Ray
------------------
Steeling is still legal in Arizona
Smoking Ordinance--Your Thoughts?
Moderators: Dave Mudgett, Brad Bechtel
-
Ray Jenkins
- Posts: 2780
- Joined: 28 Jan 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Gold Canyon Az. U.S.A.
Dixie and I both smoke,we do not smoke in our house or any non smokers house we may visit.Fred Justice and his wife Brenda smoke,when we visit them I usually go outside and smoke but Dixie stays and smokes with Brenda.In fact I have got in the habit of smoking outside,it's not all that inconvienient.Most non-smokers are not as considerate as I am,so I just elected to please them.But I still agree the most with Herb.He is open minded and considerate.I still wouldn't smoke around you though Herb.
Ray
------------------
Steeling is still legal in Arizona
Ray
------------------
Steeling is still legal in Arizona
-
Herb Steiner
- Posts: 12603
- Joined: 4 Aug 1998 11:00 pm
- Location: Briarcliff TX 78669, pop. 2,064
- Contact:
Just for the record, I don't smoke and I prefer places that are smoke-free. And I'm not so disengenuous that I don't acknowledge the fact that second-hand smoke is a pollutant.
However, my personal preferences for the environment I choose to be in are outweighed by my reluctance to have government dictate yet another set of regulations over the general population. I see encroaching regulation in all areas of our society as a greater threat to our way of life than mandating that every place humans gather must be smoke-free.
The question boils down to personal liberty vs. public safety, as usual. Like speed limits, our freedom to travel at any speed we want is subservient to the need to protect the population from automobiles traveling faster than the speed at which they can be controlled safely. Public smoking is similar issue and how necessary to the public safety you feel a ban on smoking... basically what dog you have in the hunt, will determine how you stand on the matter.
I do hear lots of "it's okay to do it to yourself, but don't endanger others." Fair argument, but how many such activities now legal do in fact endanger the welfare of others without realizing it, thereby creating a burden on society? If a morbidly obese man is the sole breadwinner for his large family, does not his overeating potentially endanger the welfare of his family, possibly putting them on welfare roles should he die prematurely due to overweight? How about a smoker with lung damage or cancer in the same situation, regardless of where he smokes? How about compulsive gamblers who lessen the quality of their families lives by their addiction to games of chance? Pot smoking may seem harmless in and of itself, but obtaining the substance in most situations is currently supporting part of a criminal environment that also deals with nastier stuff.
Personally I don't buy the overriding importance of the examples I just stated in the above paragraph, but however weird they might seem, it is undeniable that those activities certainly do not enhance the lives of those closely associated with those do.
I guess we all make our decisions based on what we personally think is the greater "good." I'm gonna play music regardless of the location until something happens to change my ability to do so. And if a club owner wants a non-smoking place, I'll undoubtedly play there. But I'm not gonna call the cops if he allows smoking.
BTW, the Austin Police Association is opposed to the smoking ban, since they see it as yet another pain-in-the-ass enforcement issue that will take time away from their more important tasks, namely dealing with the immediate dangers to health and safety in our society... criminals, violence, traffic dangers and the like.
Excuse the rambling. I respect the opinions of all of the participants here and am glad we're dealing with this issue like gentlemen and with civility.
------------------
Herb's Steel Guitar Pages
Texas Steel Guitar Association
However, my personal preferences for the environment I choose to be in are outweighed by my reluctance to have government dictate yet another set of regulations over the general population. I see encroaching regulation in all areas of our society as a greater threat to our way of life than mandating that every place humans gather must be smoke-free.
The question boils down to personal liberty vs. public safety, as usual. Like speed limits, our freedom to travel at any speed we want is subservient to the need to protect the population from automobiles traveling faster than the speed at which they can be controlled safely. Public smoking is similar issue and how necessary to the public safety you feel a ban on smoking... basically what dog you have in the hunt, will determine how you stand on the matter.
I do hear lots of "it's okay to do it to yourself, but don't endanger others." Fair argument, but how many such activities now legal do in fact endanger the welfare of others without realizing it, thereby creating a burden on society? If a morbidly obese man is the sole breadwinner for his large family, does not his overeating potentially endanger the welfare of his family, possibly putting them on welfare roles should he die prematurely due to overweight? How about a smoker with lung damage or cancer in the same situation, regardless of where he smokes? How about compulsive gamblers who lessen the quality of their families lives by their addiction to games of chance? Pot smoking may seem harmless in and of itself, but obtaining the substance in most situations is currently supporting part of a criminal environment that also deals with nastier stuff.
Personally I don't buy the overriding importance of the examples I just stated in the above paragraph, but however weird they might seem, it is undeniable that those activities certainly do not enhance the lives of those closely associated with those do.
I guess we all make our decisions based on what we personally think is the greater "good." I'm gonna play music regardless of the location until something happens to change my ability to do so. And if a club owner wants a non-smoking place, I'll undoubtedly play there. But I'm not gonna call the cops if he allows smoking.
BTW, the Austin Police Association is opposed to the smoking ban, since they see it as yet another pain-in-the-ass enforcement issue that will take time away from their more important tasks, namely dealing with the immediate dangers to health and safety in our society... criminals, violence, traffic dangers and the like.
Excuse the rambling. I respect the opinions of all of the participants here and am glad we're dealing with this issue like gentlemen and with civility.
------------------
Herb's Steel Guitar Pages
Texas Steel Guitar Association
-
Bobby Lee
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14863
- Joined: 4 Aug 1998 11:00 pm
- Location: Cloverdale, California, USA
- Contact:
Herb wrote:
------------------
<font size="1"><img align=right src="http://b0b.com/b0b.gif" width="64" height="64">Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Sierra Session 12 (E9), Williams 400X (Emaj9, D6), Sierra Olympic 12 (C6add9),
Sierra Laptop 8 (D13), Fender Stringmaster (E13, A6),
Roland Handsonic, Line 6 Variax</font>
Actually, Mesa/Boogie amps do include a warning label to that effect.<SMALL>Ya know, I haven't seen any warning labels on Fender or Peavey combo amps stating that using their equipment above certain volume levels is dangerous.</SMALL>
------------------
<font size="1"><img align=right src="http://b0b.com/b0b.gif" width="64" height="64">Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Sierra Session 12 (E9), Williams 400X (Emaj9, D6), Sierra Olympic 12 (C6add9),
Sierra Laptop 8 (D13), Fender Stringmaster (E13, A6),
Roland Handsonic, Line 6 Variax</font>
-
Mike Perlowin RIP
- Posts: 15171
- Joined: 4 Aug 1998 11:00 pm
- Location: Los Angeles CA
- Contact:
What all this boils down to are the questions of whether or no the government has the right to regulate business, and if so, to what extent. The same arguments used against smoking bans have been raised against minimum wage laws, anti-pollution laws, product safety laws and laws governing safety in the workplace.
Ant that's really what the smoking ban is about- safety in the workplace. Earlier Herb pointed out that I don't HAVE to be a musician, and I could find some other occupation. To that I say that I it is not right that I cannot pursue the occupation of my choice, and for which I'm best suited, because the workplaces are unsafe.
Certainly there is a point where government regulation can become oppressive and counter productive. But in this case, this regulation is going to help prevent disease and save lives.
By the way, my mother in law, who did not smoke but worked in an office where others did, died of lung cancer. She was 57, the same age I am now.
Ant that's really what the smoking ban is about- safety in the workplace. Earlier Herb pointed out that I don't HAVE to be a musician, and I could find some other occupation. To that I say that I it is not right that I cannot pursue the occupation of my choice, and for which I'm best suited, because the workplaces are unsafe.
Certainly there is a point where government regulation can become oppressive and counter productive. But in this case, this regulation is going to help prevent disease and save lives.
By the way, my mother in law, who did not smoke but worked in an office where others did, died of lung cancer. She was 57, the same age I am now.
-
Jeff A. Smith
- Posts: 807
- Joined: 14 Feb 2001 1:01 am
- Location: Angola,Ind. U.S.A.
For me it comes down to what the underlying philosophy concerning individual rights is, and how that is expressed through property.
John Locke, whom the Founding Fathers used as a model for much of their thought, believed that individual private property was a natural right which accrued to individuals based on their investment of themselves into things from the state of nature. They first had a right to their own life, and, to the extent they invested this life into things, could rightfully possess these things.
Perhaps at the opposite polarity was Karl Marx, who believed that all private property should be abolished, and that individuals only have real value in relation to the collective.
Someone has said:
"Everyone has a philosophy of life, some just aren't aware of what it is."
More important to me than individual laws is the operative thought behind them. Each law is only an individual outcome.
The differing viewpoints here clearly proceed from very different basic assumptions about what individual rights are,(if any), and what limitations these rights have when expressed through property.
My personal political philosophy is based on the idea that each individual has the right to live life exactly as they wish, provided they don't interfere with the equal right of others to do the same thing.
John Locke, whom the Founding Fathers used as a model for much of their thought, believed that individual private property was a natural right which accrued to individuals based on their investment of themselves into things from the state of nature. They first had a right to their own life, and, to the extent they invested this life into things, could rightfully possess these things.
Perhaps at the opposite polarity was Karl Marx, who believed that all private property should be abolished, and that individuals only have real value in relation to the collective.
Someone has said:
"Everyone has a philosophy of life, some just aren't aware of what it is."
More important to me than individual laws is the operative thought behind them. Each law is only an individual outcome.
The differing viewpoints here clearly proceed from very different basic assumptions about what individual rights are,(if any), and what limitations these rights have when expressed through property.
My personal political philosophy is based on the idea that each individual has the right to live life exactly as they wish, provided they don't interfere with the equal right of others to do the same thing.