Thoughts on Smoking & Illegal Narcotics

[DblBarrelJ]

Just thinking, what are The Lounge's opinions on smoking? I've been struggling alot with this topic lately, as I consider myself to be libertarian, almost to the point of an ACist.

On the one hand, smoking seems to be a real peeve of alot of people,(myself included) which is understandable. On the other hand, I'm all about personal freedom.

How do you rectify a large portion of the American public's desire to see smoking banned in more and more places, with a desire to have more liberty and freedom of choice? Is denying a smoker the right to smoke denying a smoker personal liberty, or are we defending the freedom of the public in general to not inhale cigarette smoke? Is it possible to make that distinction?

Is it possible to have both, or must we choose one over the other?

Also, along the same line as smoking, I also believe as a libertarian that all illegal narcotics should be legalized, however, I am extremely uncomfortable when I'm approached by a person high on crack when I'm walking down the street.

How can these two worlds, individual comfort, and personal liberty, be brought together? Can they be brought together at all?

[KDawg]

do you actually know what a person high on crack looks like, or was it just some crazy homeless dude approaching you?

/sigh, the whole smoking debate has been done ad naseum in both OOT and here. I predict taht this won't turn out good

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]
Is denying a smoker the right to smoke denying a smoker personal liberty, or are we defending the freedom of the public in general to not inhale cigarette smoke?

[/ QUOTE ]

Both. Inevitably many issues involve a conflict between the liberties of different people.

[KurtSF]

This should be obvious.

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

You can substitute the word comfort for safety if you like.

Its incumbent on all of us to get along together. There's no need to limit freedoms. If you want to smoke its incumbent on me to respect that. If you don't want me to smoke in your home or business or face, its incumbent on me to respect THAT.

Given the health risk associated with smoking, and worse yet second hand smoke, there's no problem with locations where smoking is restricted, but anti-smoking laws are just another form of legislated morality like anti-gambling laws, etc.

You can guess where I stand on "illegal narcotics".

[katyseagull]

Hey, another Db in the forum! Welcome to the Lounge, DbBarrel. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


I'm all about personal freedoms and I don't get why people are so vehemently opposed to others who want to smoke. Stick 'em in a room and let them smoke. What business is it of mine to dictate to others what they can and can't do? In our city you cannot smoke in restaurants or bars or any public place (i think). I'm not sure what the law says about smoking in your own car. I'll have to look into that.

I think that bars and restaurants should be able to choose if they wish to allow smoking areas or not. Making it a state law that you can't smoke in a public place seems to be an infringement of others' rights and I don't like it at all. I don't smoke cigarettes but have a lot of friends who do.

[bogey1]

Anytime you live in a society, you'll have situations where your "rights" bump against someone else's "rights". Whose rights are more important is highly subjective and frequently the state intervenes to make the subjective stand.

Drinking is legal, but your "right" to drink is stopped when you're too drunk to drive, or drunk enough to be disorderly in public, etc. I'd personally favor narcotics being the same way, but not all narcotics are equal.

Some narcotics make it damn near impossible for you to maintain a level of sanity enough to ever be allowed. You can be mildly drunk. Can you be mildly high on PCP?

Further, it's fairly easy to tell when someone is too drunk, particularly with breathalzyer tests. It's much harder to tell with some other drugs, consequently your "right" to take them is more restricted because its harder to identify when you're a threat to the public.

Smoking really, really bugs me personally. I'm mildly allergic. The smell sinks into hair and clothes. Dump those close in your hamper in your closet and you're whole closet will smell like smoke the next morning. How far does your right to smoke go?

You can yell "Watch it idiot!" in the street if someone bumps into and be considered rude, but not illegal. Follow them around for an hour screaming at them and you'll be arrested.

By the same line, one puff of smoke as I'm passing on the street is fine. You smoking anywhere nearby me for an hour and that's not fine.

It's all subjective and given few will agree where the line is drawn when two peoples "rights" collide, the government picks a line.

...and then we all argue about it...

[Conspire]

I am a cigarette smoker, and I love the freedom that I can abuse such a drug and acquire one at 100% ease. What other drug can you do while talking to an officer of the law, well none. Back on point, cigarettes are very bad, but they do not make you go out and rob people.

A lot of people want to see weed legalized, I for one do not. I used to smoke a lot, but have since turned to more productive drugs and even more illegal drugs. If weed were legalized it does not mean that even weed related crimes would totally stop. The numbers would probably go down, but I would assume those numbers transfer somewhere else and rise.

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]
Given the health risk associated with smoking, and worse yet second hand smoke

[/ QUOTE ]

What, exactly are the risks of second hand smoke? True risks, not opinion papers put out for scare purposes. I'm talking peer-reviewed studies.

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Given the health risk associated with smoking, and worse yet second hand smoke

[/ QUOTE ]

What, exactly are the risks of second hand smoke? True risks, not opinion papers put out for scare purposes. I'm talking peer-reviewed studies.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the best evidence we have so far; article

"The number of people being taken to hospital with heart attacks in Scotland has fallen significantly since the smoking ban was introduced, the most detailed study into the impact of the measure has revealed.

Researchers found a 17% drop in the number of people admitted for heart attacks in the year since the ban came into force, compared with an average 3% reduction a year over the previous decade. The reduction was most marked among non-smokers, with a 20% fall, compared with a 14% drop among smokers."

[AceLuby]

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of people want to see weed legalized, I for one do not. I used to smoke a lot, but have since turned to more productive drugs and even more illegal drugs. If weed were legalized it does not mean that even weed related crimes would totally stop. The numbers would probably go down, but I would assume those numbers transfer somewhere else and rise.


[/ QUOTE ]

Where is your argument for not legalizing weed? From what I can tell it's because crime in general would go up. Yeah... not gonna happen.

On the same note, what are 'weed related crimes'?