RRC Archives

First, Rainman, the Quote for which you were searching is as follows:

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

...by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945...

It's actually one of my favorites and I have posted it on this bbs before. In this case, however, I stand firmly in favor of the ban. As I have stated before, I fight for my right to be free of second-hand smoke. It's inadequate for a smoker to blow it away from my face, smoke-eaters don't work and there's no such thing as a non-smoking section if people in the restaurant are smoking. I have no problem with people smoking. My mother smokes, I used to smoke and it's one of the most ignorant addictions out there.

Second, to say that people being addicted is bunk and that it's a personal choice shows your ignorance more clearly than anything else that you have said. Will power and "firm" decisions do nothing to do with an inability to stop smoking. My mother raised four children, worked two jobs and went to school full time for the first seven years of my life yet cannot quit smoking. She doesn't lack will power or a desire to quit smoking. She is, however, incapable of quitting.

Finally, just because you don't agree with a premise does not make an argument irrational or irrelevant. In fact, so many people found it compelling that entire cities (Lexington Ky is NOT the first, just the most prominent..even compared to New York) have banned smoking in public places. In Lexington, we collectively fight for what we believe in, which includes the right to breath fresh air.

young'n climber wrote:So you were a nerd?

Actually, I was captain of the Swim Team and ran track, but I was in all honors classes and Mock Trial. An intelligent jock is more like it.

Spragwa wrote: It's actually one of my favorites and I have posted it on this bbs before. In this case, however, I stand firmly in favor of the ban. As I have stated before, I fight for my right to be free of second-hand smoke. It's inadequate for a smoker to blow it away from my face, smoke-eaters don't work and there's no such thing as a non-smoking section if people in the restaurant are smoking. I have no problem with people smoking. My mother smokes, I used to smoke and it's one of the most ignorant addictions out there.

Second, to say that people being addicted is bunk and that it's a personal choice shows your ignorance more clearly than anything else that you have said. Will power and "firm" decisions do nothing to do with an inability to stop smoking. My mother raised four children, worked two jobs and went to school full time for the first seven years of my life yet cannot quit smoking. She doesn't lack will power or a desire to quit smoking. She is, however, incapable of quitting.

Finally, just because you don't agree with a premise does not make an argument irrational or irrelevant. In fact, so many people found it compelling that entire cities (Lexington Ky is NOT the first, just the most prominent..even compared to New York) have banned smoking in public places. In Lexington, we collectively fight for what we believe in, which includes the right to breath fresh air.

I can't wait 'til I've gone to Eldo and climbed, gone to the bar, and come home later tonight lit like a Christmas tree to respond to this priceless post... or I may just pass out.

Don't pass out...or piss out. I'd be sorely disappointed.

Spragwa, your mother is, no doubt, a strong woman for the feats she accomplished. However, strong when one MUST be strong (raising a family) is different from strong when one wants to be strong. I am not saying your mother is weak, however, since noone is physically forcing her to smoke, other than her own chemical and psychological addictions. I do not discount the strength of the addiction to nicotine and hundreds of other chemicals in cigarettes either, but again I say it is her choice to light up and quell the nervousness, anxiety and physical "need" for the drug. The alternative is great discomfort, etc, but, as hundreds of thousands of people who have quit crack, heroine, cigarettes (my sister just recently completed rehab for a VERY expensive and destructive meth habit) it CAN be done if you REALLY want to, with every fiber in your being. I am trying to be as sensitive as I can, here, because, I was beginning to think that whatever our "differences" were, they were being set aside. But, when the issue of willpower comes to question, I do not bend. Life is about choice, unless something is forcibly shoved down your throat and it is not possible for you to avoid it (returning to the discussion of simply not patronizing establishments full of smoke). "Can't" means not physically possible by the laws of nature, physics or mechanics. "Won't"....well, that's the other stuff

Oh, and just because so many people found something compelling that multiple cities are enforcing a rule, does not make it right. I truly believe you agree with me here, because I'm sure you've disagreed with "popular opinion" before on the basis of infringing on rights on many subjects. Most likely, said laws were passed by an aggressive minority, rather than a unified majority.

Again, I hope this doesn't set things back three steps.

Oh, and thanks for the quote.

One more thing. Doesn't it seem poignant that someone who is very much into his health and excersize and, not only doesn't smoke, but doesn' t like being around it, even when his own mother is smoking is opposing this law?

I haven't waded through this whole thread to see if anyone has mentioned this, but a big part of the reason for these bans is to protect workers. Idea 1: Second hand smoke is toxic. Idea 2: low-wage workers don't have much input into their working conditions and can't easily change jobs, thus they need to be protected from dangerous working conditions such as dangerous factory equipment or environmental toxins. When you put these two ideas together, you get to the point that waiters, bussers and bar tenders shouldn't be forced to work in clouds of toxic smoke, and claiming that they 'volunteer' for it doesn't cut it. This is an extension of decades of development of OSHA regulations (for better and worse) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (for better and worse). In Canada (those sensible folks) they can have a glassed in area in places that doesn't get bussed during normal hours and only gets cleaned after all the smokers leave. Seems like a sensible compromise.

Anytime with the quote.

I absolutely agree that compelling arguments aren't always right. But I also believe that opposing views aren't always, baseless, irrational or irrelevant. In fact, what I truly believe is that there have to be zealots on both sides for society to reach a middle. So, I provide what zealotry I can for my views, i.e. the environment, poverty and globalization.

I am also glad to hear your views on addiction. The initial compulsive act to attempt to sate the insatiable hunger that is addiction can be quelled. However, whether it's food, drugs, alcohol, spending, working out, sex, etc. few have the desire to walk down the path to be free from it. My mama has tried millions of times to quit. Has quit for as much as 3 years at a time, always to return. I still have days where I want to smoke and I haven't smoked in over 10 years. But I no longer have the compulsion to smoke...just sometimes the desire.

I am a totall tree-hugging liberal. Complete with inconsistencies and inadequacies. When it comes down to it though, I am consistent on one main point. I just dislike the majority of emissions, whether from a machine or a human. Cigarettes come from both!

Something to chew upon: (it's pretty long, you can get the gist if you just skim)

Following a smoking ban within public buildings within a british town, physicians documented a significant decrease in hospital visits for heart attack in BMJ. 2004 Apr 24;328(7446):977-80. Epub 2004 Apr 05. Reduced incidence of admissions for myocardial infarction associated with public smoking ban.

Same result in a Russian cardiology journal: Kardiologiia. 2003;43(6):69-70.
[Implementation of a public smoking ban resulted in rapid reduction of myocardial infarction. Main event of the 2003 ACC scientific session]

Same result after San Diego initiated its smoking ban. They documented that the reduction in heart attack coincided, to the day, institution of the smoking ban.

In San Francisco, respiratory function improved: JAMA; Bartenders' respiratory health after establishment of smoke-free bars and taverns. Eisner MD, Smith AK, Blanc PD.

On the other hand, the CDC reports no drop in revenue for resaurants or bars:
To assess whether the El Paso smoking ban affected restaurant and bar revenues, the Texas Department of Health (TDH) and CDC analyzed sales tax and mixed-beverage tax data during the 12 years preceding and 1 year after the smoking ban was implemented. This report summarizes the results of that analysis, which determined that no statistically significant changes in restaurant and bar revenues occurred after the smoking ban took effect. These findings are consistent with those from studies of smoking bans in other U.S. cities.


As a liberal dem, I am against the smoking ban. On the other hand, your right to swing your fist in a crowded room ends where my face begins. At the least, it's an OSHA violation to subject workers to known carcinogens, agents known to increase cardiovascular disease and pulmonary disease. Whatchagonna do. I hate to say it, but I like the ban despite the fact that is limits personal liberty. Health is a personal liberty. Going anywhere I want without risk of heart attack is a personal liberty. Ambivalence is a tough life, (not at all the same as being ambiguous); I can see both sides of the fence.

To say that smoking is a seen risk, may be too concrete of an interpretation. I don't think anyone could have foreseen that the risk for heart attacks in non-smokers for an entire city would be decreased literally overnight after institution of a public smoking ban.

Crazy stuff.

I would like to say, that as a health care worker in Central and Eastern Ky for ten years, what I like most about the ban is that it sends a clear message to an industry that has been addicting people to their product for as long as production cigarettes have been around that as a community, in the heart of tobacco country, we don't buy the bull they the tobacco industry has been serving up.
Tobacco has historically preyed upon the young to indoctrinate and habituate to their product to ensure an ever renewing generation of brand loyal consumers. It has relied upon those of you screaming "it's personal choice!" to be their champion. When it is a fourteen year old enamoured with the peer pressue of the upper classmen telling them to smoke to gain acceptance, there isn't much personal choice going on. Ask any forty year old smoker who realizes it is too late. Ask my Dad or Morgan's Mom.
When this happens in Lexington, it is a big finger in the eye of Big Tobacco. I like that.