Tuesday, December 18, 2007

At least let veterans smoke in their clubs.

If smoking is to be considered a privilege and not a right, then veterans have earned that privilege. Many veterans had to work in an environment that contained substances far more hazardous than secondhand smoke. The most notorious of these is secondhand lead. Secondhand lead has been known for centuries to cause brain damage, organ failure, paralysis, and death.

Quite a few of these men were not given a choice of whether they wanted to work in that environment. You can quit a civilian job anytime you want. But it's a lot harder to get out of the military than it is to get in. So at least let veteran's clubs smoke.


Tim Zank said...

No matter what the sacrifice these veterans made, there are those among us that know what's really best for us.

I am SOOOOOOOOOO grateful the state has decided to take care of me from womb to tomb.

I propose a name change:


Gotta ring to it, eh??

Jeff Pruitt said...

So you want to create an even more un-even playing field? How long before those organizations simply let in the general public? What do you think other restaurants and bars would say about that?

It either needs to cover everybody or nobody

Robert Enders said...

Jeff, I don't think the rule should cover anybody. When I don't like a rule, I try
to argue for as many exceptions as possible. Even if I can't protect everybody from the bad rule, I can still protect a few by trying to get the government to make exceptions.

It's like when people opposed the draft during Vietnam. They tried to claim medical deferment or CO status. They go to college, or get jobs in an essential industry. They pretend to be gay or crazy. And some just plain refused to go. If you can't fight the system head-on, you work around it or even within it.

If you want to make the draft "fair", you apply it to everyone regardless of gender, occupation or income level. You take 60-year-old grandmothers and send them into combat. If you want to make the smoking ban "fair", you apply it to private residences.

In fact, if the public health is your concern, you ban alchohol as well. Anyone who is concerned about their health avoids both smoking and drinking, or at least indulges in moderation.

Templeton Peck said...

Good point Robert. Obviously, the smoking ban proponents are not worried about fairness. If you want to ban smoking, you do it on a statewide level (anybody remember the 10th Amendment). If you want it to be most effective, you would ban it in places where people are stuck without a choice, such as cars and private residences. If you want to be arbitrary and capricious, you ban it in bars but exempt tobacco outlets. The more we can whittle away at that ridiculous ordinance, the better.

Kody Tinnel said...


I agree completely.


I also agree and understand your reasoning for trying to find exceptions and compromises. I think City Council should look for ways to reasonably reduce the ban to please both sides.

Tim Zank said...

We don't live in a country of absolutes, so compromise is a necessary thing, but compromise requires common sense as well as common ground.

I'm a smoker, I don't smoke around my kids or in my home, or around others whom it bothers. I do smoke around other smokers and in bars and I don't think my second hand smoke affects anyone adversely.
If I rolled up the windows in my car with kids in it and smoked, yes, I think that would be dangerous because of the concentration.
However, it is preposterous (not to mention unprovable) to assume the second hand inhaled from a night at Pierre's is any more detrimental than standing on a street corner when a city bus goes by.

Could anybody give me a heads up on when these second hand smoke deaths are going to start?