism. Which is what I've been saying all along.

Carter:

I don't care which is greater, just that they are health threats and ought be dealt with. One's volitional and rather easy to take care of.

Conservatives got alcohol banned and we still severely regulate it. It's we who keep drugs banned.

The principle is the same.

Sandy:

Yes, which is why conservatives have always been for criminalizing risky sexual behavior.

The smoking bans were passed because it was easy to do. Chicago trotted out the "fact" that the bartenders and waitresses were going to die having to work in smoke filled environments. Funny thing, when they lost their jobs they were refused unemployment. With all due respect to OJ, smokers are human, something he has long forgotten.

If they weren't human we wouldn't care that they're treating themselves as if they had no dignity.

oj, where does it stop? Being overweight is not treating yourself with dignity, plus it is disgusting to look at (at least in the summertime). And look what overeating did to Kirby Puckett (I don't believe he was a smoker). Let's have government-mandated diets and outlaw McDonald's. Everyone up for calisthenics at 5:00am. It's the Christian thing to do...

ted:

Certainly being overweight should have an impact on your health care premiums abnd benefits, which would provide a disincentive.

You don't hear "selfish a**holes","evil on the public","speading filth","diseased" from someone who really cares. So just be honest OJ.

andy:

We care enough to reform you.

I've heard this argument before; forced sterilization for a better society. Spare me the replay.

andy:

You seem confused. Sterilization is to prevent life. Smoking bans preserve it.

I don't think I'm confused. Nobody asked to be sterilized. Nobody asked for smoking bans "for their own good". So your rationale seems the same as the eugenicists. Do away with burdens to society, we only have your own interests in mind. You could wear the shoe easily it fits well. That said I think you really do have best interests at heart.

andy:

Your analogy would be apt if you made one change. All you need is for the proposed action by those who oppose smoking to be the execution of smokers. then the anti-smoking crew would be eugenicists. Instead, they're trying to preserve life. It is smoking proponents who advocate self-murder and are the eugenicists of the analogy.