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 12509 times)

K. Darien Freeheart

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 760
    • K. Darien Freeheart's Facebook
Re: smoking
« Reply #45 on: September 23, 2010, 12:30:28 pm »

I wasn't speaking specifically about Murphy's in regard to the smoking issue, just expressing my more general appreciation that things (and more than just Taproom!) have shifted to more private events.
Logged

K. Darien Freeheart

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 760
    • K. Darien Freeheart's Facebook
Re: smoking
« Reply #46 on: September 23, 2010, 12:31:32 pm »

That said...

It's been 4 years since the ban passed and I've not seen legislative action repeal it. If there will be disobedient or market activism with regard to this issue, it's got to start SOMEWHERE.
Logged

FreedomFred

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 226
    • Freedom Fred's Exposition on Freedom
Re: smoking
« Reply #47 on: September 24, 2010, 08:58:19 am »

That said...

It's been 4 years since the ban passed and I've not seen legislative action repeal it. If there will be disobedient or market activism with regard to this issue, it's got to start SOMEWHERE.

You can start by opening up your own smoking establishment.
Logged
http://freedomfred.com
Freedom is NOT optional!

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re: smoking
« Reply #48 on: September 24, 2010, 09:35:13 am »

That said...

It's been 4 years since the ban passed and I've not seen legislative action repeal it. If there will be disobedient or market activism with regard to this issue, it's got to start SOMEWHERE.

There was a measure that would somehow reduce regulations on cigar smoking.  Not sure if it passed.
Logged

Bazil

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1027
  • not the spice and not the country
Re: smoking
« Reply #49 on: September 24, 2010, 11:27:51 am »

Hmm how is the law written, maybe someone can open up a "smoke shop" and obtain a liqueur license?
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

FreedomFred

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 226
    • Freedom Fred's Exposition on Freedom
Re: smoking
« Reply #50 on: September 24, 2010, 05:12:56 pm »

There's no law enjoining you from smoking in a Smoke Shop, is there?  :-\

Logged
http://freedomfred.com
Freedom is NOT optional!

K. Darien Freeheart

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 760
    • K. Darien Freeheart's Facebook
Re: smoking
« Reply #51 on: September 26, 2010, 11:51:00 am »

Private clubs are exempt from the smoking ban. There was a place in Keene for a while that was a "Middle Eastern Cultural Appreciation Club" called Abunara. It was a hookah lounge.

I know a few places in Manchester that are cigar shops that allow smoking of cigars.
Logged

FreedomFred

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 226
    • Freedom Fred's Exposition on Freedom
Re: smoking
« Reply #52 on: September 26, 2010, 01:41:19 pm »

Private clubs are exempt from the smoking ban. There was a place in Keene for a while that was a "Middle Eastern Cultural Appreciation Club" called Abunara. It was a hookah lounge.

I know a few places in Manchester that are cigar shops that allow smoking of cigars.

That's cool. Perhaps in the short run that's the way to go -- if you want to do a smoking establishment, make it a "private club" and offer "membership" right there at the door. Cuts through a lot of BS.
Logged
http://freedomfred.com
Freedom is NOT optional!

waifofthenorth

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24
    • Wandering Waif of the North
Re: smoking
« Reply #53 on: October 24, 2010, 11:52:18 am »

I have asthma and can't be around if people are smoking. I was just thinking that if people hadn't gone and made all the indoors non-smoking there might be more outdoor places that were smoke free.

I mean, if there were restaurants where smokers could smoke at lunch, maybe they wouldn't stand outside where I have to hold my breath walking by. I would hope there would be some places that didn't allow smoking I could go to.

The real issue is, business owners want the government to protect them from any of there competition going to places that still allow smoking. I guess people just aren't brave enough to lose a little business for what they believe is healthy.
Logged
#912

time4liberty

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 922
Re: smoking
« Reply #54 on: October 27, 2010, 02:02:19 pm »

The way you fix that is to get people to patronize those businesses that don't allow smoking -- then they'll be an economic impetus for other owners to do the same. The owners are mostly just going to respond to what the public wants. If everyone doesn't mind it, or acts like they don't mind it, all the restaurants are going to allow it.
Logged

preparehandbook

  • Guest
Re: smoking
« Reply #55 on: November 03, 2010, 06:55:51 pm »

I think you have a right to carry and even use a squirt gun on smokers (presuming it is loaded with water)....

But in turn the smokers have a right to defend themselves and since NH has a draconian anti body armor law the smokers will likely be unable to use passive defense systems such as umbrellas or raincoats without elaborate "it might rain" excuses.

So I predict a rapidly escalating war of squirt guns, super soakers, water balloons and maybe even the WMD of water warfare... The fire hose. Dessicants will at first be rare and limited to pockets, but eventually will be seen to be dusted on even innocent school children to reduce collateral damage. Soon every smoker and non smoker will be seen to be open carrying squirt guns, private "dryness squads" will be hired by the wealthy to combat the rise in "wet gangs" conducting hits on smokers. Water proof cigarette covers will be the NH's biggest product.

These will be used to increase your odds of finishing a smoke:


This inventor will win a nobel prize:


And this will be the official state game:


This will of course result in a cascade of violence and revolution that will bring about the end of the world in, you geussed it.... 2012
Logged

Manhattan

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34
Re: smoking
« Reply #56 on: November 07, 2010, 09:41:25 pm »

Even if we decided to ignore the evidence that the dangers from second hand smoke are totally overblown, distorted, and fabricated (read: they don't really exist), and proclaim that environmental tobacco smoke is a great threat that we need to protect non-smokers from ( ::)), it should be fairly obvious to libertarians which situations where smoking would be permissible:

The Commerce Clause be damned, the desires of the property owner are paramount.  Even in a world of no smoking regulation, a property owner could still decide that he does not want smokers on his property and thus forbid them from doing so.  The government has no say in the matter.

In a perfectly libertarian society, even the roads that some people prefer that smokers do not smoke while driving on would be privately owned.  The owner would determine what behavior would be acceptable while driving on his roads (now, how private ownership of infrastructure would be organized is another whole talk entirely).

If you're not an anarcho-capitalist and you think that in a libertarian society that there should still be a government which has control over roads and the behaviors permitted and regulations enforced on them, then you might have a case if you want to use violence against those who choose to smoke while driving on public roads.

If you don't like smokers on sidewalks or in front of buildings, then so what?  Avoid them.  It is not like we are constantly accosted by smokers everywhere we go.  It is not a grand smoker's conspiracy to blow smoke in the face of those who do not like the habit (it is quite the contrary).  The fact that a majority of people do not like tobacco smoke only provides a social incentive for people not to smoke or stop smoking.  Let normal social pressures persuade people to voluntarily kick the habit.  Smokers already suffer from the social stigma to a point that it can seriously inhibit career progress and important networking (as people would prefer not to befriend smokers if they find it repulsive, as many people increasingly do).  Hooray for market forces at work in the social realm.

For the record, I am a loyal Nat Sherman cigarette smoker and I understand that many people do not like smoking, so I am courteous about my behavior and do not litter or smoke at the entrances of buildings, and I always ask permission if I may smoke in someone's private residence or even outside at a social gathering.  Nothing to do with government or regulation.

After all, it is totally understandable why people do not like tobacco smoke.  It makes sense that one would be as courteous as possible if he so desired to remain in good standing with others.  Those who are not suffer the social consequences (along with the health risks, obviously).  It is the same with alcohol.  It is obviously within people's right to get drunk at a bar, but it probably isn't beneficial to your social standing to make a fool of yourself.
Logged

preparehandbook

  • Guest
Re: smoking
« Reply #57 on: November 08, 2010, 12:23:00 am »

I like a lot of what Manhattan says.

I am an ex smoker.

When I was, I was conscientous of others. I smoked in a way that respected non smokers. We can get along, we can find comfortable middle grounds without legislation beyond property rights.

The fact is the vast majority of social behaviors are self moderated. Inconsiderate smokers and non smokers both suck. But we can't legislate everything.
Logged

Manhattan

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34
Re: smoking
« Reply #58 on: November 08, 2010, 06:35:31 pm »

I like a lot of what Manhattan says.

I am an ex smoker.

When I was, I was conscientous of others. I smoked in a way that respected non smokers. We can get along, we can find comfortable middle grounds without legislation beyond property rights.

The fact is the vast majority of social behaviors are self moderated. Inconsiderate smokers and non smokers both suck. But we can't legislate everything.

Well put.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up