Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: smoking  (Read 13358 times)

FreedomFred

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 226
    • Freedom Fred's Exposition on Freedom
Re: smoking
« Reply #30 on: July 06, 2010, 10:48:31 am »

Is it not part of the Libertarian principles to have a minimalist government that protect us from each other? Usually such "protection" gets carried way too far and then becomes a means to take away freedoms rather than just what's needed. Obviously,that's not what I want.

No it's not. The justice system exists to clean up after a crime not to protect people from each other, thats your own job.

So it's water pistol time!  >:D
Logged
http://freedomfred.com
Freedom is NOT optional!

FreedomFred

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 226
    • Freedom Fred's Exposition on Freedom
Re: smoking
« Reply #31 on: July 06, 2010, 11:06:11 am »

I do my best to stand far away from business doors as much as I can while I smoke as to not annoy people.  I recognize not everyone wants to breathe in smoke, but when you are out in public you have no expectation of anything except people acting responsibly and non-violent.  Dangling the cigarette out of my truck window is nothing compared to what my truck is putting out in emissions, as Curtis said. 

True, but I should not have to smell your exhaust. I am well aware of what cars dump into the air, and that's a risk I have come to accept.

I think most smokers have no concept of what they put us non-smokers through. Let me flip this on its edge. What if I had a nasty problem of smelly flatulence, so bad that you could smell it  2 or 3 cars away. And you were stuck behind me for miles.

How would you feel about that? Would you rather I kept my windows rolled up so you wouldn't have to endure it? Or what if I dangled my butt out the window?  ;D

All flippancy aside, this simple issue goes to the heart of so many problems we have with mommy government today. All I seek is a solution that does NOT involve mommy and her violence. What's your take?
Logged
http://freedomfred.com
Freedom is NOT optional!

FreedomFred

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 226
    • Freedom Fred's Exposition on Freedom
Re: smoking
« Reply #32 on: July 06, 2010, 11:37:00 am »

...
so you don't believe in property rights then/  If I set up a business that pollutes the air around me, yet it only causes significant damage in the immediate 5 mile radius, and all the other land in that area is unowned, and then someone homesteads this previously unowned land, that homesteader, homesteaded the land WITH ITS CURRENT STATE OF POLLUTION, he would have no right to demand the polluter stop, only that he not increase the rate of pollution by a significant amount.  If he wanted the pollution stopped, he would have to pay the polluter.

That presupposes, of course, that the homesteader was made fully aware of the "current state of pollution".  If he purchased the land from another owner, then that prior owner would be liable. But it was unowned in this case. Ah, messy.

One presupposes the homesteader did his homework up front. But maybe your pollution patterns are seasonal, and he bought in on an off-season. Yep. One the courts would definitely have to settle.
Logged
http://freedomfred.com
Freedom is NOT optional!

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: smoking
« Reply #33 on: July 06, 2010, 11:47:12 am »

The problem is you wish to incite an incident with the water pistol, but wish collective protection from the results of your personal action. I have no problem with your aggression with the water pistol, but I also have no problem watching you get pummelled for the use of the water pistol.

Logged

FreedomFred

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 226
    • Freedom Fred's Exposition on Freedom
Re: smoking
« Reply #34 on: July 06, 2010, 12:09:54 pm »

The problem is you wish to incite an incident with the water pistol, but wish collective protection from the results of your personal action. I have no problem with your aggression with the water pistol, but I also have no problem watching you get pummelled for the use of the water pistol.



The Water Pistol bit is humor, an outgrowth of my personal frustration with the cigarette issue. But it also illustrates a point that I consider being inundated by cigarette smoke against my wishes in an open area the same as the response to it -- the water pistol.

Obviously, in reality, non-smokers don't go about pummelling smokers.  But I wish that smokers would realize that's the level of annoyance they sometimes cause, which results in some running to mommy government to inflict the force instead.

I prefer non-violent, peaceful, government-free solutions to our grievances.
Logged
http://freedomfred.com
Freedom is NOT optional!

slayerboy

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 47
Re: smoking
« Reply #35 on: July 06, 2010, 12:42:33 pm »

So what is the solution to this without involving government force?  The bottom line is you can't control another human being, you can only control yourself.  If you don't want to be around a smoker, don't go near the smoker?

I don't have a concrete answer on this issue, but let me ask you to turn the tables around and look at this issue from a smoker's point of view:

It wasn't long ago that I would be able to smoke anywhere I wanted.  I remember as a kid, walking with my dad in the mall while he was smoking (my dad has since quit).  That was maybe 20 years ago? When I started smoking we could only smoke in areas of a building designated as smoking sections, that was about 15 or so years ago.  Already, within the span of about 5 years, smokers were force to herd like cattle into specific areas because non-smokers didn't want to smell the stuff and be exposed to it.  Fine, whatever.  About 7 or 8 years ago they banned smoking in all public buildings.  So now, us smokers are again relegated to move like cattle outside into the elements to do something that we enjoy.  I could no longer sit at a bar and enjoy a smoke while I drank a beer because a woman who knew when she got the job that there was smoke, all of a sudden didn't want to be forced to work around smoke and decided to complain loud enough for the state legislature to hear about it.  Some buildings have a roof over the sidewalk, so we are at least sheltered from getting too wet.  Some buildings, like one of my previous employers required us to be 30 feet away from the building, not just from the door.  If I visit someone in the hospital, I can't smoke at all ON THE GROUNDS of the hospital!  I have to walk down to the street and CROSS it just to smoke a cigarette.  Also, don't forget, while all of this is going on, right about the same time they started raising prices of cigarettes and adding more taxes.  When I started smoking back around 1996 I could buy a pack of smokes for $1/pack for generics.  Thanks to recent NY legislation, I will pay $10/pack now!

If coffee drinkers were introduced to the same laws, there'd be a mass stampede to D.C. claiming their rights are being violated.   Let's put it another way, let's say I'm allergic to perfume.  Does that mean I have the right to go around and force everyone around who has perfume to stay to one part of a building? As a business owner, yes I could.  As a regular person, only in my house and nowhere else.

The bottom line is that you can only control yourself.  Trying to stop someone from doing what they enjoy is trying to force someone to do your will because you can't stand the smell.

Maybe the solution is to have non-smoking roads and sidewalks.  Let's herd all the smokers into an even MORE limited environment.  I don't want to quit.  I enjoy smoking.  I would be fine with businesses having a no-smoking policy.  I might even be fine if owners of roads institued a no smoking policy on their roads.  I do not want a group of individuals calling themselves the government to force all businesses to ban smoking, and to put further restrictions on smokers.

I think this is one of the most important concepts with liberty.  Tolerance is key, taking responsibilities for your own self and not allowing others to control you is another key point. 
Logged

BigJoe

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 363
Re: smoking
« Reply #36 on: July 06, 2010, 01:10:09 pm »

...
so you don't believe in property rights then/  If I set up a business that pollutes the air around me, yet it only causes significant damage in the immediate 5 mile radius, and all the other land in that area is unowned, and then someone homesteads this previously unowned land, that homesteader, homesteaded the land WITH ITS CURRENT STATE OF POLLUTION, he would have no right to demand the polluter stop, only that he not increase the rate of pollution by a significant amount.  If he wanted the pollution stopped, he would have to pay the polluter.

That presupposes, of course, that the homesteader was made fully aware of the "current state of pollution".  If he purchased the land from another owner, then that prior owner would be liable. But it was unowned in this case. Ah, messy.

One presupposes the homesteader did his homework up front. But maybe your pollution patterns are seasonal, and he bought in on an off-season. Yep. One the courts would definitely have to settle.

it is impossible for a homesteader qua homesteader to buy land
Logged

Bazil

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1027
  • not the spice and not the country
Re: smoking
« Reply #37 on: July 06, 2010, 04:22:59 pm »

not true.  It all depends on who was there first.  Did the polluter homestead his right to pollute, or did the non-polluter homestead his right to breathe a certain quality of air.

I don't believe in that at all.  I think it's wrong to pollute other people's property without their permission, but you can pollute you own property or let someone else pollute your own property no problem.  Where things get fuzzy is the whole public property thing.


so you don't believe in property rights then/  If I set up a business that pollutes the air around me, yet it only causes significant damage in the immediate 5 mile radius, and all the other land in that area is unowned, and then someone homesteads this previously unowned land, that homesteader, homesteaded the land WITH ITS CURRENT STATE OF POLLUTION, he would have no right to demand the polluter stop, only that he not increase the rate of pollution by a significant amount.  If he wanted the pollution stopped, he would have to pay the polluter.

No I believe in property rights.  Maybe this is a simple misinterpretation; the way I see it the polluter is already homesteading the "unowned" land he is polluting, by the fact that he is "using" it.  So the second person wouldn't have any right to settle it to begin with.  Therefore someone else could only settle there with the previous homesteader's permission.  I just don't see how the situation you describe could arise.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2010, 04:25:22 pm by Bazil »
Logged
"If it ain't broke, fix it till it is!"- The government | "Politicians are like diapers, they need to be changed often, and for the same reasons!" -  a friend

BigJoe

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 363
Re: smoking
« Reply #38 on: July 06, 2010, 05:52:15 pm »

not true.  It all depends on who was there first.  Did the polluter homestead his right to pollute, or did the non-polluter homestead his right to breathe a certain quality of air.

I don't believe in that at all.  I think it's wrong to pollute other people's property without their permission, but you can pollute you own property or let someone else pollute your own property no problem.  Where things get fuzzy is the whole public property thing.


so you don't believe in property rights then/  If I set up a business that pollutes the air around me, yet it only causes significant damage in the immediate 5 mile radius, and all the other land in that area is unowned, and then someone homesteads this previously unowned land, that homesteader, homesteaded the land WITH ITS CURRENT STATE OF POLLUTION, he would have no right to demand the polluter stop, only that he not increase the rate of pollution by a significant amount.  If he wanted the pollution stopped, he would have to pay the polluter.

No I believe in property rights.  Maybe this is a simple misinterpretation; the way I see it the polluter is already homesteading the "unowned" land he is polluting, by the fact that he is "using" it.  So the second person wouldn't have any right to settle it to begin with.  Therefore someone else could only settle there with the previous homesteader's permission.  I just don't see how the situation you describe could arise.

polluting onto a piece of land is not sufficient for claiming to homestead that land.
Logged

Bazil

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1027
  • not the spice and not the country
Re: smoking
« Reply #39 on: July 06, 2010, 07:44:19 pm »

not true.  It all depends on who was there first.  Did the polluter homestead his right to pollute, or did the non-polluter homestead his right to breathe a certain quality of air.

I don't believe in that at all.  I think it's wrong to pollute other people's property without their permission, but you can pollute you own property or let someone else pollute your own property no problem.  Where things get fuzzy is the whole public property thing.


so you don't believe in property rights then/  If I set up a business that pollutes the air around me, yet it only causes significant damage in the immediate 5 mile radius, and all the other land in that area is unowned, and then someone homesteads this previously unowned land, that homesteader, homesteaded the land WITH ITS CURRENT STATE OF POLLUTION, he would have no right to demand the polluter stop, only that he not increase the rate of pollution by a significant amount.  If he wanted the pollution stopped, he would have to pay the polluter.

No I believe in property rights.  Maybe this is a simple misinterpretation; the way I see it the polluter is already homesteading the "unowned" land he is polluting, by the fact that he is "using" it.  So the second person wouldn't have any right to settle it to begin with.  Therefore someone else could only settle there with the previous homesteader's permission.  I just don't see how the situation you describe could arise.

polluting onto a piece of land is not sufficient for claiming to homestead that land.

If I was the polluter and no one else owned the land I was polluting it would be :D
Logged
"If it ain't broke, fix it till it is!"- The government | "Politicians are like diapers, they need to be changed often, and for the same reasons!" -  a friend

tas24

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
Re: smoking
« Reply #40 on: July 17, 2010, 03:30:04 pm »

Hi Everyone, Just wanted to add my two cents to this thread. It seems to me that there are two separate issues here and that smokers are being used as the token scapegoat.
 
First, regarding throwing butts out the window, the issue here would be littering, not smoking.

Second, regarding second hand smoke in the outdoors, the issue would be air pollutants, again, not smokers.

Be careful, this is the kind of thinking that encourages people to ignore the real issues at hand. This is the same tactic employed by media and government to distract the masses. Just look at whats discussed and debated in any election year. Smokers just happen to be the latest, politically correct group to bash. If you are really concerned about littering and air quality, the best action would probably be to focus on those issues.


I
Logged

FreedomFred

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 226
    • Freedom Fred's Exposition on Freedom
Re: smoking
« Reply #41 on: July 18, 2010, 01:04:44 am »

Hi Everyone, Just wanted to add my two cents to this thread. It seems to me that there are two separate issues here and that smokers are being used as the token scapegoat.
 
First, regarding throwing butts out the window, the issue here would be littering, not smoking.

Second, regarding second hand smoke in the outdoors, the issue would be air pollutants, again, not smokers.

Be careful, this is the kind of thinking that encourages people to ignore the real issues at hand. This is the same tactic employed by media and government to distract the masses. Just look at whats discussed and debated in any election year. Smokers just happen to be the latest, politically correct group to bash. If you are really concerned about littering and air quality, the best action would probably be to focus on those issues.

I partially agree with you. Throwing cigarette butts out of the car window is definitely littering; however, the butts are almost always lit, and they sometimes bounce around underneath my car near the gas tank. It is possible, though unlikely, that their might be a gas leak that would be ignited by a lit butt. That puts it in a different class than, say, tossing chewing gum wrappers out of the window.

As far as 2nd-hand smoke being polluting, I would agree with that too.

I have nothing against smokers and those who choose to smoke. Hey, it's their lung. Smoke away. But if we wish to successfully work towards eliminating government from our lives, it would be extremely helpful if we not engage in acts that might encourage some to run to mommy government for "relief".

I actually feel for smokers because I know how addictive nicotine can be. Those who wish to quit find it exceedingly hard to do.

And I ran into a fellow Free Stater a week or two ago who had an electronic cigarette. The thing was incredible. Almost completely smokeless and orderless. You could definitely get away in smoking one of those in "No Smoking" areas.

And so, you guessed what was immediately on my mind -- an electronic refer. Yes, folks, this would be progress at its finest!  :P
Logged
http://freedomfred.com
Freedom is NOT optional!

Ed

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 728
Re: smoking
« Reply #42 on: August 31, 2010, 08:10:22 pm »

I look forward to the day when I can again have a smoke and a pancake

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRtNfb6D3Mc&feature=related
Logged

K. Darien Freeheart

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 760
    • K. Darien Freeheart's Facebook
Re: smoking
« Reply #43 on: September 14, 2010, 11:46:15 pm »

I am SO thankful that people have moved beyond the idea of "Gather at a bar and pay taxes!"

I've felt, over and over, unwelcome at Murphy's Taproom for various reasons. As such, I've stopped patronizing that establishment and instead, attending private events that do NOT tax me for food products, do not card my friends who are old enough to steadfastly opposed the state but NOT possess beer, who can legally raise children but not sip from my glass...

Smoking is permitted on private property in NH and there is a trend to stop supporting places that comply with the smoking ban. :)

The market has found a way!
Logged

FreedomFred

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 226
    • Freedom Fred's Exposition on Freedom
Re: smoking
« Reply #44 on: September 21, 2010, 11:57:34 pm »

I am SO thankful that people have moved beyond the idea of "Gather at a bar and pay taxes!"

I've felt, over and over, unwelcome at Murphy's Taproom for various reasons. As such, I've stopped patronizing that establishment and instead, attending private events that do NOT tax me for food products, do not card my friends who are old enough to steadfastly opposed the state but NOT possess beer, who can legally raise children but not sip from my glass...

Smoking is permitted on private property in NH and there is a trend to stop supporting places that comply with the smoking ban. :)

The market has found a way!

Well, now, let's see. Either Murphy complies with Government's Smoking ban and loose some business, or not comply and gets put out of  business by the Government.

You have to pick your battles carefully. And Murphy put  a lot of his Blood, Sweat, and Tears into creating that business. So, given those choices, what would you do if you were in his place?
Logged
http://freedomfred.com
Freedom is NOT optional!
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up