Organizing for America | LuckyCharm's Blog: Federal smoking ban?

Federal smoking ban?

By LuckyCharm - Sep 26th, 2007 at 11:50 pm EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content

In tonight's debate, Barack said he would support a federal smoking ban in public places "if local efforts proved inadequate" or something to that effect. Yet he wouldn't criminalize abortion?

When talking to an anti-abortion person about Obama, I often point out that he is not "pro" abortion, but that he just doesn't believe in criminalizing everything that may be immoral. He prefers to tackle the problem at the source, and recognizes the troubles that could arise should all abortions be criminalized nationwide. But this statement about smoking might just shoot down that entire argument. Sure, the argument could be made that second-hand smoke affects others in the vicinity as well, so it goes beyond the individual. But abortion opponents would simply counter that abortion kills a potential human being, and not even second-handedly.

This kind of gets into why I have traditionally considered myself politically conservative. I don't believe government should regulate everything, not even everything people think is bad for us. Why not let the economy dictate policies? Ban supporters are quick to point to statistics showing that businesses' bottom lines actually improved after enacting smoking bans -- well, why not let businesses make those decisions for themselves, if it will be so good for business? Why does government even need to get involved?

I am disappointed in this debate answer. Anybody got a clue why he said this?

~~Cheryl

Reader Comments	Comments RSS
Comments are closed for this post.

Devisive Issue | Report to Admin

By Marcus @ SDSU Sep 27th 2007 at 1:51 pm EDT

The fact of the matter is, A LOT of people smoke outside of urban areas, especially in rural cities and towns in the south.

I believe that if Sen. Obama would try to enact a federal smoking ban in public places, it would turn off a LOT of smokers and southern voters. Many of the non-smoker southerners I believe aren't that against public smoking and are in a sense, used to it.

Obama is the only one with this high a spirit of hope and unity and by bringing in a smoking ban, it would only further divide the country.

I agree | Report to Admin

By Athena Sep 27th 2007 at 4:13 pm EDT

Cheryl,

I am a liberal, and I agree with you. Zoning laws should be local, and this is what such a federal provision would amount to. Yes, it is undue interference. It could be constitutionally murky, too, because where do you draw the line?

The most the feds could get away with, as far as I am concerned, would be to ban smoking in federally owned land or federally controlled public places (such as an open courtyard in a federal complex). That is their right, but they have no right to tell people what they can do at county fairs, for example.

I believe in responsible federal involvement - not undue meddling.

I'm a Smoker. Everybody Hate Me! | Report to Admin

By Don Sep 28th 2007 at 3:18 am EDT

I'm a smoker. I've tried to be as considerate a smoker as I can. I do not litter, I try to stay out of people's way with my smoking, and I've spoken out strongly in support of the Children's Health Care Bill, in spite of the tax. I don't want to see a single new victim to the monster that cigarettes have become. Let's face it, nicotine addiction has risen to the level of art in the hands of today's Big Tobacco.

That said, there is still the inconvenient problem of me. I've been a heavy smoker for many years, and I've tried to quit many times. I'm now suffering from Level 3 COPD, and 30% of normal lung capacity. If I'm still unable to quit, that will be a shame. I might also feel it's a bit of a shame if there's not a little tolerance for folks like me.

Many of us do what we can, despite our accursed habit, and we want to help, in our own clumsy way. As we make our plans around all the issues raised by tobacco, I think we'll do even better if we try to look at things from all sides, especially those perspectives we least understand.

Issue #2 | Report to Admin

By Don Sep 28th 2007 at 3:37 am EDT

I'm spamming by making a second post, but nested within the topic post, partly hidden by my laser focus on the tobacco issue, was the completely different question of abortion.

As a male, I would prefer to have this question answered exclusively by the women of this world. I can't imagine why I should qualify to speak for a woman's body. But I can tell you what I've seen over the years and all across America, that the legal status of abortion doesn't make a lot of difference when decision time arrives. Sad to say, abortion is a prohibition issue.

Don't ask me what I feel personally about abortion, because it's not relevant, as I've said. And I apologize for touching on this second issue, as this is more properly a thread on smoking. But once again, we're faced with a problem we presume to evaluate from a safe aesthetic distance. In real life, the definition of safe has many meanings, and we'll be well advised to study them before firing off an opinion.

Re: Issue #2 | Report to Admin

By LuckyCharm Sep 28th 2007 at 10:23 am EDT

Thanks for writing again, Don. I'd like to place the issues side by side, to show why I think Obama's positions on these two issues are incompatible, because this is starting to bug me more and more. And I don't think only men should be allowed to weigh in on abortion -- after all, are only smokers allowed to weigh in on smoking?

Obama supports a federal smoking ban (if local efforts prove ineffective) as a national health and safety issue. Okay. According to the questioner, 400,000 Americans die every day due to smoking or second-hand smoke. All the candidates except Clinton said they would support a federal smoking ban to reduce these deaths.

My question is, if you're going to ban smoking at a national level, which kills people indirectly or second-handedly, why not ban abortion, which kills directly and deliberately? That is the whole IDEA of abortion! If you're going to argue that a fetus isn't a "person," remember we have laws against the capricious killing of animals. Is a fetus less a person than a dog or cat?

This isn't a religious issue. I am not a conservative Christian, and do not support a federal abortion ban. But neither do I support a national smoking ban! This isn't an issue for the federal government to address -- in fact, I don't even believe it's the proper role of local governments to address. If smoking bans do indeed benefit businesses, as Clinton asserts during the debate, why not let those businesses voluntarily ban smoking? Why not allow business owners, staff, and clientele make this decision for themselves?

To review the entire debate segment, go here: Link

I am becoming more and more troubled by the lack of a clear explanation for this incongruity. I have always thought of Obama as a big civil-rights guy, the candidate who would focus on the critical issues facing our nation and otherwise "live and let live." That's the crux of it, to me. Smoking itself is trivial in comparison, but the extent to which the federal government will micromanage my personal lifestyle choices is HUGE in my universe. My efforts on Obama's (and Democrats') behalf are currently stalled at this impasse.

~~Cheryl

Re: Issue #2 | Report to Admin

By Don Sep 28th 2007 at 1:14 pm EDT

I certainly agree that abortion and smoking are both prohibition issues, but abortion is a very personal issue, while smoking is a social one. That is a very fundamental difference, and I think it's a very uphill climb from there to argue that unique treatment of these issues reveals an inconsistency.

Your larger question of whether the government should interfere in personal lifestyle issues is well taken. But I think we all agree your freedom stops at the end of my nose. If my smoking reaches your nose, that may be an issue, whether we smokers like it or not.

Abortion vs. smoking | Report to Admin

By LuckyCharm Sep 29th 2007 at 12:43 am EDT

Aborting a baby isn't like getting a wart removed. It's another person, another human life, you're eradicating. Does your grown-up nose deserve more consideration and legal protection than the life of an unborn child?

I am in my second day of searching DESPERATELY for some way I could swallow Barack's comment in support of a federal smoking ban, especially in light of his refusal to ban even more lethal (and deliberately so, unlike smoking!) practices. So far nobody's been able to make any sense of it for me.

~~Cheryl

Content on blogs in My.BarackObama represents the opinions of community members and in no way should be interpreted as endorsed or approved by the campaign.