The Webtender
Forum and Chat

 Message 34466 of 39187 in General Discussion
 Share on Facebook |  Save to del.icio.us  
Subject: Re: Smoking bans are the real health haxard
From: vegastud
Posted: Sun Oct 7. 2007, 09:25 UTC
Followup to: "Smoking bans are the real health haxard"  by snowbird  (Fri Sep 28. 2007, 03:00 UTC)
> The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the 
> nation from
> sea to sea has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed 
> threat
> of second-hand smoke.
> The bans are symptoms of a far more grievous threat; a cancer that 
> has been
> spreading for decades. This cancer is the only real hazard involved 
> -- the
> cancer of unlimited government power.
> The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a 
> phantom
> menace. The issue is: if it were harmful, what would be the proper 
> reaction?
> Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating 
> people about
> the potential danger and allowing them to make their own decisions, 
> or
> should they seize the power of government and force people to make 
> the
> "right" decision?
> Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than
> attempting to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their 
> health, the
> tobacco bans are the unwanted intrusion.
> Loudly billed as measures that only affect "public places," they 
> have
> actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, 
> shops, and
> offices -- places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or 
> whose
> customers are free to go elsewhere if they don't like the smoke. Some 
> local
> bans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is 
> obviously
> negligible, such as outdoor public parks.
> The decision to smoke, or to avoid second-hand smoke, is a question 
> to be
> answered by each individual based on his own values and his own 
> assessment
> of the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make 
> regarding
> every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to 
> befriend
> or sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get 
> married
> or divorced, and so on.
> All of these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful
> consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from the
> neighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. 
> He must
> be free, because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbours, and 
> only
> his own judgment can guide him through it.
> Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. 
> Cigarette
> smokers are a numerical minority, practising a habit considered 
> annoying and
> unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered 
> the
> power of government and used it to dictate their behaviour.
> That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect of
> inhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at 
> your
> favourite restaurant. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated 
> alarm
> at those wisps of smoke while they unleash the systematic and 
> unlimited
> intrusion of government into our lives.
> 
> http://smokersclubinc.com
> http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com
> http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com
> 
> Thomas Laprade
> Thunder Bay, Ont.

go suck on your cancer stik.

atilano


 Current thread (4 messages):
 Message options:
 

Do you know a good web page related to drinks, bartending, wine or similar subjects?
Visit The Webtender Index and add it!

Home · Drink Recipes · Bookstore · Barstore · Handbook · Web Index · Feedback

Copyright © The Webtender.
About | Disclaimer | Privacy policy