Student Group set to hand out free cigarettes to protest University of Toledo tobacco ban, Monday (2/24/14)

Next week (Monday, January 24th) the University of Toledo Young Americans for Liberty will be handing out free cigarettes* and collecting signatures for a petition to repeal recent legislation school wide calling for a full tobacco ban on UT's main campus. There is an asterisk by the word cigarette because what we give out will not really be cigarettes but a note rolled into a cigarette shape to illustrate the tobacco ban.

We in the Young Americans for Liberty see this as a large government overreach where the administration is trying to make our school into a Micheal Bloomberg-esch nanny state. It is not the administration's job to decide what legal substances grown adults put into their body nor is it their right to declare the university a tobacco free zone since the school is publicly funded and the administrators do not hold the property right to do so .

In addition to this ban going against student's right to consume legal substances, it also can be viewed in no other way but wasteful. Not even four years prior smoking huts were constructed all over campus at a large expense for smokers due to current smoking regulations which forces them to smoke only in the smoking huts. A majority of smokers keep to these huts and they are far enough out of the way so if someone is to get a lung-full of secondhand smoke they'd have to be quite a ways out of their way to receive it. This total ban will waste these perfectly reasonable smoking shacks the university spent a pretty penny to build.

The third and final strike against this ban is the Obama-esch way it was passed. Because the student body president and other anti-choice school leaders could not pass their draconian ban they had to ignore the student representatives in student government and pass through fiat via the faculty senate. This should make one ponder the question that if the administration isn't going to listen to student government then why do they have it at all.

The students have spoken, they want freedom and their representatives have said so. For more evidence of the unpopularity of this ban please come to our protest and see they massive disdain for the ban among the students.

*When:*
Monday, February 24th
10am-1pm

*Where:*
The University of Toledo
Student Union, by the free speech board
2801 W Bancroft St, Toledo, OH 43606

*Who:*
The Young Americans for Liberty at the University of Toledo

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Ron Johns will be my guest on Monday morning to talk about this.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

Let me get this straight: You can suck down lungfuls of automotive exhaust anywhere around campus 24/7, but catching just a whiff of cigarette smoke is some sort of foul deviltry?

The anti-smoking people are modern day Prohibitionists and they need to be stopped.

I know! Just like the hospitals letting the ambulance sit in front of the front doors under the awning with the motor running but you can't even smoke a cigarette in your own car on the property.

By the way GZ I have some Chili for you if you want it.

for these pooooor students. Secondly, I thought college students were so loaded down with loan debt that they can't see daylight, and need Obama to grant them some kind of debt amnesty. BUT THEY CAN AFFORD CIGARETTES?????

Thirdly - in the bad old days, the following is how smoking worked in public places. I'll use just a few examples from the past (but it happened in the old days ALL THE TIME EVERYWHERE.)

Years back, when the Lion store was still downtown, their lunch counter was one where you could get in and out quickly if you had other shopping to do, or didn't brown-bag it that day. Unfortunately a lot of "lingering" smokers liked it as well. You would make your order, and invariably a smoker would sit down right next to you, light up, and commence blowing smoke in your direction. After this happened several times, I started taking my plate & glass & moving to a different seat. Get this - the dufus smoker would look aghast, as though you had just insulted him. It was loony, to say the least.

More recently, around 10 years or so, the following happened in the same year at 2 different restaurants, one of which was Georgios. A group of us gals walked into the restaurants, and were INSTANTLY shuffled into the smoking section. In both instances, I was shocked this was done & requested to be moved to non-smoking [a request with which they were required to comply, at that time]. Now, the Georgios guy HAD asked one of us if smoking was OK, but so quickly and "sotto voce" that the rest of us didn't hear it. We requested to be moved to non-smoking immediately. Here's what I noticed. The NON-SMOKING room and areas back then were, sort of surreptitiously, "saved" for the well-dressed business MEN, who I assume were presumed to be the big tippers. In other words, non-smoking at any restaurant you could name, was considered BY THE MANAGEMENT to be the premium seating area. And yet, these restaurants kissed up to the smokers, as there were no bans in place at the time. It was INFURIATING. The smoking bans came none too soon. Also, this baloney of bum-rushing groups into the smoking areas was only experienced when the group was all women. If there was even one man in a group, this nonsense was not pulled. Again, it was infuriating.

My brother-in-law came from a big family of almost-all smokers. He was the lone exception for a long time. When he & my sister were married, several decades ago, HE was the one who laid down the law to his family, saying they were welcome any time, but there would be no smoking at their house, and the rule was never "bent". Rationalize all you want. it's a terrible habit that regularly impinges on the rights of others.

I have never been a smoker. However, in my the first 59 years of my life, I "smoked" hundreds if not thousands of cigarettes, via second hand smoke. I have chronic asthma and COPD. Both of my parents smoked as I was growing up in their house. They smoked in the car whenever we went anywhere together. Wherever I went as a child and as a young and middle-aged adult, cigarette smoking was pervasive. And, as you well articulated, if you changed tables at a restaurant, even after most restaurants had established non-smoking areas, the smoker, away from whom you were moving, looked at you with an offended, disgusted grimace!

As far as rights go, where are the champions for the rights of the overwhelming majority of Americans who do not smoke? Thank you, FG, for speaking up for the non-smokers everywhere. And, gee, if smokers give up smoking, they have a strong probability of living a longer, healthier life, too! Not smoking is a win-win situation!
BTW, FG, I'm so old, I remember when no women were allowed into Dyer's Restaurant at lunch time. The "good ol' boys" would make their business and political deals in their own personal boys' club..."NO GIRLS ALLOWED!!"

"[W]here are the champions for the rights of the overwhelming majority of Americans who do not smoke?"

Their rights are already spoken for: Move away if you find the smoke offensive.

I say that as a non-smoker, and in fact, I'm fairly sensitive to cigarette smoke. None of that matters since my weaknesses don't trump the rights of others. Just like if I was blind, I wouldn't claim that my rights were violated because every sign and document wasn't also in Braille.

Remember: Smoking is 100% legal. We have to remind the Smoking Prohibitionists of that time after time. So these smoking bans are an obscenity. Before they really started to hit our society hard, I had no problem in restaurants and such, since the owners of such establishments had already taken sufficient steps to make sure smokers and nonsmokers could co-exist within their buildings. So what was the problem? This was the problem: It wasn't enough for the Smoking Prohibitionists. No compromise or reform is ever enough for that sort of asshole.

Those who desire to smoke can do so AWAY FROM THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WHO DO NOT SMOKE!! According to the CDC, only 18.1% of Americans smoke cigarettes. Talk about your proverbial tail wanting to wag the dog!!
And those of us with asthma and COPD are not, as you are, "fairly sensitive to cigarette smoke." For some of us, it is literally a life and death situation. Would I have asthma and COPD if there had been a smoking ban in public places when I was growing up? Almost assuredly. Would my asthma and COPD be as bad today if there had been a smoking ban in public places when I was growing up? Almost assuredly not!!

As far as restaurant owners "taking sufficient steps" so that smokers and non-smokers could coexist in the bad ol' days, you are dead wrong!! (Why am I not surprised!?) My wife and I walked out of many restaurants which were too smoke-filled, even if they had one side of a room for non-smokers. We even left a few times after we had ordered, and discovered that there was someone actively smoking near, OR EVEN IN, the non-smoking section.

Once again you expose the weakness of your arguments when you punctuate your post with profanity. The use of profanity is so often the sign of desperation. You're losing this fight in the real world, so you use vile language to feel better. But, it's so hard to feel better when the sky has already fallen. Right, GZ aka Mr. Empty Glass?

All particulates and chemicals in the air have a harmful effect on Human health, Dale. The point is that you Smoking Prohibitionists are trying to make a 100% legal product, ILLEGAL, via the same dishonorable and deceitful means that most Liberals indulge in.

Also I stand by my "took sufficient steps" statement. I was in enough restaurants and I have enough hypersensitivity to cigarette smoke, that I would have noticed if there was a widespread problem. THERE WASN'T. But that didn't fit the narrative of the Smoking Prohibitionists.

Finally, for those who can't stand my profanity:

Grow the fuck up.

GZ aka Mr. Empty Glass: "I stand behind my 'took sufficient steps' statement." Only the great GZ aka Mr. Empty Glass ever eats out at restaurants. Only GZ aka Mr. Empty Glass has "enough hypersensitivity to cigarette smoke" to make a judgment. Geesh! Are we full of ourselves, GZ aka Mr. Empty Glass, or what?!!

As far as your use of profanity and it being a "GROW UP" issue, you're the one who should be grown up enough to express your opinions without the use of profanity. If your ideas are sound, supported by facts and logic, you do not need profanity to express yourself. We're not in some championship sports event where thousands of dollars are riding on the outcome and emotions get away from us!
When I grew up in the inner city, I used all of those four letter and hyphenated words and phrases every day, with my young peers! But if I had used those words at home, my father would have literally washed my mouth out with soap. I witnessed him do that to my older brother, who, by the way, recently retired from his radiology practice after some 40+ years as an MD. I also knew enough never to use those words as a student in school. In addition, as an adult and as a role model to my students when I was a teacher, I would not express myself using such language! In short, I grew up enough to know not to make regular use of vulgar language. It's called maturity!

Finally, Spencer W. Kimball, who headed the Mormon Church from 1973-1985, stated, "Profanity is the effort of a feeble brain to express itself forcefully." Well stated, IMHO!

81.9% vs 18.1%. Tail wagging dog.
Time for bed. Taking my asthma/COPD meds. G'night.

"Are we full of ourselves[?]"

Oh sweet Lucifer, the irony. Few people command the sheer arrogance of the Smoking Prohibitionists. There's nothing more "full of one's self" than thinking you know better about a person's life and options than he knows himself.

Our resistance to that sort of arrogance is the basic fight we have with the Liberal assholes. Liberals believe they can just take over the government with waving their degrees and therefore rule us. They're wrong and the social strife we have today is evidence of that battle.

The rest of your blather is just more of the same Liberalism. Have you ever actually treated other adults like they're adults? From your own testimony, you've been a teacher, hence spent your 'working' life (noting well that teachers do little work in practice) talking down to an audience. Literally, you're stuck in "teacher mode" and you treat adults the same way, if your blogging behavior is any indicator.

So you simply merit contempt from rational and free men. That's why you're Liberal: You hate rational and free men. It all fits together, at least once you deconstruct the Liberal. Really, you're making it too easy for me. I should be paying you, for the bad example you provide.

And yet, alcohol, consumed by the wrong person in the wrong place, is responsible for unnecessary deaths too. Which is why consuming alcohol and then driving is against the law.

For instance: The guy who got very drunk, stopped at our Taco Bell here in Oregon (the employees of which tried to detain him while they contacted authorities, but failed) - that guy, who then entered I-280 in his vehicle, the wrong way, and slammed into a vehicle filled with several family members (some of whom died in the crash) ... that guy is in prison now, for a long time to come.

It's not whether a substance is legal or not [you must be under 40] - it's how the substance is used, and whether it harms others or not. Gasoline used to have lead in it too... legally. You see, squirt, item by item, we get rid of as many harmful things as we can. This is not a perfect world, but idiots blowing smoke in other people's faces is unacceptable. It's just that simple.

"alcohol [...] is responsible"

Got some news for ya, FG: Alcohol is an inanimate object. It's not responsible. It's not a person and has no volition.

People are ALREADY responsible for what they do. That's what's rational in any society: Hold people responsible AFTER they prove themselves irresponsible.

Making a status or condition a crime is one of the biggest injustices ever. Rational handling would be to punish the resultant crime more seriously, but not to punish the status itself, regardless of how the status affects the resultant crime.

And nobody has command of the answers anyway. Nobody really knows how a condition affects crime. Did you ever watch that movie "Minority Report"? You're really arguing for that sort of society, where people decide that you WILL be a problem, hence without actually causing a problem, they criminalize you. That's an absurdity, but, as with most people, you're too mired in your own society's absurdities to understand.

But Dyers was never an issue for me. I worked downtown when the Dyers thing was going on. I'm not what is called a "feminist", nor were many of my female co-workers. We figured if a lot of men wanted to hide out at Dyers and choke on one another's tobacco sticks, they were welcome to do so. There were much better restaurants downtown during the 1970's & 1980's.

was that those lunches were quite often working business lunches. In the early days of women entering executive offices other than being secretaries, the Dyer's lunch was a way to exclude those women from the wheeling and dealing which often occurred there over many of those lunches. I think that I only went to Dyer's twice for lunch. It was out of my league in cost in those days, and I was uncomfortable with the exclusivity of the lunch crowd there. My wife and I did go there for special occasions for dinner, however. We loved their seafood, and the service was fantastic.
It's just like the old rules about country clubs and golf clubs. A LOT of business was conducted at the buildings housing those organizations, on the links, and at the bars. I remember my father joining the Masons mainly because the contacts he made might help his business.
On the other hand, when one very well known club decided to invite Groucho Marx, because of his fame and fortune, to be their first ever Jewish member, Groucho sent back the invitation, turning the offer down in his own unique style: "I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member."

Since laws limiting smoking are so offensive to you, even though over 80% of adult Americans do not smoke, do you also favor decriminalizing currently illegal drugs? Would this decriminalization include, not only marijuana, but also poppy related products such as morphine and heroine? How about cocaine? The use of performing enhancing drugs by adults would seem to be something you would favor legalizing. And why should we have age restrictions on the use of these drugs, smoking tobacco, or drinking alcoholic beverages? If one is truly a libertarian, one believes that each person has a right to consume whatever (s)he can afford to buy. Right?? Who cares if these things are harmful to one's health? Every person should be able to ingest whatever (s)he wants. The only person they would hurt is themselves. Who cares what the effect is upon their family and friends, their neighbors and co-workers? Right? If they break the law while under the influence, we punish them only for the crime committed, not for using drugs. Using drugs is their free-will choice.
What about abortion? Wouldn't a true libertarian believe that a woman always has the right to choose whether or not to carry a fetus to live birth?

Am I misinterpreting libertarianism? If so, how? Might it not be you who are picking and choosing which human activities you believe are covered by your libertarian philosophy, and which ones are not? Isn't being a libertarian an absolute? You either are a libertarian or you're not. Right? Once you state that there are limits upon what people can ingest of their own free will, or how much control society can have over free-will decisions about their own bodies, can you really call yourself a libertarian?

"do you also favor decriminalizing currently illegal drugs"

Of course real Libertarians favor that. If you have the natural right to grow a plant, then you also have the natural right to render that plant down into chemicals that you ingest for your personal pleasure. Of course, and with equal naturality, you're concomitantly responsible for your behavior while those chemicals course through your bloodstream.

You Liberals always feel you can "trip up" Libertarians into some sort of hypocrisy. Obviously you never meet real Libertarians (note that too many young people who claim such allegiance are merely Randroids) or you just ignore the numerous replies that turn your so-called tactic right on its ear. A real Libertarian wants the government's nose out of boardrooms AND bedrooms.

the others here who are against the anti-smoking moves in public places. I would like to hear from them. If these are your true beliefs, you are, quite literally, a libertarian. I was not stating -- as you imply -- that true libertarians do not exist. I was pointing out the very same thing you did. Many people take a public position on one issue and falsely claim that this stand shows them to be a libertarian.
My purpose was not to "trip up" true libertarians. My post is meant to underline the differences between a true libertarian, as you appear to be, and those who pick and choose one or two issues and merely CLAIM to be a libertarian, when they really are not. I'm sure some Randroids consider themselves to be true libertarians, while most are simply self-centered, political opportunists.

I am against anti-smoking moves in public places.

It is a way to prohibit a legal action. Not regulate the action but prohibit it.

The University is trying to stop smoking campus wide. Now I am ok with not allowing it in buildings, I don't complain when they say it can't be done within 50 feet of an entrance/exit. But removing it completely off campus is trying to prohibit it totally. Technically, I cannot do it in the confines of my vehicle in that case. That is asinine.

The fact is having designated smoking sections/areas did not affect nonsmokers. However nonsmokers believe they have a right to tell others how to live. Disagree with this? Ask a smoker how often people tell them it's bad for them. I've witnessed it myself and I don't smoke. There is no one alive who doesn't deny that smoking is bad for you yet people still want to do it for various reasons. They should be allowed to. Being that it's legal they should be allowed to do it in public in ways that don't affect who choose not to partake. But prohibition is wrong.

MikeyA

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.