Editorial - Outdoor Smoking Ban

Spot on. I so wish the anti's would shut the hell up about outdoor smoking. I own a foot print on this earth for now and I will use it to my satisfaction.

Refreshing. I'm a bit surprised to see a news organ take such an honest, forthright counter-culture position. The majority of journalists I've known are paternalistic, knee jerk liberal-fascists. And I knew lots of them since I was in the profession for about ten years.
Pax

knee jerk liberalconservative-fascists

Click to expand...

Are there really any journalists who aren't owned by their publisher/broadcaster?

Is Judith Miller a journalist?

The real problem is that most of the people making these decisions aren't elected, they're appointed so you can't even vote them out. You now can't smoke on Boston Common. I wonder what our colonial forefathers would have thought about that!

Great editorial. Nicely played all around. Of course, reasonable arguments are premised on the notion that reason actually matters to those in power. Not sure this is always the case.
Also, food for thought. Just published today, in fact.

"Who Isn't Fascist?"

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/who-isnt-fascist/

I think we can be unanimously shocked that a shred of truth made it through any media organization's filtering process.

Not that I particularly care either way at this point.

I didn't hear about that thing in France for weeks until it came up in conversation, and I still don't know anything beyond "another bad thing we're supposed to care about happened in Europe so that governments over there can have their own NSA".
The biggest political problem we as individuals face is holding the nearest politician to us accountable to their word. All I hear from people in all walks of life is that "the situation is hopeless so why bother".

Of course this is a self fulfilling prophecy.

As I've said before "the biggest challenge society faces over the next century is convincing people that they are responsible for themselves".

Hurrrrummp!!

Thanks for the link pitchfork. I read it and concur with the authors viewpoints when fascist is used in a strict political party sense.
But word definitions are denotative and connotative. I don't use the word fascist to suggest journalists or even liberals support hitler, mussolini or their politics. (I use the small case consciously).
I use the term loosely to describe the politicians, journalists and citizen who, according to Merriam Webster
1. "stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"
and

2

Those who have: "a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control"
And to clarify, we have politicians and people from both the left and the right who are accurately described by the definition.
Pax

What an excellent well written article. I have to agree that all this "nanny state" legislation is becoming quite tiresome. ::

In a few countries, it is prohibited to smoke in public parks, beaches and playgrounds, while smoking is also mostly banned in bars and restaurants. I sure want to go there and do some barbeque with asphalt and people would still believe it is healthier than the second hand tobacco smoke from a few cigarette.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans#Outdoor_smoking_restrictions
The world needs more smokers who can fight for freedom in a scientific way - the verified oldest (122) person on earth smoked lightly every day until she reached 117 when her doctor told her that smoking is not good for her health.

Thanks for the link, ssjones. Great observations by everyone. Newbroom, I think you nailed it. what is known as journalism today is often replaced with what was known as editorial opinion in yesteryear.

It is indeed refreshing to see there still are some journalists like Tom Dennis have not caved in to the political correctness that is morphing our country.

If kids observing someone smoking, makes them participate, you had better lock them in a box until they are 21.

I'll bet the five cords of wood I burned in my woodstove this past Winter are vastly worse for people's lungs than the three or four pounds of pipe tobacco I smoked outdoors in the same time period.

I used to go on religious retreat to rest at a Jesuit retreat house. Understandably, smoking wasn't allowed in the house itself. But now they've banned outdoor smoking even though the grounds occupy about 25 acres. How are you supposed to relax and meditate when even pipe smoking isn't allowed out of doors? I guess I won't be able to go on retreat anymore--some busybody will report I'm smoking a pipe among the woods.

Sparrowhawk, I would suspect that the restriction at the retreat house isn't due just to health concerns. Cigarette smokers can be completely oblivious to the ugly litter they leave behind when tossing filtered cigarettes. The groundskeepers get tired of cleaning up their butts. :roll:.
Pax

I'm probably going to ruffle some feathers, but here I go. And for the record, I'll admit my bias in that I work in healthcare.
I agree that smokers of pipes and cigars need to ban together and strive for our freedoms - much of this action includes behaviors and activities that place a good light upon the smoking community (civilized behavior, no littering, etc.)
However, I do believe - and I'm sorry for you folks included in this - that cigarette smoking is a different beast entirely, and that pipes/cigar smoking needs to distance itself from it. While there is no good, definitive research that pipe or cigar smoking in moderation has deleterious effects, is blatantly clear that cigarette smoking has a vast and detrimental impact on health. The inhalation of cigarette smoke has been proven and witnessed to inflict terrible disease upon (most) who do so...and I'd be hard pressed to find a cigarette smoker who does so purely for the taste of the tobacco or craftsmanship of the cigarette itself.
Whereas you generally find pipe and cigar smokers doing so leisurely to appreciate the experience, cigarette smokers are the ones standing in the cold trying to have a quick "hit" of nicotine. And while I've never seen anyone driving in a car smoking a pipe with children in the back, I've seen over and over kids stuck in a plume of smoke, and the awful asthma and allergies it afflicts upon them.
If we want to be realistic about protecting any liberties, I think we need to take a look in the mirror, and realize that we must take specific, purposeful and noticeable strides away from being associated with cigarette smoking.
I know there are folks here who smoke cigarettes and I extend you my apologies if I have offended you. I hold for you all the respect and fondness this community offers, but I do hold this as a conviction. I mean these words as an attack to no one.
Blessings to you all.

Although I might agree with you both, there in is the problem. How do you differentiate yourself from cigarette smokers when the opposition finds it convenient to paint you with the same brush? Secondly we (cigar & pipe smokers) as a group don't constitute enough leverage to matter much in the scheme of public opinion. I wish I could be altruistic and optimistic about this but I can't. Government is looking for reasons to impose "vice" taxes on this product and justify doing so in the name of public health. I have no illusions that they will be at all reasonable and/or logical. They just want the money. As long as they can portray smoking as an evil they can justify action to discourage it. And by the way, take in millions in the process. How far will they go? Well Pa. is now considering a 40% tax on tobacco products. Your tin of tobacco just got almost twice as expensive. As the old adage goes "Necessity makes for strange bed fellows"!

I don't think it's nanny-state liberalism to expect that people should dispose of their garbage effectively, and when it comes to cigarette butts I simply don't know what the right answer is. The taxes don't stop it (nor, for that matter, are they evidently used to clean it up) the littering statutes go unenforced.
And then there's this contrary opinion from Edward Abbey, a member of our camp.
"Of course I litter the public highway. Every chance I get. After all, it's not the beer cans that are ugly; it's the highway that is ugly."