Comments on: DeKalb Commission Says “No” to Proposed Smoking Ban

By: ZV

ZV — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 04:02:28 +0000

It translates into ambivalence for one simple reason: I think it will give a lot of people license to continue being nasty to smokers and self-righteous about their own decision not to smoke.

By: smalltowngal

smalltowngal — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 02:19:40 +0000

I agree a lot of people are sanctimonious in their opposition to smoking, and that it can be aggravating. But plenty of people support the ban under discussion without being the least bit morally superior or emotional about it, starting with me. I also agree that we are forced to inhale a lot of crap that is bad for us, beyond secondhand cigarette smoke. What I don’t understand is how any of that translates, for you, into ambivalence about supporting smoke-free workplaces for everybody. It’s not the bartenders’ fault some people advocate the ban for fallacious reasons; nor should they be punished because Congress tramples clean air policies at every opportunity.

By: ZV

ZV — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 00:51:58 +0000

Yes, I do believe that people should not be forced to inhale secondhand smoke. I also believe that I shouldn’t be forced to inhale a whole lot of other things that are bad for me and that I don’t want to inhale. I am torn on the benefits of protecting workers for secondhand smoke, in truth. My real issue the moral superiority with which people discuss smoking– and I say this as a former smoker who has begged and pleaded with many people to quit. It’s not like I’m extolling the virtues of smoking here, and a ban would not affect my habits.

It’s just so interesting to me the absolute outrage people have about smoking, so my comments are addressed to those who get so up in arms about the fact that anyone, anywhere is allowed to smoke. It’s as if the decision not to smoke is the greatest, most righteous decision one could ever make and the decision to smoke signifies complete moral collapse and renders someone the greatest polluter who has ever lived. Neither is true.

By: smalltowngal

smalltowngal — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 23:20:37 +0000

Do you not think that people working in bars and restaurants deserve the same protections as people working virtually anywhere else, in terms of a smoke-free work environment?

By: ZV

ZV — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 22:20:39 +0000

Curious to the people who say smoking should be banned everywhere: do you feel similarly about banning cars, particularly SUV’s, which also pollute the air and cause a variety of illnesses to those who breathe their noxious fumes?

The problem with total smoking bans is that it targets one kind of air pollution as “the worst ever in the entire world” while completely ignoring the numerous other noxious, awful fumes we breathe that are bad for us and worse for the environment. It also prevents businesses from doing business the way they want. If a bar wants to allow smoking, it should be allowed to do so. Capitalism ensures that those who don’t like it can go someplace else. God, I never thought I’d be towing the libertarian/capitalist line, but people are way too emotional about smoking.