Sorry Tova, but there is simply nothing that can rationalize these sorts of extreme fascist bans in a supposedly free society. Requiring a bar or other business to post a sign stating that smoking is permitted there would be reasonable, passing a law that forbids the owner of the business from allowing it is not no matter how many far fetched justifications one can come up with.

Requiring a restaurant to provide separate, isolated, and well ventilated dining areas for smokers and non-smokers is reasonable, banning it entirely is not.

Passing a law that says if you live in an apartment or condo you can't smoke in your own home is in no way reasonable. Passing a law that says you can't smoke in your own car is not reasonable.

This is all nanny state bullshit. Fascism. If people are so damned worried about their health and the health of their children they should be worrying far more about the damn cars they drive than some guy smoking a cigarette. The exhaust from a car is far more toxic than a 100 cigarettes. You inhale more carcinogens just driving down a busy street for 20 minutes than you ever could sitting in a bar full of smokers. The entire issue is nothing more than PC bullshit.

Back to the real topic here: demonizing the fat bastards in the name of public health and PC Fascism everywhere!

Additional step for The Plan:

As far too many of these fat bastards spend too much time sitting in front of their televisions and computers instead of getting much needed exercise, we need to lobby for a substantial tax increase on both cable television and internet services.

Sorry Tova, but there is simply nothing that can rationalize these sorts of extreme fascist

hahahahaha.

The real fascists here were trying to force everyone in Ohio to allow smoking by making it a constitutional RIGHT. Thereby over ruling all no smoking laws and ordinances.

THAT would have been a crime.

The real fascists here were trying to force everyone in Ohio to allow smoking by making it a constitutional RIGHT. Thereby over ruling all no smoking laws and ordinances.

Ummm, no. Fascism is authoritarianism (simplified version). Smoking bans are fascism, trying to amend the constitution in order to defend one's rights is a reaction to fascism. The real crime is that Americans allow this to go on in this country without a single complaint, and even support it, until it becomes directed at them personally.

The other real crime is that people in this country have completely forgotten that the whole point of a democratic society is compromise.

Do you know how many deaths and injuries are attributed to second hand fat every year? Thousands! Just think of all those Paramedics having heart attacks when trying to carry fat people! Just think of those poor innocent victims that are maimed for life or even killed when a fat person trips and falls on them!

Too true! Not only does it endanger the health of emergency workers, but when the patient is obese it takes more assets to treat them.

Instead of 1 ambulance crew, two or three are needed. Sometimes a fire crew and ladder truck have to be dispatched to assist also.

My heaviest patient was 850lbs. She needed to be transported back to her home from the hospital. It took 4 crews out off the streets for 2 1/2 hours. All on the taxpayer's dime.

The thing is, she didn't even need medical treatment or observation enroute. She ONLY needed an ambulance because she couldn't walk, nor could she sit in any other kind of vehicle.

~~~~~~~

The whole, "When they came for the Jews, I did nothing, because I wasn't a Jew" thing comes to mind here...

What next, rock stars calling for banning of organized religion? ;~D

The whole, "When they came for the Jews, I did nothing, because I wasn't a Jew" thing comes to mind here...

That comes to my mind every time I read/hear about yet another one of these bans being passed in a supposedly free society.

In Australia, wowsers have taken candy, chips and softdrinks from school canteens in a bid to reduce childhood obesity instead of addressing the problem directly with proper exercise and diet regimes, which include treats.

Bloody idiots...

Reply #21 In Australia, wowsers have taken candy, chips and softdrinks from school canteens in a bid to reduce childhood obesity instead of addressing the problem directly with proper exercise and diet regimes, which include treats. Bloody idiots...

Is happening here as well.

Smoking bans are fascism, trying to amend the constitution in order to defend one's rights is a reaction to fascism. The real crime is that Americans allow this to go on in this country without a single complaint, and even support it, until it becomes directed at them personally.

That's an interesting twist Mason. So when we make laws against murder, speeding, whatever, its fascism? Or is it just fascism when it involves smoking?

How is it ok to have public health laws? Why should someone be FORCED to wash their hands after taking a crap before making your sandwich? How DARE we tell people what to do. It's fascism, so we should all just eat crap sandwiches and be happy about it? But of course they could always post a SIGN saying "Some employees do not wash their hands. This heres MY place and I don't make'm."

Come on.

No Tova, it becomes fascism when perfectly sane and reasonable compromises are refused out of hand in favor of authoritarian rule. If you can't understand that most simple of concepts I don't know what to tell you.

As for your hyperbole, well that's really all it is, isn't it?

As for your hyperbole, well that's really all it is, isn't it?

Yes and no. It was meant as a humorous exaggeration (thanks for reading it as intended), but there was still a valid question. Should all health laws be done away with? If so how do we decide which goes and which stays?

Should all health laws be done away with? If so how do we decide which goes and which stays?

Of course not, but in this case you are attempting to mix apples and footballs with your question. Trying to couch this sort of ban under the "public health laws" fluff just doesn't wash and if you read and understood reply #24 you'd already know why so I don't understand why you continue along this line. It's obviously not a legitimate argument when fair, sane, and reasonable alternatives to a ban could be implemented without infringing upon the freedoms of anyone at all. It's a red herring.

Trying to couch this sort of ban under the "public health laws" fluff just doesn't wash and if you read and understood reply #24 you'd already know why so I don't understand why you continue along this line.

I guess because I don't think its a red herring. It makes perfect sense to me.

I have said numerous times I think there is a middle ground Mason. I would have VOTED for a middle ground law if one was on the table. But there wasn't.

I didn't mean to offend you.

Thanks for the debate.

I guess because I don't think its a red herring. It makes perfect sense to me.

So it seems, but I fail to see how one can intelligently equate a public health regulation for which there aren't reasonable alternatives to outright banning something when there are.

I have said numerous times I think there is a middle ground Mason. I would have VOTED for a middle ground law if one was on the table. But there wasn't.

Yes, you have but then you have also argued in favor of these sorts of bans so you are either for fascist bans or reasonable compromise, but you can't be for both.

I didn't mean to offend you. Thanks for the debate.

You haven't offended me, I enjoy the debate.

Yes, you have but then you have also argued in favor of these sorts of bans so you are either for fascist bans or reasonable compromise, but you can't be for both.

HAHAHA.

Well actually, I can. I agree second hand smoke is harmful and so I also agree it is harmful to employees. I voted to ban it because there was no other alternative and I didn't want the constitutional amend for smoking to pass (essentially forcing me to breathe it whenever in public).

I do believe people who live in a state, the majority, have a right to make laws on how that state is run. Even if the amendment DID pass and smoking was made legal everywhere. I wouldn't agree with it, and wouldn't be eating out much, but I still think majority rules is a great system.

I can believe all those things, and still think accommodations can be made for smokers. Because I don't really care if you or any other adult chooses to smoke. So long as it doesn't effect me, its not my business. If places of employment want to take measures to protect their employees (like hiring smokers for smoking sections) then I am fine with that.

But starting Dec 7th in Ohio all indoor places are smoke free. There are still a few places for smoking under this new law. They are... tobacco stores, outdoor patios and private clubs. I just found that a few minutes ago. I read a lot of stuff for the elections, there were so many things to vote on. I musta forgot or missed these exceptions.

I can't speak for what went on in the whole state of Ohio. But I can tell you the smoking amendment was backed by R.J. Reynold’s and not individual citizens. The name of the amendment "Smoke Free Ohio" caught a lot of slack because people like Gov Taft said it was intentionally misleading....to get people to accidentally vote for it. That probably brought more people to the polls than the actual issue to be honest.

Anyway, you can come here and eat when the weather is nice and smoke on a patio. OR go to private clubs. And I think you will start seeing "smoking clubs" becoming really popular.

That's just my guess though.

I voted to ban it because there was no other alternative and I didn't want the constitutional amend for smoking to pass

But didn't you state that they were two different items? If so, voting for one had nothing at all to do with voting against the other.

If places of employment want to take measures to protect their employees (like hiring smokers for smoking sections) then I am fine with that.

And yet you voted for a ban that denied them the right to do so, effectively saying that no, you don't really believe this at all.

I can believe all those things, and still think accommodations can be made for smokers

No they can't because your vote denied all business owners the right to do so.

Anyway, you can come here and eat when the weather is nice and smoke on a patio. OR go to private clubs

Sure, the old back of the bus routine, that's quite fair and reasonable isn't it?

People can try to justify these bans any way they like but they still amount to the same thing, and it sure doesn't belong in a supposedly free country based on the ideas of compromise and personal liberty.