Calabasas, California, smokers needn't worry, says Jacob Sullum: They can still light up at home, hiding under the bed with all the doors locked and the shades drawn if they want.
New at Reason
Comments to "New at Reason":
So, when do they start demanding in California that convicted smokers wear giant, red "S?"
I can't wait for the show trials. I wonder if Court TV will air them. Will Stalin himself be present?
Rich Ard | March 8, 2006, 10:08am | #
To be fair, we already stand out to those equipped with noses.This should be interesting to watch, considering how well it's worked with grass, and alcohol, and opiates, and and and and...
It seems only a matter of time before farters face similarly draconian ordinances.
Hakluyt | March 8, 2006, 10:12am | #
Ed,Wait until Congress holds hearings on smoking activities of the citizenry. Call it the House Smoking Activities Committee (HSAC).
"Mr. Smith, are you now or have you ever been a smoker?"
Soon after that we'll have camps for smokers (and we'll have month-long discussions here on Hit n' Run over issues of citizenship).
ace, in 1991, a Baylor University student was given a ticket for breaking wind in the presence of a Waco police officer. Texas was ahead of California in penalizing passing gas.
I have an abstract curiosity about one thing: one the anti-smokers succeed in wiping smoking off the face of the earth, I doubt they'll be content to say "Cool; now that we've reached our goal let's just go home and live our lives." So what will they focus on next? Fat people sound like a good prospect, but since they make up the majority of Americans these days that would be very difficult to pull off. So who will the next official evil group be?
Mr. F. Le Mur | March 8, 2006, 10:19am | #
"Sieg Health!" - P.J.O'R.Larry A | March 8, 2006, 10:27am | #
It's a love thing.I Love You, California
I.
I love you, California, you're the greatest state of all.
I love you in the winter, summer, spring and in the fall.
I love your fertile valleys; your dear mountains I adore.
I love your grand old ocean and I love her rugged shore.
Chorus
Where the snow crowned Golden Sierras
Keep their watch o'er the valleys bloom,
It is there I would be in our land by the sea,
Every breeze bearing rich perfume.
It is here nature gives of her rarest. It is Home Sweet Home to me,
And I know when I die I shall breathe my last sigh
For my sunny California.
The rest of the official state song.
Pro Libertate | March 8, 2006, 10:27am | #
Soda is an enabler. It causes all obesity. It hurts our children. Big Soda must pay.As a first step, all soda drinkers must be banned from public buildings. Why? Well, if we see soda being consumed, then we might be overcome and consume it ourselves. This we cannot allow. Also, studies show that second-hand drinking of soda increases a non-drinker's daily caloric intake!
The horror! The humanity! Man the law courts! Legislate!!!!!! Regulate!!!!
Ed | March 8, 2006, 10:30am | #
WHEREAS, the use of cigars is known to cause lung, larynx, esophageal, and oral cancer and it makes my dog sneezeand
WHEREAS, more than 440,000 people die in the United States from tobaccorelated diseases every year and deservedly so
and
WHEREAS, deaths from smoking around the world will soon outnumber those from AIDS, tuberculosis and the unintended consequences of idiotic regulations propagated by smarmy health-Nazis
and
and
and
Iowa Coke Bottling Planty Smalls | March 8, 2006, 10:39am | #
I love it when you call me Big Pop.But they don't have the huevos to ban the sale of tobacco. The smoking ban cities want the revenue from the sales tax and property tax from the retailers. 'We want you to buy them in our City, just don't smoke them in our City.'
Warren | March 8, 2006, 11:05am | #
I am more libertarian than thou.I am ready to pitch a hissy fit over government overreach at the drop of a hat. I too deplore the denomination of smokers. I agree that health concerns from second hand smoke are bogus. Private businesses should be allowed to set their own smoking policies.
However, I grew up a non-smoker (I grew out of it, and then partially reverted). The stench of tobacco is foul, it is positively life degrading. That non-smokers (and smokers too for that matter) should not be forced to suffer the detestable odor of cigarette smoke, strikes me as self evident. I can't see how smoking in public places is anymore defensible than emptying one's wastebasket onto the sidewalk.
Jennifer | March 8, 2006, 11:22am | #
That non-smokers (and smokers too for that matter) should not be forced to suffer the detestable odor of cigarette smoke, strikes me as self evident. I can't see how smoking in public places is anymore defensible than emptying one's wastebasket onto the sidewalk.You can apply the same logic to perfume, cologne, stinky after-shave, scented-candle shops that make me sneeze every time I walk by them--if people start claiming a right to go out in public without being exposed to smells they find objectionable, we're all going to be in a LOT of trouble pretty soon.
Rhywun | March 8, 2006, 11:28am | #
I can't see how smoking in public places is anymore defensible than emptying one's wastebasket onto the sidewalk.Why should you care, unless you're rooted to the spot with your nose two inches away from my mouth...?
Evan | March 8, 2006, 11:35am | #
"if people start claiming a right to go out in public without being exposed to smells they find objectionable, we're all going to be in a LOT of trouble pretty soon."Jennifer:
Netflix'd Penn & Teller's Bullshit, watched it last night. One of the shows on the first disc of the first season has a piece on the smoking ban-ers. Penn says pretty much the same thing as you just did. If no conclusive scientific evidence exists of the health dangers of ETS, then banning it is no better than banning anything else that various people dislike. And if we were to ban everything that anyone disliked, our social structure would crumble within a matter of minutes. These bans are indefensible, on all accounts.
D.A. Ridgely | March 8, 2006, 11:39am | #
Why stop at smells? There should be a law against intentional infliction of aesthetic or sensory distress. Heavy fines for, say, more than three face piercings, minor (but on-the-spot) fines for wearing ballcaps backward, etc. If that works out, we can extend the law to cover unintentional inflictions, e.g., being ugly in public. As with sexual harassment law, the actual distress of the victim should be the standard. Think what a paradise we could create!Jennifer | March 8, 2006, 11:44am | #
I posted this in another thread yesterday but I think it applies here, too. Behold our future:http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/7770534/detail.html
H.S. Proposes Going Fragrance-Free
BOURNE, Mass. -- A Cape Cod high school may soon be the first in the state free of all colognes, perfumes, scented deodorants and body sprays.
The Upper Cape Cod Regional Technical School committee met Monday night to discuss the fragrance ban for staff and students proposed by Superintendent Barry J. Motta.
The proposed policy will be sent to a subcommittee for review, Motta said, and will likely become part of the student handbook.
Strong fragrances can irritate people with asthma, trigger headaches, and cause respiratory and neurological symptoms. Motta said he did not know about the possible effects of perfumes and colognes until one of his staff members said they suffered from chemical sensitivity.
Evan | March 8, 2006, 11:44am | #
Warren:"That non-smokers (and smokers too for that matter) should not be forced to suffer the detestable odor of cigarette smoke, strikes me as self evident."
Forced? Forced? These bans apply not just to "public" spaces, but restaurants, bars, even private balconies. Unless the property owner has tied you up and held you hostage, you are free to leave at any time. I'd support smoking bans for, say, inside of public courthouses. But not the street. Not the park. This is not "self-evident", as you claim...unless it is also "self-evident" to ban other things that people dislike yet pose no real health risk...like farting, or body odor, or ugly people, or fat fucks...
"I can't see how smoking in public places is anymore defensible than emptying one's wastebasket onto the sidewalk."
Since you can't see the difference, let me count the ways...
A) Emptying your wastebasket on the street means that trash, a permanent physical solid, stays on the sidewalk. It obscured walking, it can make a terrible stench that is long-lasting, and if enough people do it, it can pose a major problem rendering sidewalks unusable.
B) Most forms of littering has been shown to have a significant detrimental effect on the environment.
C) If enough trash piles up on the public walkways, it can become a major public health hazard.
...whereas smoking on the sidewalk:
A) Drifts into the atmosphere, and presents almost no inconvenience to those around, unless the air is absolutely stagnant---even then, it blows away as soon as the wind picks up, and it can't "build up" like garbage.
B) presents no statistically significant health hazard to the public
C) presents no real environmental hazard.
I find it very hard to believe that you cannot see these extremely obvious differences...
Warren | March 8, 2006, 11:54am | #
You can apply the same logic to perfume, cologne, stinky after-shave, scented-candle shops that make me sneeze every time I walk by themYes you can, and I would support their regulation should they become as ubiquitous and problematic as cigarettes.
Why should you care, unless you're rooted to the spot with your nose two inches away from my mouth...?
Huh? Cigarettes are nauseating from twenty feet (down wind of course). Where they are still allowed in public venues, it is not possible to escape their stench. One smoker at the ballpark ruins the game for thirty people.
And if we were to ban everything that anyone disliked, our social structure would crumble within a matter of minutes.
I see, it's too expensive to uphold people's rights, so that makes it "indefensible". Let's see, our scocial structure would crumble if; we were to…
Legalize drugs
Repeal zoning laws
Privatize Social Security
Etc.
Jennifer | March 8, 2006, 11:58am | #
Concerning the "cigarette smoke is practically a form of assault and thus worthy of government force to regulate" meme, I'd like to offer my own anecdotal experience:Due to a bizarre camping accident in my childhood, I have almost NO sense of smell. (When we brew coffee in the morning, my boyfriend can smell it anywhere in the house, whereas I can actually stick my nose in the pot and detect only the faintest coffee odor, and then only if I concentrate.)
Obviously, I am as susceptible as anybody to things like poison gas and such; I just can't smell them first. Last year there was a gas spill in the creek right across from where I worked; I got the same headaches as did my colleagues, but didn't notice the nasty smell they complained about. I do sometimes sneeze when I go into a scented-candle shop, or walk through the soap section of a bath and body store, but I don't really "smell" these things; I just get a tingly sensation in my nose and then 'achoo.'
When I'm downwind of smokers, I might occasionally get some smoke in my eyes but that's it. No sneezing, no headaches, no such effects. Which strongly suggests that secondhand cigarette smoke is nowhere near the same league as gasoline fumes or even overly scented Yankee Candle stores; it's just a damn smell like any other. Yes, a lot of people dislike it, but you can find peolpe who dislike any perfume, hairspray or scented soap on the market. That doesn't mean that people's dislikes are enough to be enshrined in the law.
It is not a health hazard; it is merely an annoyance.
Warren | March 8, 2006, 12:02pm | #
Evan,So paper litter is just peachy with you. The wind and rain would keep it from building up. There are no health hazards, no long lasting odors etc. There would just be bits of paper constantly blowing around and stuck to everything.
Not that | March 8, 2006, 12:10pm | #
Again,You guys just don't get tired of this.
Evidence for ETS being a health hazard exists.
Evidence it doesn't exists.
Pick you favorite evidence in an argument about smoking.
The evidence shows a statistically significant correlation between lung cancer and ETS. The effect sizes for the meta-analysis by the EPA are small. People will argue that the relative risk below 3 is just about background noise for cancer. If that were true, it wouldn't be statistically significant in such a large meta-analysis. Your bias will determine which aspects of the research you believe.
The main health argument involves not occasional smoke inhaled by patrons of a business, but the constant exposure to workers. More studies are needed on concentrated exposure levels seen in work places. Concentrated exposure has been linked convincingly to asthma in kids.
If you don't think ETS causes cancer fine.
Spend a few weeks working 8-10 hours a day in a poorly ventilated bar. You will find yourself with smoker's cough within a month. Cancer is not the only health risk from smoke.
Asking smokers to be considerate of others has not worked to solve a problem that large numbers of people see as a problem (even if you don't)...so people seek a government solution. That's how the world works. If smokers were all considerate of other's concerns regarding the smell, etc... they wouldn't be facing bans. You won't get similar support for the non-issues you worry about...it isn't that it is annoying that results in the ban... it is that it is annoying to more people than not. Even those who support the ban on indoor smoking can discriminate. They just put the "this is a problem worth government action" bar in a different place than you do.
Libertarians don't like theft. That is an arbitrary line as well, but most people agree with it. We've banned theft. That's how these things work: Interaction between annoyer and the annoyed. When there are enough sufficiently annoyed, the annoyer is screwed. That's how it works.
Get over it.
It's especially funny that California of all places is so obsessed with cigarette smoke, considering the horrible car-induced air pollution and similar problems they have. To paraphrase something I read from James Kunstler, California's anti-smoking attitude is like a heavy coffee drinker who is also addicted to heroin, alcohol and random unprotected sex--and decides that the coffee is the first thing he needs to give up in his quest for a healthier life.
I thought California already has the most restrictive auto-emission regulations in the country.
Jennifer | March 8, 2006, 12:25pm | #
I thought California already has the most restrictive auto-emission regulations in the country.When you have as many cars as California does, you've still got some nasty air. Plus, air pollution and wind don't have a hell of a lot of respect for political boundaries.
But hell, if you want to walk down a street with hundreds of cars spitting exhaust into the air and then believe that the guy smoking a cigarette upwind of you is the main thing you need to worry about, go right ahead. Just don't ask the government to codify it into law.
Swillfredo Pareto | March 8, 2006, 12:33pm | #
That's how the world works.How the United States works, in theory at least, is that government action is constrained by the Constitution. It is not two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for dinner.
Spend a few weeks working 8-10 hours a day in a poorly ventilated bar.
If I think the wage scale relative to my skills, the hours, the chance to meet people, and the low probability that I spend my life doing it is worth the risk, what possible business is it of yours?
Mr. F. Le Mur | March 8, 2006, 12:35pm | #
At this point, I'm actually considering becoming a smoker.Some Brit columnist did just that as a response to his own personal nannies.
That non-smokers (and smokers too for that matter) should not be forced to suffer the detestable odor of cigarette smoke, strikes me as self evident.
I like the smell of burning tobacco, especially pipes and cigars. Perfume, however, sucks.
Spend a few weeks working 8-10 hours a day in a poorly ventilated bar.
Oops. "Working." Never mind.
That's how these things work:
Dishonest government health agencies, the tyranny of the majority and the swinish masses who have no regard for private property or other peoples' rights. So, what else is new?
Get over it.
Don't cry when they make your hamburger (or whatever) illegal.
poco | March 8, 2006, 12:36pm | #
Well, Cali's not at the Swiss point of mandating turning the engine off at stoplights (though I sometimes do that at long ones). And Cape Cod's going to have a natural (BO-induced) air pollution problem if that bill passes.Jen, do you mind my asking what your "bizarre childhood camping accident" entailed? It's just so interest-piquing.
Jennifer | March 8, 2006, 12:37pm | #
Spend a few weeks working 8-10 hours a day in a poorly ventilated bar. You will find yourself with smoker's cough within a month. Cancer is not the only health risk from smoke.Spend a few weeks working 8-10 hours a day in the construction business. You will find yourself with dry, sunburned skin and be at risk of premature aging. Skin cancer is not the only health risk from excessive sunlight.
So shall we require all construction jobs to be done under a heavy sunproof canopy, or can we figure contruction workers are smart enough to realize they'll be outside all the time, but are willing to do that as part of their jobs?
Rhywun | March 8, 2006, 12:38pm | #
The main health argument involves not occasional smoke inhaled by patrons of a business, but the constant exposure to workers.So why are we banning it outdoors now??? I can tolerate bans indoors--although I would prefer it be up to the owner. But even in my most anti-smoking days, I didn't give a crap about smoking outdoors.
Quite obviously, the "main argument" is rooted in majoritarian distaste of smoke and smokers.
Jennifer | March 8, 2006, 12:49pm | #
Jen, do you mind my asking what your "bizarre childhood camping accident" entailed?We had one of those little trailers where everything did double-duty; seats were also storage cabinets, the sofa and kitchen table folded into a bed, etc. Easter weekend when I was eight years old we went camping in a nearby state park; my bed was at one end of the trailer, and my toddler brother slept with my parents at the other end.
I woke up on Easter Sunday sick as a dog--projectile-vomiting, and drifting in and out of hallucinations. I got sicker and sicker as the morning progressed, and finally my Dad carried me outside, mainly to give my mom a chance to clean up my bed (which was practically a biohazard at that point). Within half an hour of going outside I felt perfectly fine, and even wanted to ride my bike.
Turns out my bed was right next to the stove in the kitchen area, and the propane tank or whatever we used for cooking fuel had been leaking all night. (And it's damned good thing my mom went outside for her morning cigarette, or pieces of my family would still be orbiting the Earth.) I'm guessing that's when my sense of smell went away--when I got back to school I remember being mad because my teacher always gave out scratch-n-sniff stickers in lieu of gold stars, and after Easter it seemed that every sticker I got didn't work. And I also recall that for awhile food all seemed to have less taste than before, but I suppose I got used to it.
In retrospect, I wonder if my sense of smell might have been saved if I'd made a fuss over the stickers and the food, so that my mom took me to a doctor, but when you're that age everything seems kind of bizarre to you anyway, so it's hard to tell what is bizarre enough to be worthy of mentioning to your parents.
Not that | March 8, 2006, 12:53pm | #
"Don't cry when they make your hamburger (or whatever) illegal."The closest thing here, for me, is the noise ordinance thing... I am a drummer. Makes a lot of annoying noise. I try to minimize that by practicing in a sound proof room, don't play with my windows open at 3 am, things like that. I don't hold it against the people who back the noise ordinance, or consider them to be out to steal my rights because my noise doesn't really harm them. I just recognize that my rights come with a responsibility to get along with my neighbors, and try to accomodate (something most bar owners are learning too). No one has tried to ban drums (or live music at bars), just like the current smoking ban movement doesn't try and ban tobacco outright. Failure to discriminate is a major issue with many posting on H&R.
"That's how the world works....How the United States works, in theory at least, is that government action is constrained by the Constitution. It is not two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for dinner."
The main point of the US constitution is to provide for procedures for deciding these issues and guidelines regarding the principles to use in making the decisions. It says very little on the issue of local governments' actions regarding indoor smoking. These are typically state and city ordinances. I do believe that the US constitution leaves it up to state and local governments to decide those issues not directly given to the federal government.
The posting regarding people worrying about smoking when there is so much car pollution is relevant here. Why do libertarians spend so much energy on this small issue, when we have much more serious intrusions on our rights going on all the time. With limited energy and influence, I would think it would be better to concentrate effort elsewhere.
(Notice that this implies that I think Libertarian views are an important element in political life, but that I think they are being squandered)...
If I had enough money to piss it away just to prove a point, I would love to bring a lawsuit in California trying to ban the use of the internal-combustion engine in any place other than one's own home. All I'd have to do is take one of these anti-smoking ordinances and change "cigarette smoke" to "car exhaust." All the complaints the anti-smokers bring up--smells bad, health hazard, etc.--are a thousand times more true when you're talking about even the most environmentally friendly car exhaust.
jeffiek | March 8, 2006, 1:16pm | #
"libertarians spend so much energy on this small issue"It ain't small when it's your livelihood being stamped out.
Keith Moon | March 8, 2006, 1:18pm | #
Man, usually drummers are a pretty cool bunch, but you are one uptight dude!Here's hoping your bad kharma catches up with you quickly!
jeffiek | March 8, 2006, 1:22pm | #
"I can't see how smoking in public places is anymore defensible than emptying one's wastebasket onto the sidewalk."(emphasis added)Probably wouldn't be a big deal if the government kept out of private places.
Jennifer | March 8, 2006, 1:22pm | #
No one has tried to ban drums (or live music at bars), just like the current smoking ban movement doesn't try and ban tobacco outright.In smoking terms, nobody is banning drums; it's just illegal to beat a drum anywhere that a non-drummer can hear you.
Ira Weatheral | March 8, 2006, 1:23pm | #
Do you think these bans are being set up to increase smoking so the tobacco industry doesn't go belly up?Seems to me back in the 70s and 80s many, if not most, people were quitting smoking just from knowing about the statistically legitimate increased chance of lung cancer for smokers.
Now it's illegal and expensive and all the kids at my nieces' school are taking it up because it's so cool.
Rhywun | March 8, 2006, 1:27pm | #
just like the current smoking ban movement doesn't try and ban tobacco outrightNo; they're smart enough to take it one step at a time. Like the anti-abortion folks used to be before South Dakota happened.
Jennifer | March 8, 2006, 1:36pm | #
Do you think these bans are being set up to increase smoking so the tobacco industry doesn't go belly up?Nah. I just think people want a socially acceptable way to express either hatred or the desire to control other people. Which of the following statements is considered socially acceptable nowadays:
1. I hate all women! They smell nasty and are simply disgusting!
2. I hate all black people! They smell nasty and are simply disgusting!
3. I hate all smokers! They smell nasty and are simply disgusting!
Now what about these:
1. I hate people who drive cars! Tell those losers to stop stinking up my air!
2. I hate churches that burn incense! Tell those losers to stop stinking up my air!
3. I hate people who smoke! Tell those losers to stop stinking up my air!
(I'm not filled with hatred, you see; I'm a caring, sensitive person who loves children and the environment and wants everybody to be healthy and happy. That's my motivation. Really.)
Captain Holly | March 8, 2006, 2:08pm | #
Libertarians don't like theft. That is an arbitrary line as well, but most people agree with it. We've banned theft. That's how these things work: Interaction between annoyer and the annoyed. When there are enough sufficiently annoyed, the annoyer is screwed. That's how it works.We ban theft because there is a real, tangible, quantifiable injury to the victim. If I'm walking through the park and someone steals my wallet (putting aside the very likely possibility that they would end up with several .40 caliber holes in their skin), I have actually suffered a real loss.
If I'm walking through the park and I happen to smell some cigarette smoke I have suffered nothing but a transitory irritation. There is no real injury, other than my temporary discomfort.
In my book, making sure that no one is ever bothered by anything is not a valid exercise of state power.
Not that | March 8, 2006, 2:13pm | #
"just like the current smoking ban movement doesn't try and ban tobacco outrightNo; they're smart enough to take it one step at a time. Like the anti-abortion folks used to be before South Dakota happened."
I think the slippery slope you worry about is more likely to slip the other way (particularly with something this innocuous). Things tend to regress to the mean rather than the extremes (despite occasional excursions resulting from passionate freaks... more passion involved with abortion).
"you are one uptight dude"
Actually my message is to mellow out, not get so worked up, quit being so uptight... not uptight here. Give the crazy commies a break, quit harshing our power buzz... resistance is futile.
Not that | March 8, 2006, 2:17pm | #
Captain"We ban theft because there is a real, tangible, quantifiable injury to the victim."
Nope. Taking your wallet is not an injury. It is an annoyance. You arbitrarily assume that property loss is an injury. But ownership is just a cultural convention. If we lived by "losers weepers" rules in our culture, you couldn't claim an injury. Failure to discriminate again.
Now if the guy had to hurt you to get it, then we could take about a real tangible injury.
Jennifer | March 8, 2006, 2:26pm | #
We ban theft because there is a real, tangible, quantifiable injury to the victim. If I'm walking through the park and someone steals my wallet . . . . I have actually suffered a real loss. If I'm walking through the park and I happen to smell some cigarette smoke I have suffered nothing but a transitory irritation. There is no real injury, other than my temporary discomfort.I was going to make a sarcastic remark about this, something about people trying to say that real loss and temporary discomfort are one and the same, but Not That's response to this comment makes my efforts moot.
Not that | March 8, 2006, 3:08pm | #
"people trying to say that real loss and temporary discomfort are one and the same"Read carefully, and you will see that is not what I am claiming. It is a very finely graded continuum. The argument is about where to draw the boundary between those things which warrant state intervention or not. Too many people here think that there is some real line between one type of harm and another, rather than realizing that it is an ever-moving target that is negotiated between citizens via a process that includes a recognition of both majority and minority power. Libertarians often claim that the distinctions they make are based on reason and principle... failing to recognize that the underlying assumptions/principles they use to draw logical conclusions are just as arbitrary as the opposition.
I belabour the point here because the H&R crowd tends towards attacks on the motivation behind the actions of those that oppose their viewpoint rather than the merit of their position (pretending that the libertarian position is the logically consistent one). The ban supporters are not less informed, intelligent, moral, reasonable, or principled than those that oppose them. They don't base their support for the ban on hate or a need to control. They just disagree with you on what actions warrant intervention.
jeffiek | March 8, 2006, 3:21pm | #
"The ban supporters are not less informed, intelligent, moral, reasonable, or principled than those that oppose them. They don't base their support for the ban on hate or a need to control."And you know this, how?
What it really boils down to is this: Do you believe in might makes right?
There is no way to either support, enact, or enforce these bans without subscribing to that principle (at least on this subject).
The libertarian position consistently rejects the initiation of force, might does not make right.
Not that | March 8, 2006, 3:30pm | #
"The libertarian position consistently rejects the initiation of force, might does not make right."That is the assumption, but when put into practice, it advocates force for certain pragmatic goals just like everyone else (e.g., state force to protect your property from theft-- again, the argument is about where to draw the force line, not whether a force line exists). Anti-smoking ordinances only apply force after someone has broken them, just as anti-theft ordinances apply force after something has been stolen. In that sense neither initiates force, they react with force.
The only position that avoids state force is anarchism. Once you allow state force in, you are arguing about where to draw the line.
As WC Fields said....
You know the story.
Captain Holly | March 8, 2006, 3:36pm | #
Too many people here think that there is some real line between one type of harm and another, rather than realizing that it is an ever-moving target that is negotiated between citizens via a process that includes a recognition of both majority and minority power.If I understand you correctly, you're basically stating that whatever a majority wants, a majority gets. Because unless you have some solid distinctions based on "reason and principle" the majority will always eventually get its way.
That, and the fact that you seem to be incapable of distinguishing between real and imagined hurts makes me wonder if you're simply not trolling here.
Bob Smith | March 8, 2006, 3:37pm | #
>>thought California already has the most restrictive>>auto-emission regulations in the country.
>
>When you have as many cars as California does, you've
>still got some nasty air. Plus, air pollution and wind don't
>have a hell of a lot of respect for political boundaries.
California's air is *much* better than it used to be, despite the much larger number of people and cars. Compare some 30 year old pictures of LA with ones from today if you don't believe me. California's problem isn't the number of cars, it's the number of *old* cars, as California's climate is gentle on cars. One badly polluting old car, literally, puts out as much pollution as thousands of 2005 era cars. California, bizarrely, taxes new cars at much higher rates than old cars, which exacerbates the problem. If they were serious about pollution, new cars would be real cheap to register, and old cars would be expensive so as to encourage their demolition and recycling. The "poor lobby" would be all over that, so it's politically impossible to do the right thing.
Jennifer | March 8, 2006, 3:45pm | #
California's air is *much* better than it used to be, despite the much larger number of people and cars. Compare some 30 year old pictures of LA with ones from today if you don't believe meOh, I believe you. I'm just willing to bet that if you take any cubic foot of outside air in California, extract the pollution from it, and then determine where that pollution comes from, car-based pollution will vastly outweigh cigarette pollution.
Which is why I have little respect for people who use clean air as a justification for anti-cigarette laws.
jeffiek | March 8, 2006, 3:49pm | #
"...(e.g., state force to protect your property from theft-- again, the argument is about where to draw the force line, not whether a force line exists). Anti-smoking ordinances only apply force after someone has broken them, just as anti-theft ordinances apply force after something has been stolen. In that sense neither initiates force, they react with force."Huh????? Theft requires the thief to forcefully take something. Otherwise it would be charity from the victim, not theft. The states use of force is reactive
The anti-smoking ordinances apply were there is no use of force. In those private places, lighting up would be (and was) permitted by the owner. The states use of force is pre-emptive.
"The only position that avoids state force is anarchism. Once you allow state force in, you are arguing about where to draw the line."
I'll give you that one. Although the libertarian position draws that with what is known in legal terms is a bright line, a single bright line. Not a multitude of inconsitent ones.
Not that | March 8, 2006, 4:53pm | #
Jeffiek,I can steal from you without force (using stealth). This is why I am not talking about murder or assault, where force is part of the action we are reacting to. In theft, force is used in reaction to an action that doesn't (inherently) involve force. The law against such action is pre-emptive in the same sense that the smoking bans are.
The trouble with the "bright line" thing... it is different for every individual libertarian, as far as I can tell, and it usually involves personal taste (i.e., it is drawn around the activities that are important to me--despite the ability to refer people to the concept of negative obligation, since obligations are as probematic to define as rights).
In this sense libertarians are just like everyone else.
Holly,
I think you misunderstand my position. The term "recognition of majority and minority power" involves the complex calculation that the majority has to make. I may be in the majority on one issue and the minority on another. If I choose to trample too heavily on the minority when I am in the majority I can set up a practice that will bite me in the ass later. If I am in the minority and make much ado about nothing, I may, similarly, set up a situation whereby minority positions are ignored as "whining." I think the smoking issue is one of those issues that results in just this trend amoung the mainstream. That is why I think it is not the best strategic use of energy.
jeffiek | March 8, 2006, 5:30pm | #
"I can steal from you without force "And people wonder how lawyers can argue what the meaning of the word is is.
With all due respect only a moron would argue that smoking a cigarette on the sidewalk and stealing someone's wallet are morally and legally equivalent.
Not that | March 8, 2006, 6:41pm | #
Scott,Not what was being argued, but I don't expect you to take the time to think about the argument in an environment where this
"[once] the anti-smokers succeed in wiping smoking off the face of the earth, I doubt they'll be content to say "Cool; now that we've reached our goal let's just go home and live our lives." ... So who will the next official evil group be?"
statement (and others like it) are taken at face value without questioning the thinking that underpins their assertion.
Sincerely, a moron.
I think it is time for a law that protects smokers from "second hand good intentions". It is necessary because every day, smokers are bombarded with unwanted hot air from anti-smoking zealots that smells like shit and causes extreme discomfort and also just because there should be a law that makes being an insufferable busybody a capital crime.
Deus ex Machina | March 8, 2006, 7:51pm | #
I humbly suggest the government of California, assist Calabasas in freeing itself from the tyranny of big tobacco, by withholding all cigarette tax revenue from the city.jeffiek | March 8, 2006, 8:32pm | #
"I think it is time for a law that protects smokers from "second hand good intentions"."Those anti-smoking commercials on TV are helping me a lot. I watch far less TV.
SixSigma | March 8, 2006, 11:50pm | #
Not That -You're attempt to paint this particular libertarian position into a corner of inconsistency fails everytime you equate theft to other non-force anoyances such as smoking.
One of the very tennants of freedom is property rights. If I can not secure my food, shelter, and clothing, then I am not free. Anyone willing to take property from me, is therefore committing a forceful act against my freedom.
A losers-weepers society may not agree with this position, but a free society must.
I do agree with your point that people aren't attempting to institute these bans for hate or control - they are doing so because they believe they this will make society a better place to live.
This however doesn't mean that they are correct. Good intentions and paved roads, ya know?
Anyway... you, and they, are simply arguing tyranny by the majority and nothing else.
Any attempt to disguise this in "gotcha" games only seeks to obfuscate the underlying premise of freedom, in particular property rights.
Paul | March 9, 2006, 3:39am | #
Probably too late in the thread to be seen, but I gotta say it:I can't see how smoking in public places is anymore defensible than emptying one's wastebasket onto the sidewalk.
I'll take the analogy to the next logical step, Warren. Freedom of speech- that antiquated thing that should be limited with our Living Constitution(tm). The 'garbage speech' that some people spew is like emptying one's wastebasket onto the sidewalk. It must be stopped.
joe | March 9, 2006, 5:17am | #
The logic of forcing people to set a good example for the kids�which also would justify banning fat people and motorcyclists from public places�reduces adults to the level of children whenever they venture out of their homes.But maybe fat people really should be banned from public places, except in the those cases where non-fat people cannot be reasonably expected to appear...
Not that | March 9, 2006, 4:55pm | #
SixSigma...Nice to see someone actually address the point I am making (at least partially-- since I haven't equated theft and smoking...they are different points on a continuum...grey, not black and white, dominates in the realm of politics).
"One of the very tennants of freedom is property rights. If I can not secure my food, shelter, and clothing, then I am not free. Anyone willing to take property from me, is therefore committing a forceful act against my freedom."
This is treated as an axiom by libertarians. My point is that it is not axiomatic for most people. It is required if you want to define theft as injury, but it is not necessarily true. I can operate rationally under a different set of assumptions (e.g., only physical force counts as force, or psychological irritation counts as force, take your pick). Individual property rights are not logically required for a free society to operate. Failure to see that the assumption that they are is an unanalyzed premise weakens any attempt to engage others who do not automatically equate property rights with freedom. It can also lead to the unsupported premise many here express: that attempts to regulate a behavior are motivated by anti-freedom-need-to-control urges.
To say that I am arguing tyranny of the majority is an inaccurate schematic of my argument regarding the process by which heterogeneous groups come to consensus on issues. The point is that there will always be a need to balance the rights of various interest groups within a society. When a minority position losses, it is not always because their position was not considered in the equation. When harm to the minority it minimal and benefit to the majority is large, minority harm may be accepted. When harm to the minority is large compared to majority benefit, minority harm may outweigh majority benefit. Many cities in current US society seem to consider the harm to smokers minimal. Calabasas is an outlier in the discussion.
coyote1284 | March 9, 2006, 5:38pm | #
"I see, it's too expensive to uphold people's rights, so that makes it "indefensible". Let's see, our scocial structure would crumble if; we were to…Legalize drugs
Repeal zoning laws
Privatize Social Security
Etc."
Oh, really? Waaaaaaaaaite a minute, is that sarcasm? Isn't that some of the basic Libertarian ideology?
Part of me is growing out of smoking (for my personal benefit, noone else's), but another part wants to keep puffing well past it's criminalized or tolereated (my life-style choice, DON'T JUDGE ME!)
Noone cares about the people that don't give a hoot about whatever is being loudly shouted about. Most people don't care, or tolerate, smoke. This country is not driven by the majority, it's driven by the loudest. That pisses me off. Moderates, please join me in a chorus of "I DON'T CARE!" and drown out the extremes.
Coudn't there have been a compromise? Business owners could still allow smoking in their establishment, but place a sign outside stating "We Allow Smoking". Maybe add an extra tax on businesses that allow smoking as well. See, incentive not to permit smoking, smoke-haters know where NOT to go, and smokers still have their places.
However, at least in Cali, it's only a matter of time before it's illegal to even smoke in your home. If you can't step outside, then you are smoking inside. Many smokers with kids step outside. Follow me so far. Therefore, the state of California is forcing parents to harm their children! It'll also make the home "toxic" for the next resident.
I've tried to be a curteous smoker. I ask if the people around me mind if I smoke, even in my own car with someone I think may be a non-smoker (but never my home.) I excuse myself if there is an issue.
There are things I find offensive, and I actually would fight for someone's right to do some of them (your choice, not my problem.) There's a vast difference between what I'd tolerate and what I like (i.e. gangster rap.)