Sometimes, we really don’t have our heads screwed on straight:
Jackie Brooks has smoked for a half-century and figures she consumes a pack a day inside her Auburn apartment.
The 74-year-old doesn’t want to quit and says she has a right to smoke in her own home.
Not anymore. The King County Housing Authority is banning smoking in all units at Plaza 17, the 70-unit apartment complex where Brooks has lived for 14 years.
Back when I was on the losing end of the I-901 fight, I at least had some acknowledgement that there were some legitimate points to be made for restricting smoking in public. Not so much because it’s cancerous, but because of its more immediate health effects. People who have asthma or some other respiratory problem shouldn’t have to be surrounded by cigarette smoke against their wishes when the health effects are clear and undeniable. Banning this activity in enclosed public places is just common sense. It obviously gets murkier when you’re talking about restaurants and bars as these are places that people can essentially choose not to go to, and I didn’t think it was the place for the state to tell business owners what environment they should provide. The one counter-argument that I found somewhat compelling was that certain classes of workers (servers, musicians) should be protected by the state, but did that require a ban which didn’t even allow for local municipalities to license certain places as exceptions? I still don’t think so.
But those are separate arguments from this one. Banning smoking in private residences just goes way too far.
The reality behind a lot of these bans is that they really are attempts to enforce a rigid public health morality. I’ve heard enough interesting propaganda on the effects of currently illegal drugs to be very skeptical of the current Surgeon General when he says that there’s no risk-free level of second-hand smoke (which is cited by the Times article as the KCHA’s reasoning for the ban). That’s silly. Obviously, there’s varying risk relative to exposure and below a certain level of exposure, you’re not at risk.
We see the same thing with the reports of marijuana smoke having more toxins and carcinogens than tobacco, but studies meant to demonstrate an actual link between marijuana smoking and lung cancer find no correlation. This is because, as Jacob Sullum writes, the dose makes the poison. Just being able to smell cigarette smoke through an open window is obviously not at a dangerous level. Is it annoying? Perhaps. But you’re not gonna get cancer from it and it’s not going to trigger any other health problems. The end of the article makes it fairly obvious what’s driving this:
Alice Bruce, 71, Brooks’ neighbor across the hall for a dozen years, has heart problems and is glad the authority is banning smoking in her building. She believes years of exposure to secondhand smoke from family members contributed to her cardiac arrest more than a decade ago, and she’s still concerned about secondhand smoke.
“I’ll be sorry to see her go,” Bruce said of her neighbor. “I think the world of Jackie. I still do. I just don’t agree with her smoking because of the experiences I had with my own family and smoking.”
I’m in no position to know whether Bruce is correct in her belief that second-hand smoke has led to her health problems, but even by her own words, that’s not the reason she supports the ban. She “just [doesn’t] agree with her smoking”. It has nothing to do with her own health. Someone smoking in the apartment across the hall is obviously not directly affecting her. This is a case where people are successfully goading a government agency to impose a particular public health morality. And even though forcing these old smokers out of their homes may be popular, it’s still the wrong thing to do.
“Banning smoking in private residences just goes way too far.”
These aren’t private residences. These are subsidized housing units that are subject to inspection and a host of other rules. In a private residence, I can rent out a room or charge people for storing stuff in it. You cannot do that in these units. This is a publicly operated building that has residents that must agree to terms in order to be housed there. Hotels have gone smoke free (When you rent a room for the night, you are a tenant and have rights there). Apartment buildings have gone smoke free as well. With the price of a pack of smokes around $6, and this resident at a pack a day, that computes out to around $2190 a year. $182.50 a month. The taxpayers have every right to demand that the person either quits smoking, and that money goes towards actual housing costs, or she can chose to leave and live in another facility where smoking is allowed. We all have choices to make.
901 was part of the reason that I wound up moving to Nevada. Clubs that I’d played at for years suddenly dried up as their clientele went elsewhere to smoke. And getting regular gigs at the larger tribal casinos in the Puget Sound area is nearly impossible these days (but that’s another story altogether). So off I went.
I remember watching Penn & Teller’s “Bullshit!” on Showtime a while back, refuting the arguments about secondhand smoke. True, the odds of getting cancer from SHS did increase compared to those not exposed, but the numerical odds were much more remote than the anti-smoking lobby had led people to believe (P&T’s show described it as ‘taking a couple of zeroes off’).
If you want to smoke, fine with me. You should be able to smoke in your own home, even if it’s government-owned or subsidized. Just keep on ratcheting up the taxes on tobacco to pay for the eventual medical treatment. Make smokers pay for their cancer treatment one way or another.
And the fact that marijuana IS more noxious than tobacco was one of the planks of Nancy Reagan’s ‘Just Say No’ hysteria back in the day. But there was one mitigating circumstance that was (and still is) overlooked by the anti-drug hypocrites: equivalent amounts. The fact is that marijuana is more noxious than tobacco (and that was the tobacco of 20 years ago, not the genetically-modified stuff of today that is far more powerful) is only accurate if you smoke the same amounts daily. Let’s face it, we all know at least one pot smoker, and I’ve yet to meet someone that smokes 20 cigarette-sized joints a day. They all tell me that smoking any more than three or four a day is a waste of good weed.
There is virtually no ‘real’ private property actually. Forget public housing. Virtually no on ‘owns’ their property, you either rent from someone else (standard apartment) or the banks own the property, and you have certain rights to the property but the bank can take the property back at any time if you stop paying them back they money you borrowed to ‘buy’ it. What if the banks say they won’t allow you to smoke in your/their house, because it damages their property (which is what it really is) and it’s resale due to smell/fire potential. Hmmm.
Good point. And of course, government can foreclose for failure to pay property taxes……..
Depressing, ain’t it?
Any ‘rental’…whether public housing, standard apartment, or even nightly hotel, can of course define many activities, such as banning loud noise or smoking. The caveat is that they need to do this up FRONT in the contract, giving you the option to say “no thank you”. Changing this in the middle of your ‘contract’ sucks.
And could be seen as unfair by a judge.
@1
These aren’t private residences. These are subsidized housing units that are subject to inspection and a host of other rules. In a private residence, I can rent out a room or charge people for storing stuff in it. You cannot do that in these units. This is a publicly operated building that has residents that must agree to terms in order to be housed there.
But you shouldn’t be comparing private ownership to public ownership either. Public ownership of a residence area should not have the kinds of leeway in rulemaking that private ownership should. In other words, when the government operates housing, I expect it to have certain rules over whether or not its residents can profit from it, but it should not be allowed to use that position of power in order to impose morality. That’s the equivalent of arguing that public schools should be able to force kids to pray and if you don’t like it, go to private school.
@6
That’s a very good point that I should have mentioned above. Residents like Brooks should most certainly be “grandfathered” in, even if you want to establish that any new residents will have to sign a contract to be non-smokers. At some point, though, in dealing with public housing, you’re going to end up in a situation where this rule potentially contributes to the homelessness problem.
mmmmm.. 70 years old folks don’t generally fall asleep smoking in their beds or on their sofas, do they???? They are much too alert for that right?? Especially when they take their necessary and prescribed medications!! Not that anyone should have right to expect that their neighbors perhaps might endanger their safety????
Second hand smoke causes a condition called COPD, which combines emphysema with congestive heart disease. My mother-in-law has it after living with a very heavy smoker for decades. It’s directly related to all the smoke she inhaled from her husband’s cigs. Ask any pulmonologist. Maybe not a big increase in the chance of cancer, but certainly for other diseases.
I’m expecting the mortgage companies to start enforcing No Smoking clauses in their contracts, because a smoke tainted house is harder to resell. Or at least charging a premium on the smoker homes to cover the costs of cleaning.
@10
Are you gonna ban kitchens too? Many more fires are started by stoves than by people falling asleep while smoking a cigarette. Can we demand that people not cook in their apartments because it could endanger the safety of others?
Lee,
I am 100% on your side here and I do have the expertise. I helped with the analysis of the tobacco data. The bystander issue is very much hype. OTOH, I feel tobacco smoke IS intrusive in my personal space .. but that is also true for loud radio, strong perfume, etc.
On the housing issue, this is tricky. A private landlord does, I assume, have the right to ban smoking. I do not say a way around that. The argument in re a public landlord is exactly as you say since the customer is NOT fully free to choose.
Where we totally agree is that the law is being misused to achieve the end of tobacco prohibition. The end does NOT justify the means. If we can end tobacco by making it impractical, how many other levels of privacy can we intrude on in the same way?
I would actually extend the argument to gun control. I LIKE the idea of making manufacturers, gun stores, and owners responsible for the outcome of their businesses. It seems to me that in both tobacco and guns the test of a law should
be whether the law limits individual freedom at the price of group freedom and if so, by how much?
Tuesday night at DL, a new friend went outside for a smoke. I was REALLY conflicted. As a scientist I REALLY wanted to say don’t do that! As a liberal, I felt sad that this nice guy was going to have to go out in the rain to do something that might have been acceptable to his bar mates.
I also liked your comment about marijuana. I too read that literature everyso often and have concluded that THC must be amongst the safest substance one can ingest .. given the vast funds spent to discredit it.
Finally, let me suggest one other issue. When the govmnt .. acting form the Left or the Right, misuses science in support of an agenda, we are all hurt. Liberaldom is as much biased in re smoking as the rad right is biased against sodomy. I wish the govmnt would pursues such agendas w/o trying to hode them uder the magician’s cloak.
I own my 3,000 square foot house free and clear, so no bank can tell me what to do.
But here’s a dilemma: why is it bad for SHA to interfere in the smoking habits of individuals who reside in publicly owned housing when there is absolutely no socially redeemable value in smoking versus why is it good for the FCC to maintain restrictions against media cross-ownership?
If we’re to have liberty for some, then we should have liberty for all; no distinction between rich or poor, black or white, male or female.
I will confess to having voted for I-901, and I did so because I have a very close friend who has asthma. I was content to make a tradeoff in favor of her health. Ordinarily, however, I’m a property rights absolutist: what you do with what you OWN is nobody’s business, especially the government’s.
The so-called “public interest” is best served when private property rights are respected and safeguarded, not legislatively infringed upon in order insulate a person or company (read the Blethen family and it’s 51% ownership in The Seattle Times) from technological innovations and changes in the market.
Subjective libertarianism – absolute rights in some categories except where they go against an ideology – does nothing to advance the cause of liberty. If you want me to be zealous in defense of anyone’s right to smoke in a home to which they hold a right, title, or interest, then you need to be equally zealous in defense of the right of Media Company A to acquire in a private, lawful transaction, Media Company B.
This dichotomy exposes a classic hypocrisy in liberal, pro-governmental intervention thinking.
The Piper
@15
But here’s a dilemma: why is it bad for SHA to interfere in the smoking habits of individuals who reside in publicly owned housing when there is absolutely no socially redeemable value in smoking versus why is it good for the FCC to maintain restrictions against media cross-ownership?
Because the former involves imposing morality while the latter involves regulating the pursuit of profit.
Congratulations! SeattleIAM.com has chosen this blog article as one of the top articles in Seattle for December 20, 2007. The SeattleIAM Daily Blog Review can be found on NowPublic.com and Newsvine.com
@14
I am 100% on your side here and I do have the expertise. I helped with the analysis of the tobacco data. The bystander issue is very much hype. OTOH, I feel tobacco smoke IS intrusive in my personal space .. but that is also true for loud radio, strong perfume, etc.
And Robin Adair.
One of these days, I’d love to pick your brain on some of the specifics you discovered regarding the tobacco data. I’ve known for a long time that there’s a good amount of BS regarding the alarmism over second-hand smoke, but haven’t really paid much attention to it recently.
“but it should not be allowed to use that position of power in order to impose morality.”
There is no morality being imposed here. A landlord, in this case the taxpayers, have certain rights. The tenant has rights as well. If the landlord wants to ban smoking in it’s establishment, then it can. These homes are subsidized by our taxes. Smoking inside of a house, causes damage to the walls, carpet and and the general cosmetic features. When was the last time you went into a Housing Authority building? I go into at least 1 a week. Sometimes repeatedly. After a tenant leaves, most have to be completely repainted and the carpets replaced (I know I am speaking in generalities). So not only are we subsidizing the actual cost of the unit, but also repairing the damage done by smoking, not leaning etc. And all the while, at least in this case, this lady has an extra $2100 a year to blow on nonessential items. $2100 dollars extra a year could go a long way stopping this constant money drain.
In most of the SHA buildings in my district, there are signs for free smoking cessation classes, most offer at least a modest gym, as well as career counseling, job placement and household budget classes. We offer a reat deal to those who need help, so the taxpayers have every right to expect at the very least some cooperation in return.
“Because the former involves imposing morality while the latter involves regulating the pursuit of profit.”
So in other words, your morals? What if pursuing profits is moral to Goldy (The Non-Union Cheap Labor Liberal), but not you? Who’s morals do we use?
@16…Lee…
“Because the former involves imposing morality while the latter involves regulating the pursuit of profit.”
A distinction without a difference. Regulating the pursuit of profit is a form of imposing morality. Restricting smoking could be argued as saving a life.
We’re back to you insisting upon unfettered freedom in areas you believe freedom to be appropriate, while all in favor of restriction and regulation in areas where you don’t believe freedome to be appropriate. Why not freedom in both?
The Piper
@19
There is no morality being imposed here. A landlord, in this case the taxpayers, have certain rights. The tenant has rights as well. If the landlord wants to ban smoking in it’s establishment, then it can.
Um, that’s imposing morality. It’s making another person’s moral choice for them. Sometimes you can and should impose morality, but only if the effect of one’s moral decision victimizes another. In this case, it most certainly does not.
These homes are subsidized by our taxes. Smoking inside of a house, causes damage to the walls, carpet and and the general cosmetic features. When was the last time you went into a Housing Authority building? I go into at least 1 a week. Sometimes repeatedly. After a tenant leaves, most have to be completely repainted and the carpets replaced (I know I am speaking in generalities). So not only are we subsidizing the actual cost of the unit, but also repairing the damage done by smoking, not leaning etc. And all the while, at least in this case, this lady has an extra $2100 a year to blow on nonessential items. $2100 dollars extra a year could go a long way stopping this constant money drain.
So what? All kinds of activities end up with dirty carpets. Are you going to ban any possible behavior that can stain a carpet?
In most of the SHA buildings in my district, there are signs for free smoking cessation classes, most offer at least a modest gym, as well as career counseling, job placement and household budget classes. We offer a reat deal to those who need help, so the taxpayers have every right to expect at the very least some cooperation in return.
No, they don’t. That’s not how this country works. Just because certain people depend on the state for things does not mean that we get to dictate their moral choices to them. That’s like saying to someone, “you can go on welfare, but only if you take more frequent showers and stop picking your nose.”
So in other words, your morals? What if pursuing profits is moral to Goldy (The Non-Union Cheap Labor Liberal), but not you? Who’s morals do we use?
When a issue involves the economic system, it goes beyond morality (which is inherently about the individual and individual choices) and deals with society as a whole. The same (despite what many hysterical people on the religious right believe) is not true for people’s moral choices regarding their pursuit of pleasure or happiness.
@20
A distinction without a difference. Regulating the pursuit of profit is a form of imposing morality.
Sometimes it is, sometimes it’s not. It depends on the aim of the regulation. Because we all share an economic system, the pursuit of profit is something that affects the system and is never truly private. But we don’t all share a “moral system.” Each of us, as individuals, establish our own private moral behaviors, and as long as they don’t infringe upon the safety or freedom of others, the government has no right to interfere.
At times, government will try to regulate the pursuit of profit in order to impose morality. In these cases (i.e. prohibition), the failure becomes self-evident after a while as it becomes obvious that government attempts to impose morality introduce massive inefficiencies and increased dangers within society. This is why the distinction is important. And the proof is in what we know: government has been essential to providing a framework for our economic system to function fairly, but becomes overly authoritarian and inefficient when trying to tell people how they should deal with sex, religion, drugs, etc. This decision by the KCHA has nothing to do with providing protections within our economic system. It’s about telling people they need to quit smoking.
We’re back to you insisting upon unfettered freedom in areas you believe freedom to be appropriate, while all in favor of restriction and regulation in areas where you don’t believe freedome to be appropriate. Why not freedom in both?
This is essentially what separates me from the conservative libertarians. When it comes to our economic system, there are competing moralities between individualism and collectivism which are both valid. For morality, collectivism is not valid because the idea that ones individual morality directly affects society as a whole is a myth unsupported by science.
This isn’t altogether a matter of imposing a lifestyle on people in their own homes. First of all, how many residents of public housing units, nursing homes, and other quasi-public facilities have died or suffered injuries from fires started by idiots smoking in bed? Secondly, people who are poor enough to qualify for subsidized housing also qualify for taxpayer-financed health care, so why should they continue smoking at our expense? After all, wasn’t the legal basis of the tobacco litigation (and settlement) the enormous costs to the states of paying for medical treatment of smoking-related illnesses? In this respect, smoking is somewhat like motorcycle helmet laws: The problem with the bikers’ “freedom” argument is that someone else ends up paying their enormous medical bills when they bust their fool heads open. Finally, smoking in the unit stinks it up for the next person who has to live in that unit. This is not an undue infringement of personal liberties because no one is forced to apply for, or live in, public housing. It is a reasonable regulation of a communal living arrangement, and a smoking ban is as appropriate in this setting as it is in a college dormitory.
@4 You exhibit a poor understanding of real estate law. Mortgagors do own the property, and the bank is only a secured creditor. The mortgagee (lender) typically imposes some conditions on the loan, such as having insurance, but this are contractual agreements not bearing on title. The situation is not materially different when the loan is secured by a deed of trust, which is the most common type of property loan today. The loan creates a lien against the title, but like any other lien, a mortgage lien is not equivalent to title and does not signify ownership.
@9 How long should Brooks be grandfathered in? Forever? That makes no sense. Logically, her grandfather rights would not extend beyond the next lease renewal. And if she lives there under a month-to-month tenancy, as I suspect she does, her next renewal date is the first of the next month. In fact, I suspect they did give her notice that, “as of next month,” the terms and conditions of her tenancy were changing. This is no different than raising the rent.
@23
Roger, when I was in college, we had the ability to request non-smoking rooms and smokers could live in smoking permitted rooms (that may have changed of course since then). Public housing should be the same.
The idea that you can force people to stop smoking because it could cause fires is no less silly than believing you can force people to stop cooking for the same reason.
Any grandfather rights under a leasehold terminate at the end of the lease period or contract.
“Um, that’s imposing morality. It’s making another person’s moral choice for them. Sometimes you can and should impose morality, but only if the effect of one’s moral decision victimizes another. In this case, it most certainly does not.”
If the person had no recourse, then I would agree with you. But since the tenant can simply chose to reside elsewhere, there is no morality being imposed. You do not have the freedom to live in/on somebody else’s property under your own conditions. You must comply or you can simply chose to leave. Nobody is imposing anything on anyone.
“No, they don’t. That’s not how this country works. Just because certain people depend on the state for things does not mean that we get to dictate their moral choices to them. That’s like saying to someone, “you can go on welfare, but only if you take more frequent showers and stop picking your nose.”
Actually, the State already does that. You must meet certain requirements for going on state assistance. Once again, this is not a moral issue. The State for example can say that if you are going to reside in this housing complex, you cannot make more than a set amount of money per month. This, in essence limits a persons freedom. This is purely a business transaction. The tenant has options. Nobody is saying she can’t smoke.
@15 You sure are ignorant for an ex-lawyer, crackpiper! Good thing there’s an “ex” in front of your “lawyer” status because the notion of you representing clients is somewhat frightening.
The FCC has no authority to regulate newspapers, period. Never has had. The FCC only regulates broadcasters. Why? Because the PUBLIC OWNS THE AIRWAVES, lunkhead!
Broadcasting is analogous to operating your vessel on a river. The river belongs to the public, so the government can regulate how it’s used. For example, the government can tell vessel operators which channel to use, depending on which direction they’re going, and to make and enforce other “rules of the road.” The government can also keep foreign operators and other disfavored users off the river, if it chooses.
The FCC can’t tell media companies not to own newspapers. It can, however, tell media companies that if they want to use public airwaves they must abide by certain rules, including rules of media ownership designed to prevent monopolies over public access to news and information.
The justification for the media ownership rules is that too much concentration of media ownership is unhealthy for our democracy. Of course, I don’t expect a Republican to stick up for democracy. Republicans don’t like democracy. If they did, they would call themselves “Democrats.”
The form of government Republicans prefer is the same as the form of corporate governance they prefer: They love the idea of a small minority being able to boss around the vast majority.
That’s because Republicans never have been, and never will be, a majority in this country (or any other country). Let’s face it, Republicans are a gaggle of elitist pricks who simply want to boss everyone around.
@28
If the person had no recourse, then I would agree with you. But since the tenant can simply chose to reside elsewhere, there is no morality being imposed.
Really? So if your child’s public school forced him/her to recite the Koran, you’d be ok with that because you can simply move to another district?
You do not have the freedom to live in/on somebody else’s property under your own conditions.
Again, it’s a public/private distinction here. If we’re talking about a private landlord, I’m with you. When the landlord is the state, imposing morality is not an option.
Actually, the State already does that. You must meet certain requirements for going on state assistance. Once again, this is not a moral issue.
Sometimes the basis is moral and sometimes it’s not. When the basis is moral, I strongly believe that the requirement is wrong.
The State for example can say that if you are going to reside in this housing complex, you cannot make more than a set amount of money per month. This, in essence limits a persons freedom.
That’s not a decision rooted in morality, but instead a decision rooted in economics. As I explained to Piper, there’s an important difference there.
This is purely a business transaction. The tenant has options. Nobody is saying she can’t smoke.
But the state is using leverage to impose morality. That requires a justification MUCH stronger than the moral disapproval of other tenants.
What evidence do you have Roger that Republicans want to “boss everyone around”?
And when you do present such evidence perhaps you might wish to contrast it with bicycle helmet wearing, food policing, christmas hating, politically correct Democrats.
Bossing people around? You leftists live for it!
@33
Bill, as this post clearly demonstrates, I have no problems calling out Democrats when it comes to their tendency to want to boss people around, but Republicans are far, far worse on this front and have been for a while.
Where is your evidence, Lee? Just saying it doesn’t make it true. Give me some concrete evidence to support your point of view.
Just as I thought. When asked to support your blather that has no factual underpinnings you lefties are silent. What you believe about Republicans is more myth than fact.
Evidence that Republicans want to “boss people around” seems to be in awfully short supply.
You lefties ought to be ashamed of your intellectual bankruptcy. You vomit the same empty rhetoric about the political right day after day without the slightest inkling that perhaps you are mistaken.
“Really? So if your child’s public school forced him/her to recite the Koran, you’d be ok with that because you can simply move to another district?”
First of all, that isn’t allowed. But second, yes when I purchased my current house, I did research on the schools. And yes, even though I love my house, I would have not moved here if I felt uncomfortable with the school district. I also have the option of working more and sending them to a private school. Once again, OPTIONS.
“Again, it’s a public/private distinction here. If we’re talking about a private landlord, I’m with you. When the landlord is the state, imposing morality is not an option.”
And the State is comprised of the people. Once again, nobody says she can’t smoke. She has choices. Clean the bong resin from your brain.
“that’s not a decision rooted in morality, but instead a decision rooted in economics.”
Economics says that for resale, you get less for your property and it costs more to rehab public housing where smokers have lived. Why the double Standard?
“Let’s face it, Republicans are a gaggle of elitist pricks who simply want to boss everyone around.” Rabbit at #31
Still waiting, Roger, for even a hint of evidence to support what you claim.
If you spew unsubstantiated garbage you ought to be prepared to get off the porch and defend it.
Unable to rise to the challenge? Apparently so.
You liberals lack of response warms my heart. To paraphrase Jackie Gleason, “how sweet it is!”
Let’s see, destroying the Constitution in the attempt to force a right-wing Corporate Christian theocracy down our throats ISN’T Rethuglicans trying to ‘boss us around’? You stupid fuck. Lincoln is slam-dancing in his grave at you and your filth.
As Werner Klemperer used to say…….
DIS-missed!
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a caucus to prepare for. I’ll be a precinct chair down here in Reno. Gotta go do my part to free America from the Tyrant.
RIP GOP
Umm, “Broadway Joe” can you cite one instance where the Bush administration has “destroyed the Constitution” or “forced a right wing theocracy down our throats”
Oh and I couldn’t help but notice that you called me a “stupid fuck”. If you can’t argue, the left always resorts to name calling. You can count on it
Come on “Broadway Joe” and the rest of you nitwits. Give us a little substance instead of the looney talking points.
Tell me all about ” destroying the Constitution in the attempt to force a right-wing Corporate Christian theocracy down our throats”
Give me some actual facts I can chew on. As to the name calling…I expect that every time I engage the left in discussion. You haven’t got anything else in the end.
“Give me some actual facts I can chew on”
You don’t have any. Geez what a surprise!
You lefties can bleat your idiotic talking points but when you are confronted with defending them you resort to name calling and avoiding real discussion. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Thanks Lee for your well reasoned arguments (that’s MY opinion)!! It’s becoming INCREASINGLY the Puritan versus the Leper syndrome. Personally, I don’t smoke around non-smokers as a matter of courtesy but I don’t allow non-smokers in my house either, if they feel compelled to preach at me.
First, govt keeps adding taxes on the smokes to pay for programs everyone else is too cheap to pay for, “sin” taxes they’re called. Like, are non-smokers automatically neutered/spayed so they can’t produce kids? I may pay a fortune for my own health insurance, but also end up stuck being the one to pay for “poor peoples kids’ medical/health insurance”. As I recall, voters wouldn’t even cough up 5cents on a latte to help pay for that.
Next step was the 25 ft outside rule. A lot of businesses have gone under or lost a substantial chunk of their income. The business owners had no right to establish the venue in their own establishment, alot of the service people lost major tips (because typically smokers tend to be more generous w/tipping.)
Now, this step of banning smoking in SHA housing. [PLEASE IAFF Fireman, don’t insult my intelligence by expecting me to believe that when a SHA tenant moves, they replace with NEW carpet for poor people!!! They do well to even spray for cockroaches between tenants.]
NEXT, I have no doubt the state will be banning smoking in the privacy of one’s OWN home. Won’t be long, I’m sure.
The problem with legislating morality is that it becomes a heady feeling and requires new & more controls on the general population. Perhaps requiring obese people to diet, because it’s good for them and they might contract diabetes? Requiring gay men to stop having sex, because they might contract HIV/AIDS? Requiring people to attend Sunday church services, because it will improve the quality of their souls? What’s next?
FricknFrack has it nailed. The leftist loonies on this site believe right wingers want to control behavior.
They must be taking some kind of delusional drug. No one has been able to provide any evidence here.
Lefties live to control everyones’ behavior.
# 46 Correction
Instead of SHA, it should be King County Housing Authority
Why is it that leftists who dominate this site can’t defend the challege I made to the rabbit at #31. His quote was,”Let’s face it, Republicans are a gaggle of elitist pricks who simply want to boss everyone around.”
Show me the evidence that what Rabbit says is true. Can you lefties do that without resorting to name calling? Of course you can’t. Any time there is a chance of reasonable discourse you lefties resort to 2nd grade playground name calling.
Oh by the way, I don’t have a lot of respect for those who call names like “stupid fuck”. I don’t stoop to that kind of garbage despite my political differences.
Perhaps that tells us a lot about the gap between the left, and the right.
Here it is, just after 10:00 and not one of you lefties has been able to defend Rabbits claim that, ”Let’s face it, Republicans are a gaggle of elitist pricks who simply want to boss everyone around.”
You don’t have any evidence to bolster this stupid claim, so you do what leftists always do when confronted with the truth. You are silent.
Show me how Republicans want to “boss everyone around”. Give me the evidence. I’m waiting.
Perhaps the housing authority is simply trying to protect their physical property. Cigarette smoke is hell on carpet, paint and windows. And it seeps into the common areas and everyone is subjected to the stink.
@51 “Show me how Republicans want to “boss everyone around”. Give me the evidence. I’m waiting.”
Here you go:
1)Republicans want to ban a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion.
2)Republicans want to dictate who people (gays) can marry.
There is much more, but I’ll keep it simple enough for a stupid fucking republican, like yourself, to understand.
So let me get this straight. That Republicans want to protect the lives of innocent, unborn children somehow equates to “bossing people around”.
That Republicans believe marriage ought to be between a man and a woman equates to “bossing people around”.
And there is “much more”. I doubt that very much.
Come on folks, you can do better than this. And can you do it with out name calling? Let’s see you try.
“paal allin” If I call you a stupid fucking democrat does that somehow add weight to my argument? Grow up.
Time after time you people reveal your character. A simple challenge to defend what you have written brings not an intellectual defense, it brings profanity. What a surprise.
I can swear as good as any of you. Resorting to profanity as you routinely do does not impress me. It does however confirm what I believe about the modern left. You still act like spoiled 18 year olds.
It’s revealing isn’t it. I challenged you leftists to defend your claim that “Let’s face it, Republicans are a gaggle of elitist pricks who simply want to boss everyone around.”
Roger disappeared into his rabbit hole after making that insubstantiated comment.
The best anyone has managed is to say that Republicans want to prevent killing unborn children and dare to believe that marriage should remain between a man and a woman as it has for thousands of years.
Hardly compelling evidence that “Republicans want to boss everyone around”.
You guys can spout silly nonsense nonstop. You aren’t so proficient at defending it.
I’ve found that the best method for dealing with the irrational left is to simply ask them to defend their statements with facts.
Rarely are they able to do so. A steady stream of profanities is the lefts’ preferred response to any challenge to their beliefs.
Or, having exhausted their plentiful stock of swear words, they just slink away, unable to defend drivel like “Let’s face it, Republicans are a gaggle of elitist pricks who simply want to boss everyone around.”
Still waiting for your evidence that, “Republicans are a gaggle of elitist pricks who simply want to boss everyone around.”
There are elitist pricks. They aren’t Republicans.
@54
So let me get this straight. That Republicans want to protect the lives of innocent, unborn children somehow equates to “bossing people around”.
Um, yes, it is. Because anybody who has half a brain can understand that an adult human has a perception of life that is at different level than a fetus.
Some other instances where Republicans like to boss people around include (but are far from limited to):
The drug war (started by Nixon, elevated by Reagan, there is nothing done by the left over the past 50 years that even compares to this)
Laws that limit the rights of homosexuals
Federal restrictions forcing the drinking age to be 21 (signed into law by Reagan)
Limiting immigration
Attempts to put prayer in school
Attempts to convert people to Christianity in various parts of the world
Shall I go on…
Crouton, you just got served. And go fuck yourself, you pathetic little simpleton. In fact, why don’t you go ahead and take up arms against the Zionist Occupation Government now, so we can give you the help you so desperately need.
At the end of a rope.
#62 Does your post ranting about “Zionist Occupation” indicte that you are several logs short of a full cord? I reckon so. And your “go fuck yourself you pathetic little simpleton” comment. How predictable. And cowardly. The language you lefties routinely use is reveals what sort of uncivilized people you really are. The kinds of people who would end an innocent life because it’s convenient at the moment.
Shame on you and the 1960’s that created you monsters.
@62
The kinds of people who would end an innocent life because it’s convenient at the moment.
You mean like hunters? Or people who start wars and give private security agencies shielding from oversight?
Are you going to challenge any of my examples in comment #60 yet, champ? Here’s a few more:
Stem cell research
Flag burning
Birth control
Punishing pain patients (see: Richard Paey)
Establishing limited “free speech” zones to limit the ability to protest
I’ve got more, just try me…
And Lee, do you really think limiting the availability of drugs is a bad thing? Jeez, do you think we should all be able to stroll up to our local Safeway and buy a bag of meth? I’ve seen promising young lives destroyed by drugs. If you want to dismiss the so called “war on drugs” casually, that’s your opinion and I think you are wrong. I hope for your sake that the destruction doesn’t visit your family as it has ours.
What laws limit the rights of homosexuals? Just because most people don’t believe Mr. and Mr. or Ms. and Ms. should be allowed state sanctioned marriage? For crying out loud, get a lawyer and establish a civil union. Is it that hard? And if you’re so worried about homosexual rights surely you have no problems with the now forbidden Mormon practice of multiple marriage partners.(Oh but Mitt Romney is a Mormon so leftists abandon their open mindness in his case, don’t they?) Or how about people marrying their sisters, cousins, or their pet goat? (Warning, you might have to confront your own prejudices here). Would you object to me marrying my sister? Should that be against the law? Should I be allowed to have multiple spouses? Do you have any limits? Or do you simply believe in anarchy?
It’s a bad thing to limit the drinking age? I’m not fond of the idea that 10 year olds can spend their allowance at the local tavern. Is that your point? I do agree that the age ought to be 18, the same age as voting, or joining the military. Does pegging the drinking age at 21 count as “bossing people around”? I don’t think so. By the same token why aren’t you lefties up in arms about the outright banning of alcohol consumption in Muslim countries? It never shows up on your radar any more than does the horrific treatment of women in those countries, or in the Muslim communities here. It is much easier to keep the blinders on and turn your anger against conservatives by shutting down their speech on campuses and campaigning to restore the “Fairness Doctrine” in hopes of eliminating Rush, Hannity, and O’Reilly. The hypocrisy of lefties accusing the right of “bossing people around” is truly nutty against a background where the left openly seeks to quash views that aren’t considered politically correct. Which side of the political spectrum truly desires to “boss people around”? I can cite plenty of evidence. You might give that some thought the next time you don your state required bicycle helmet.
“Limiting immigration”? Are you truly saying Lee that you desire an open border and unrestricted immigration? Why?
Oh how awful, allowing voluntary prayer in schools. Which side is it that is “bossing people around”? I get confused.
And finally, where does the Republican Party attempt to convert people to Christianity around the world? A bit of a stretch, don’t you think?
And I’m still waiting for evidence that Republicans are ” destroying the Constitution in the attempt to force a right-wing Corporate Christian theocracy down our throats”
If you leftists weren’t so pathologically paranoid and vile tempered you might be more convincing. We might even be able to come to some agreement on occasion.
I don’t disagree with you about Richard Paey. When people are in misery compassion dictates that they should receive comfort. That can require drugs that normally are illegal. Again, I don’t disagree on this point. From the little I’ve read it hardly seems that the man was treated with compassion. I’d fight anyone, Republican or Democrat that would treat anyone suffering as Paey has.
The stem cell controversy is a straw man. Republicans have only sought to ban federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The left and their mainstream press lapdogs immediately mischaracterized this as “Republicans are against stem cell research”. Which is why this shows up on your “Republicans want to boss people around” list#2. The left and their press toadies are great at misrepresenting the positions of the right. “Bush wants to privatize Social Security” convinced the whole country of a lie. Bush really wanted to give folks the OPTION of allocating as much as 6 percent of their SS funds to investment vehicles. Did the leftist press report it that way? No, they dishonestly reported it en-masse as “Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security”. Do you remember?
Flag burning. Is that an example of “bossing people around”? I don’t think there is need for a constitutional amendment against flag burning, and I don’t think one would ever pass. I think lefties should be left alone to burn all the US flags they want. I’ve never felt this was a big issue.
As to “free speech zones” do you really imagine Hillary’s campaign allows dissenters to enter one of her rallies and shriek at her? Of course she doesn’t, and neither did Bill Clinton when he was President. To imply that only Republicans engage in crowd control is wholly dishonest. A better topic might be what the left is currently doing to undermine Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity and other right wing commentators. Just go to Mediamatters.com and observe what that Hillary funded group is up to. Or maybe we can discuss the left’s war against Christmas. Or their hammering us with political correctness for the last twenty years. In any event I can come up with a lot more examples of how the left wants to “boss us around” than you can on the other side. It isn’t even close.
The kinds of people who would end an innocent life because it’s convenient at the moment.
“You mean like hunters? Or people who start wars and give private security agencies shielding from oversight?”
Yeah, hunters are always on a quest to kill unborn human children. Good Grief. What an immense philosophical leap. So when Republicans hunt it is a sin…when Native Americans hunt it isn’t…right? Your bias is showing.
Oh and guess what? Hillary and most of the rest of the members of your side agreed to invade Iraq. An inconvenient fact that seems to be elusive. I don’t know what “private security agencies” you are referring to but perhaps you’ll do me the kindness to provide some facts so that I can judge your accusations one way or the other.
Oh and Lee, have you forgotten the campaign a year ago by Bill Clinton and the Democratic National Committee to have ABC’s docu-drama “The Path to 911” suppressed? They didn’t want to discuss points of disagreement. That wasn’t good enough for these thought police. They simply didn’t want anyone to view the film.
I’m telling you that the entire Democratic Party tried to supress this film. This is the kind of thing communists do. And you worry about Republicans.
Lee says, Are you going to challenge any of my examples in comment #60 yet, champ?”
I believe I have done that and then some. That you and your Rabbit friend who made the accusation that, “Republicans are a gaggle of elitist pricks who simply want to boss everyone around”,are unable to mount much of an argument is hardly surprising. Can’t you even come up with a couple rounds of “fuck you, Cruchon”? I’m terribly disappointed. Maybe you are losing your edge.
I guess perhaps I should cut all of you a little slack. Maybe you are enjoying the Christmas season with your families. I hope so. Here’s a toast, (clink!), in the sincere hopes that all of us,(myself included), might disagree in a more civil manner in the year to come.
@68
I believe I have done that and then some.
No you haven’t. You haven’t even come close.
And Lee, do you really think limiting the availability of drugs is a bad thing?
It can be, if it’s done under the belief that you can protect people from themselves. In which case, it’s bossing people around. It doesn’t work. Adults have to be able to make their own decisions about how they deal with drugs.
What laws limit the rights of homosexuals? Just because most people don’t believe Mr. and Mr. or Ms. and Ms. should be allowed state sanctioned marriage? For crying out loud, get a lawyer and establish a civil union. Is it that hard?
Yes it is that hard because Republicans oppose it. That’s the whole point here.
And if you’re so worried about homosexual rights surely you have no problems with the now forbidden Mormon practice of multiple marriage partners.(Oh but Mitt Romney is a Mormon so leftists abandon their open mindness in his case, don’t they?)
I don’t have a problem at all if a religion (Mormonism) allows multiple wives (as long as the wives are not forced into it against their will). As for how that should be viewed legally, I think one wife should be considered the spouse while the remaining wives can be extra dependents. If this opens the door for fraud, I’d be willing to reconsider that idea.
Or how about people marrying their sisters, cousins, or their pet goat? (Warning, you might have to confront your own prejudices here).
There are established medical issues that require bans on marrying close relatives, and it makes no sense to treat a pet goat as a person, so that’s irrelevant. If a person wants to marry a goat and can find someone to sanction that marriage, I could care less, but it’s not like the goat will all of a sudden have the rights of a human after that. It will still be the same as if they owned a pet goat.
Should I be allowed to have multiple spouses? Do you have any limits? Or do you simply believe in anarchy?
I believe that when it comes to individual morality, anarchy is what we got no matter what government tries to do. That’s the whole point here. If someone wants to fuck their pet goat or marry their sister, they’re going to do it no matter what government tells them. It’s a matter of dealing with these arrangements in a legal sense.
It’s a bad thing to limit the drinking age? I’m not fond of the idea that 10 year olds can spend their allowance at the local tavern. Is that your point? I do agree that the age ought to be 18, the same age as voting, or joining the military. Does pegging the drinking age at 21 count as “bossing people around”? I don’t think so.
It absolutely counts as that. Are you kidding?
By the same token why aren’t you lefties up in arms about the outright banning of alcohol consumption in Muslim countries? It never shows up on your radar any more than does the horrific treatment of women in those countries, or in the Muslim communities here.
It doesn’t? Are you kidding? Do you want me to link to the posts I’ve done on the way the drug war is waged and civil rights are violated in Asia and the Middle East?
“Limiting immigration”? Are you truly saying Lee that you desire an open border and unrestricted immigration? Why?
Because I’m not afraid of Mexicans. People are coming here to work. They’re also coming here because of a lack of opportunity in their home country. If immigrants who want to work are allowed to come here, in the end, it will benefit us. Trying to close the border is pretty darn close to the definition of “bossing people around”.
Oh how awful, allowing voluntary prayer in schools. Which side is it that is “bossing people around”? I get confused.
Apparently you do. Voluntary prayer is allowed in schools. Anybody who wants to pray in school can pray any time they want to. What’s not allowed are prayers that aim to include everyone.
And finally, where does the Republican Party attempt to convert people to Christianity around the world? A bit of a stretch, don’t you think?
Not really, although the Republican Party does distance itself from those who try to use their positions in order to proselytize.
And I’m still waiting for evidence that Republicans are ” destroying the Constitution in the attempt to force a right-wing Corporate Christian theocracy down our throats”
Well, the fact that Bush has done a lot of damage to the Constitution shouldn’t even be up for debate any more. Why is he doing it? Well, I think there’s plenty of evidence that he believes that the government must be given extraordinary powers in order to combat threats, both internal and external. And I do believe that the President believes (and his own father has actually said) that non-believers cannot be patriots. This is what I’m talking about.
The stem cell controversy is a straw man. Republicans have only sought to ban federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The left and their mainstream press lapdogs immediately mischaracterized this as “Republicans are against stem cell research”.
They are? Banning federal funding means that they’re against it. That’s obvious. It’s part of their overall view that they need to “boss people around” when it comes to what types of scientific research is allowed or not. They do the same thing with research into marijuana.
Flag burning. Is that an example of “bossing people around”?
Without question.
As to “free speech zones” do you really imagine Hillary’s campaign allows dissenters to enter one of her rallies and shriek at her?
No. And that’s why many liberals like myself are strongly against her.
Or maybe we can discuss the left’s war against Christmas. Or their hammering us with political correctness for the last twenty years.
Over the past decade, the right has been far more “politically correct” than the left.
Yeah, hunters are always on a quest to kill unborn human children. Good Grief. What an immense philosophical leap. So when Republicans hunt it is a sin…when Native Americans hunt it isn’t…right? Your bias is showing.
You didn’t even come close to understanding that one. Hunters kill innocent lives. I didn’t say they killed unborn children.
Oh and guess what? Hillary and most of the rest of the members of your side agreed to invade Iraq. An inconvenient fact that seems to be elusive. I don’t know what “private security agencies” you are referring to but perhaps you’ll do me the kindness to provide some facts so that I can judge your accusations one way or the other.
Yeah, and Hillary will not get my vote because of it. Right now, Republicans in DC are threatening to use Blackwater to fight the domestic drug war. That should be terrifying to anyone who cares about the principles that this country was founded under.
Oh and Lee, have you forgotten the campaign a year ago by Bill Clinton and the Democratic National Committee to have ABC’s docu-drama “The Path to 911″ suppressed?
It was because the film blatantly lied about certain historical events in order to imply that the Clinton Administration was more culpable in 9/11 than it really was. If the 9/11 Truth whackos made a film that asserted that Bush and Cheney were behind the attacks, I’d be just as supportive of their efforts to clear the record.