Shame
- Thread starter kcvet67
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
My sentiments exactly! In a free society, who has the right to dictate what others may do, if they disturb no one? What kind of society would attack a group simply because they choose to smoke? What kind of world are we living in? Aren't there more serious problems that need to be addressed? Like how to restore the Middle Class in this country, just to name one?
We don't live in a free society, Kashmir. We live in Puritan New England. And until individuals who are directly affected by these laws begin to put ECONOMIC pressure on the individuals responsible for shredding what is left of our freedoms, these laws will only continue to proliferate. I'm already resigned to the fact that this "new normal" isn't going away anytime soon, possibly in my lifetime, because the groups who hold the most clout to roll back these laws (which is happening in a few states) aren't pressing the issue of financial loss nearly as much as they could. I completely agree with the article from a theoretical point of view, but it has no basis in fact because all these assumptions about "freedom", "liberty", and "rights" are pure BS. Until we recognize the only true way out is not to wave flags and dress up in tricorner hats and put up posters of bald eagles with cigars and all that crap, then we can focus on the one real way we can exercise our true political clout - with our wallets. We need a complete rethinking of how to combat this New Progressivism based on a calculated and targeted economic argument, demonstrating with our dollars that those who support true freedoms will gain our favor. Those who have not should suffer free-market consequences. Money talks, and it's time those who want to restore true freedom showed that. If not, we can wave all kinds of flags and blog away while we witness the institutionalization of policies that only serve the interests of a minority.
I'm on board with the sentiment, but I don't hold out much hope that the lifestyle engineers, as he put it,
@Adam12, your down to Earth realism appeals to me, but aside from judiciously directing my political support, what did you have in mind by way of exercising our economic clout? I see strategy, but I'm a little fuzzy on the tactics you have in mind.
Well I think a simple first step is to identify and patronize businesses who are in our best interest, and refuse to patronize those that operate with a Sergeant Schultz "I know noooothing" attitude about smoking bans. A simple hypothetical example would be a restaurant that went ahead and constructed a smoking patio way in advance of the ban and therefore had it grandfathered in, versus ones that were aggressively smoke free before these laws took effect (I know of a few on that list). But we live in age when people are ambivalent about things that are blatantly against their own interest, so I'm not so sure anyone would be on board with things designed to make life difficult for them. Boycotts and stuff are alot of work and require extreme patience and organizing. But I don't see any effort at all in any forum (internet or otherwise) to even identify what specific resources exist to consider such steps, which was the point of my previous post - that all we seem to do is harrumph like William Le Petomaine when the real work seems so insurmountable. I think the real problem is passivity and apathy that appears to be inherent in blog posts like the one quoted above. Does the world really need another anti-smoking-ban screed? For what purpose? Are we approaching some critical mass tipping point that the "last straw blog post" will get us to? Or does it just act as a coping mechanism while the slow march of New Progressivism continues unobstructed? I dunno man, I wish I had a better answer for you about tactics. All I do know is I'm just really really really tired of reading stuff like this when the real fight we could be fighting is nowhere to be seen.
Adam, great points and I like the way you think.
In America, I put the blame for all of this in one specific place, our Constitution.
No, not the document itself, but the lazy unconcerned disregard Americans have towards it.
This document is what has guaranteed our freedom from this sort of tyranny, and what defines and limits the power of elected government. Its a sword in the hands of the people, to ensure our elected servants do only what we ask them to, and what is necessary to ensure a free and productive society.
This type of intrusion is most certainly a breach of contract.
I hate to oversimplify a complicated debate, but the root of the problem truly is apathy towards this one founding document.
I'd be interested to find out, how many weighing in on the debate have really read the Constitution in your adult life? I have lots of copies I will send to anyone who requests it.
In America, I put the blame for all of this in one specific place, our Constitution.
No, not the document itself, but the lazy unconcerned disregard Americans have towards it.
This document is what has guaranteed our freedom from this sort of tyranny, and what defines and limits the power of elected government. Its a sword in the hands of the people, to ensure our elected servants do only what we ask them to, and what is necessary to ensure a free and productive society.
This type of intrusion is most certainly a breach of contract.
I hate to oversimplify a complicated debate, but the root of the problem truly is apathy towards this one founding document.
I'd be interested to find out, how many weighing in on the debate have really read the Constitution in your adult life? I have lots of copies I will send to anyone who requests it.
I'd bet $10 that 90%+ on this forum have read the Constitution recently. We're that type. I carry it (and the Declaration of Independence) in a handy little searchable format on my phone, in fact, so that when I get into the odd political discussion away from my desk I can talk the talk and back it up.
I'm with you Adam, and since neither of us have the spending and lobbying power of, say, Pfizer, it will take numbers--and there's a lot more of us. Time for a reboot on a lot of levels.
I'm with you Adam, and since neither of us have the spending and lobbying power of, say, Pfizer, it will take numbers--and there's a lot more of us. Time for a reboot on a lot of levels.
I wanted to add that, even though I used a Hogan's Heroes reference in a humorous way, one of the things that absolutely burns me up is when anti-smoking-ban people compare smoking bans to Nazi Germany. Seriously, are we that desperate to get support for our cause that we need to use the king of inappropriate and hyperbolic comparisons to scare people into thinking that smokers are suffering the same sort of abuse and discrimination as those who suffered under the Nazis? Come on dude. Smoking bans aren't like Nazi Germany, and such a ridiculous comparison does more harm than good for our cause. It's absolutely crazy how many times this year I have read or heard someone say "IT'S LIKE NAZI GERMANY ALL OVER AGAIN!!" No it's not. And every time some person makes the claim that it is, I do a facepalm and think about why we can't frame our argument better, even if we want to use a more appropriate historical comparison. Try telling a freakin Holocaust survivor that your not being allowed to suck down a Marlboro Light at Rocky's Pub is comparable to the systematic extermination of 10 million people. Yeah, that's gonna go over real well in trying to get people to support our cause. Maybe what we really need is some leaders who know how to market the issue in a more legal and economic way, as opposed to the screaming and yelling about Nazis that is completely inappropriate and lame.
I'm not a law student or anything, but it seems to me that a smoker would have a legitimate claim for a discrimination lawsuit in banned smoking situations. I thought the civil rights movement was supposed to have done away with this kind of discrimination.
Adam I understand the argument your making. But for the record, adolf hitler was a huge anti-smoking zealot, and actually did put the first smoking bans in place around Germany.
He also led huge propaganda campaigns to make germans feel guilty about smoking, even where there weren't outright bans in place. You're a bad person, if you use tobacco you make germany weak, and just think about the children, etc etc. It really isn't too much different than the current propaganda.
So, its not genocide by any means, but it certainly is walking in the footsteps of the fuhrer.
He also led huge propaganda campaigns to make germans feel guilty about smoking, even where there weren't outright bans in place. You're a bad person, if you use tobacco you make germany weak, and just think about the children, etc etc. It really isn't too much different than the current propaganda.
So, its not genocide by any means, but it certainly is walking in the footsteps of the fuhrer.
Well if you want to hijack rational discussion, let alone rational political and economic solutions to the problem, then you can go right on making Nazi Germany comparisons. Have at it. If you seriously believe anti-smoking laws are "following in the footsteps of the fuhrer", then you are free to make those kind of statements all the live-long day. I will point out that Nazi laws can't be extracted from the greater context of their maniacal military attempt to rule the planet, but if that somehow validates the comparison for you, then that's fine.
But I know my history man. I know that the Southern Christian Leadership Conference HAND PICKED Rosa Parks from literally dozens of Montgomery, Alabama, residents who defied the bus seating rules, passing on single mothers, women with drug problems, mentally ill individuals, and people who even had credit problems and the like so that they could make Rosa Parks the public face of discrimination. After all, a woman with six prior arrests and two illegitimate kids and bad credit would have been eaten alive in the national news media had they tried to make the country feel sympathy for her plight. Rosa Parks, however, a middle-aged soft-spoken seamstress who had never been in trouble in her life? You can almost see MLK's eyes light up at the thought of making her the public face of discrimination - and it worked. She was the first civil rights icon and one of the most important figures of 20th century US History. Why? Because the SCLC were GENIUSES and masters at framing and marketing an argument to garner sympathy for their cause in the eyes of a skeptical public. (That's why they emptied the Birmingham elementary schools so Bull Connor could turn dogs and water hoses on children - knowing it would be broadcast all over the world.) Their is a different cause than smoking bans, yes - - but they didn't resort to scare tactics, Nazi straw-man arguments and boogie-man fuhrer freakouts in order to get their point across. I wonder if anyone content to blast away about Nazi Germany could hear such talk for the bad sales job it is.
But I know my history man. I know that the Southern Christian Leadership Conference HAND PICKED Rosa Parks from literally dozens of Montgomery, Alabama, residents who defied the bus seating rules, passing on single mothers, women with drug problems, mentally ill individuals, and people who even had credit problems and the like so that they could make Rosa Parks the public face of discrimination. After all, a woman with six prior arrests and two illegitimate kids and bad credit would have been eaten alive in the national news media had they tried to make the country feel sympathy for her plight. Rosa Parks, however, a middle-aged soft-spoken seamstress who had never been in trouble in her life? You can almost see MLK's eyes light up at the thought of making her the public face of discrimination - and it worked. She was the first civil rights icon and one of the most important figures of 20th century US History. Why? Because the SCLC were GENIUSES and masters at framing and marketing an argument to garner sympathy for their cause in the eyes of a skeptical public. (That's why they emptied the Birmingham elementary schools so Bull Connor could turn dogs and water hoses on children - knowing it would be broadcast all over the world.) Their is a different cause than smoking bans, yes - - but they didn't resort to scare tactics, Nazi straw-man arguments and boogie-man fuhrer freakouts in order to get their point across. I wonder if anyone content to blast away about Nazi Germany could hear such talk for the bad sales job it is.
I'm fairly sure that it's somebody like Ross' law, that all internet discussion will eventuall degrade into "but thats what the Nazi's did", and that from that point on the argument is utterly invalid.
However, I'd like to add that you can say that pipe smoking harms nobody by possibly the smoker. However, someone will always argue that smoking around non-smokers, who do not want to smoke, is harming them. The dangers of second hand smoke and so on. Hence the law arguments about smoking in public places. And they do have a point. However, it is relativly easy to have designated smoking areas in most places, or a smoking room/section in bars or pubs. But the middle ground is never politically acceptable; it's always going to be entirely for, or entirely against.
However, I'd like to add that you can say that pipe smoking harms nobody by possibly the smoker. However, someone will always argue that smoking around non-smokers, who do not want to smoke, is harming them. The dangers of second hand smoke and so on. Hence the law arguments about smoking in public places. And they do have a point. However, it is relativly easy to have designated smoking areas in most places, or a smoking room/section in bars or pubs. But the middle ground is never politically acceptable; it's always going to be entirely for, or entirely against.
Haha, with that in mind, I might have to make that my new tag line whenever someone wants to get into a debate.
"But that's what the Nazi's did!"
"But that's what the Nazi's did!"
Apparently it's like Sod's Law :P The toast will always land butter-side down, and internet arguments will always descend into Nazi's.
Adam I see the point your making, but I've never argued (until now) the whole nazi/antismoking angle.
I was just pointing out for those who might not know, that hitler did run the first national antismoking campaign in modern history.
I was just pointing out for those who might not know, that hitler did run the first national antismoking campaign in modern history.
- Status