I think this young author makes some good points. If a few principles of the New Urbanism were applied, Colorado Springs could have had many of the advantages of comfortable suburban living combined with sensible growth, public transportation, and many other things which are acknowledged as good things to any one aside from an out of area land developer.
Instead, we've ended up with "The Geography of Nowhere."
Considering the subject, it's hard to put much stock in the words of a 22-year-old college student wearing a Hollister, CA t-shirt.
Maybe you should go back to Denver, or maybe you should go to some remote city far away from Colorado, because Denver would not take you and either way we do not care about your unintelligent commentary on the issue. Why would The Independent publish this when they are FAR more intelligent opinions in Colorado Springs?
Thank you groundhog, was that so hard? The premise of the article is simply to convey how americans are taking less part in thier own government. Smoking was just a somewhat clever way to state it. No, I dont think we should be able to smoke absolutely everywhere. Yes it is wrong to get smoke in the lungs of children. Government and public service buildings (airports, train stations, courthouses, etc.) should all be non-smoking. However, it is absurd that we can't smoke anywhere, and they are now limiting where we can smoke outdoors. That is it. This was not meant to start a hostile debate, simply to let it be known we need to spek up for ourselves if we want change. Ok?
Damned Indy site. I had this big post but lost it. Here's the jist:
The article isn't that bad. It just didn't explore the idea that public air should be kept clean. Like the little pens in airports. My child shouldn't have to wade through a haze of carcinogens to get through the airport. One has no right whatsoever to put smoke in a child's lungs.
Bars are private and should be able to let patrons do what they want. Its the overreaching govt that continues to decimate our liberties, but that's what WE have voted for. And as the article states, it's our responsibilty to direct OUR govt. Ethan stated this well in the article.
"Smokers should be equally represented to avoid smoker discrimination"
"but seldom do people advocate smoking"
These were the parts that riled me up. Tobacco has a huge lobby. The President smokes. How much representation do smokers need?
And who would ever advocate smoking?
Ok everybody, time for me to come in. Yes I'm the "child, young man, idiot" that wrote this. I have a few contributions to your arguements.
First of all almost all of you fail to see the true premise of the piece. It is not entirely about smoking. It is about expressing your opinions and playing an active role in democracy. The subject of smoking was chosen to convey this point as it was something my fellow scholars and I would talk about in the designated smoking area between classes. Expand your mind before you innately and ignorantly attack me.
Second, many of you have stated that the rights of smokers have no right to interfere with those of non-smokers. This exactly proves my point. Non-smokers view thier rights superior to the rights of smokers. Yes, my rights should not interfere with yours, but your shouldn't interefere with mine. If smokers rights have no place interfering with the rights of non-smokers, then non-smokers rights have no place interfering with smoker rights. This country is based on equality, yet non-smokers think that smoker are not equal.
Third, all those who have attacked me on the premise of my age are being fallacious. So because you will die sooner and may have gone to college 20-30 yrs ago, you are so much wiser than my childish mind? Im am currently in school working on my degree in Psychology. Yes it is considered a medical field, so courtney, I am informed on the medical facts. Dont throw your major around like that, its entirely arrogant.
As a Jungian, I am after a much greater awareness. This article was designed to get people thinking and start being more proactive in legislation. Im not saying we should be able to smoke wherever we want. I agree I shouldn't put the health risks of smoking on you. It is however your choice where you choose to patronize. If the places you like want to allow smoking, then start a similar place for non-smokers. Not only are non-smokers happy that way, it has the potential to create more jobs.
Look at the bigger picture people, and only do so after temporarily losing your biases.
Groundhog, what gives you the right to make such bold statements and claims. Obviously, my article was good enough for publication. What do you have published? What is your college degree? If you can do better then by all means I challenge you to. Your are innatey arrogant, and your implication of my age based on "it sounds like a junior highschool paper" is all but cute. Is it so hard to imagine that a young man like myself might actually be educated and intelligent? Pull your head out of your ass.
Hey Pokey: You're a windbag! Maybe you were able to become long-winded after you extricated yourself from your horrible childhood environs... It's fairly obvious you have an opinion. Unfortunately, it looks like you didn't bother to take into account any context of the article. When they ban rambling dissertations (or anything else you may like and/or be good at) I think you may see how this isn't a smoking specific issue. Until then, you are just blowing smoke! (LOL)
After reading that article I felt like I just read a junior high school position paper. Where did the Indy find this guy? Certainly there are better writers who smoke around here.
Anyway, I love the knee jerk reaction that smokers almost always jump to when confronted about infringing on other's rights: People eat junk food. They just miss the whole point: Injest whatever you want, but don't force others to. You want to draw comparisons between obesity and smoking? Wait until someone forces a cheeseburger down your throat. That argument is for a high school civics class, and anybody who uses it should attend. You can't get fat sitting next to someone eating fast food.
People voted to ban smoking in bars. You have a problem with that ordinance? Talk to the voters. The govt isn't persecuting anybody, just doing the will of the people.
Ethan, did you write this article in a hurry? I mean, there's got to be a reason it was so bad.
As to your question about me giving up rights. If the government can show that it is for the benefit of the majority and that it does not put the minority at risk I am willing to give up many "rights". It really depends on what you are talking about. Living in a society means not just thinking about yourself, it means considering those around you and the impact of your life choices on them. I live my life by that mantra and it influences every choice that I make.
I actually don't have any thing in a twist; and an existential conversation is not what this is. This is a civics discussion. I really understand where you all are coming from and I agree with you on a lot of points. I am for smart government involvement not no government involvement. If you want to have people smoke in your establishment then there need to be regulations on that; the reason for that is that smoke does not just harm people in the area that it is in. It spreads and it has been shown that it can move through adjoining buildings if the ventilation is not properly set up. So while I can see your point about this being a freedom of business issue, I also hope that you can see from my point of view that there are many more facets to this issue than just that. Public health is something that you don't realize is being neglected til its too late. Is it really such a hassle to go outside to light up?
By the way- I am just trying to broaden people's minds, and I really think that jumping to hyperbole is counter- productive.
Right on! i especially liked your last point about giving up rights in the name of safety. Smoking is not the only thing that kills you. If the government bans smoking, then some other nutty radical group will move in to ban something else. (chewing tobacco, rare meat, caffeine, sex...) Nonsmokers think their rights are being violated, so they retaliate by violating the rights of smokers? Where do they expect the line to be drawn? That you can only smoke when you have the consent of everybody in a 15 foot radius?
Courtney the Brave:
oooh, someone has her "Brave" little panties in a twist. (lol) what's the matter Toots? This conversation getting too existential for ya? So the government is responsible for your individual health? You want the government to hold your little hand, and keep you safe and warm? Grow up. It’s called a slippery slope for a reason. Salt’s bad for you, should they be able to take that? Drinking’s bad too. (just try to come between Americans and their booze again). I’m not saying that’s a possibility, I’m just saying don’t try to pigeon hole bad health unless you’re damn sure you cover all the bases. (otherwise you just look like a fool) If I want my customers to be able to smoke, and I pay my taxes and I’m a law abiding citizen, who are they to say No? Situations like this remind me that we don't have rights. We have privileges that can be taken away at anytime. So step off already. (or as you would say "step off Pikes Peak" because that was so fucking cleaver it merits a second round)
You know what I do if I'm driving and see someone within close proximity to me swerving as if intoxicated? I get off the road.
But that's quite a different issue then a few people smoking in a bar or restaurant. I can immediately enter an establishment and know right away whether or not smoking is occurring there...and I can leave.
Unfortunately, there are not designated roads and highways for drunk-drivers that I can willingly avoid...they can be anywhere, anytime and I may not know it until they hit and kill me. I won't have 30 seconds (or say, 30 years in smoking's case) in that situation to determine whether or not my life's at risk.
So law's against DD make perfect sense.
And no, I wouldn't object to a mandatory quarantine of TB patients. But I also wouldn't object to anyone that wanted to join them and put their own life at risk because after all, that's their life. And as long as you're not being made to join them, what's the issue? If you choose to stay away from them and their "designated areas" then they aren't encroaching on any of your rights.
Oh, and -
the point IS freedom of business.
But just for argument's sake, let me ask you this:
How many rights are you willing to give up in the name of safety ?
I didn't miss the point by the way. I just disagree that the point is freedom of business. It is public health and safety. Think back to drunk driving....
Bex- This is not a freedom of business issue, it is about the health of people. I don't object to smoking because it stinks, I think that is actually not that bad of a smell, I object because it causes disease. It is my right to have the government protect me from potentially hazardous health risks. Like I stated before you don't object to mandatory quarantine of TB patients; this is the same concept. If a public place wanted to allow measles patients to congregate there then would you think that it was ok for the government to say 'no'?
First they came for the Jews, and I didn't object because I'm not jewish. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't object because I'm not Catholic. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to object.
courtney the brave:
You're throwing the word "right" around like you know what it means. It is also the RIGHT of the business owner to run HIS OR HER (read: NOT the government's) private business as he or she pleases. And in turn, it is YOUR RIGHT not to patronize that establishment.
Government buildings can and should remain smoke-free because at some point, we all have to spend time in them.
But no one's forcing you to hang out at Joe's Bar down the street.
So to summarize: you want private business owners to run their business as YOU would like them to for YOUR health and YOUR convenience.
And in turn, you just encroached on the RIGHTS of the business owner.
If you're still confused, consider how you might feel if Big Government decided that they would dictate how you would run your household (because ya know, you have visitors over 'n stuff and you might regularly use some household chemical that their sensitive nostrils just don't like!)
It's just completely laughable to me that everyone here arguing against smoking are COMPLETELY missing the point; IF YOU'RE AGAINST SMOKING OR BREATHING IN SECOND HAND SMOKE, DO NOT SPEND TIME IN ESTABLISHMENTS THAT ALLOW IT. THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO ALLOW IT. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.
ps/ I'm a non-smoker.
Oh and Little Birdie. Yes I am going to die, but I would like to do what I can to make the time I have worthwhile. I choose not to smoke and that has been a good choice so far. When I die without a trach tube and with both of my lungs intact I will be grateful. So you go kill yourself but spare me the nihlistic crap. If that is your view then why not go jump off of Pikes Peak? It would mean one less idiot trying to kill me.
I have to disagree with the argument that the government is encroaching on the civil liberties of businesses and smokers in general. The role of the government is to protect the safety of the masses and by regulating smoking the government is doing its job. Second hand smoke causes NUMEROUS health problems and as a medical student I have SCIENTIFIC proof of that. The CDC is there to protect the masses from health hazards and you don't hear people trying to come down on them for mandating quarantine for people with TB do you?
If you want to kill yourself by smoking I have absolutely no objection to that, it is your right and I will do nothing to obstruct you. What I will do is ask you to refrain from endangering me and the people around me (including children who have no choice in the matter). If it takes the government mandating that you not smoke in public then so be it. I am sorry that you have to go stand out in the cold, but it is your choice to smoke and if you don't like the consequences then don't smoke.
If buying cigarettes and smoking them was mandatory then I would buy your arguments, but it is not! You choose to do something unhealthy and therefore you should be the only person affected by it. Don't say that it is unconstitutional that the government protects me from you disgusting and deadly habit.
i got 2 words for you: "Jim" "Fixx". (That’s right.) Google it, but i'll give you the quick and dirty. Jim Fixx used to weigh 240 pounds and smoked 2 packs a day. Then he started running, quite smoking, wrote a couple of books on running (because running was going to cure the world of bad health) and then drops dead at the age of 52 after his morning jog from a heart attack. No matter how much Anti-Smokers preach about "reality" and "truth," there is only one and for some reason they can’t own up to it: every, single person in the world will and is going to die. No measure of “health consciousness” is going to change that. It won't even do that much to prolong it. Say it with me kids: death is coming for me and there’s not a damn thing I can do about. Cheers :)
All content © Copyright 2013, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation