Jump to content






Photo
- - - - -

3 Packs a Day

Peikoff smoking health values

  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#41 Michael E. Marotta

Michael E. Marotta

    Rational Empiricist

  • Members
  • 2,504 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, Texas
  • Interests:Numismatics, Physical Security and Computer Security, Aviation

Posted 31 March 2012 - 12:03 AM

Barbara Branden has an essay somewhere about how easy it was to quit -- once she got past the part where it was hard to quit. In other words, she used to go through anguish and not quit successfully, then something changed in her head and she quit effortlessly and painlessly.

It's mostly in your head.

Mike M.
-----------------------------------------------

Michael E. Marotta, BS, MA.
Criminology & Social Science


Blogging at Necessary Facts
Website: CSI: Flint (2011)
------------------------------------------------


#42 Reidy

Reidy

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,552 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:CA
  • Interests:Architecture, cooking, music, philosophy

Posted 31 March 2012 - 07:25 AM

http://barbarabranden.com/smoking.html

#43 Ellen Stuttle

Ellen Stuttle

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 5,043 posts
  • Interests:Psychology, Physics, Philosophy, Literature, Music

Posted 31 March 2012 - 12:16 PM

Barbara went back to smoking at least temporarily after she wrote the article. She was smoking a lot when Larry and I visited her in Santa Fe a week or so after 9/11. I don't know if she subsequently re-quit.

About Nathaniel's smoking: Back in the late 90s, at which time I was having an email exchange with Nathaniel on various topics, the subject of smoking somehow came up. He told me that he never learned how to inhale when he smoked.

Ellen

#44 George H. Smith

George H. Smith

    $$$$$$

  • VIP
  • 5,611 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bloomington, IL
  • Interests:Books, ideas, jazz, chess, and intelligent people

Posted 31 March 2012 - 04:33 PM

A classic by Tex Williams, from 1947. This remained #1 on the Billboard charts for 6 weeks, and placed #5 in the top 100 tunes for 1947. I heard this song countless times growing up. It was a favorite of my parents.



Ghs

#45 daunce lynam

daunce lynam

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 8,016 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Hockey, what else is there?

Posted 31 March 2012 - 04:37 PM

Another great one was "Just one more Cigarette" or some such name (was that another Tex, Ritter?) can't remember.

Long before the Surgeon General's report smokers called cigarettes coffin nails. I remember buying cigarettes at 16 and smoking them in public *well, outdoors where my mother wouldn't see me), and thinking, It's really crazy that people are allowed to take this stuff into their lungs and breathe it out again on other people. Of course I was glad that the world was crazy. By and large I still am.

#46 George H. Smith

George H. Smith

    $$$$$$

  • VIP
  • 5,611 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bloomington, IL
  • Interests:Books, ideas, jazz, chess, and intelligent people

Posted 31 March 2012 - 04:44 PM

A classic ad from 1949, one that now qualifies as black comedy.

"More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette." That's good to know, since I also smoke Camels. 8-)



Ghs

#47 daunce lynam

daunce lynam

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 8,016 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Hockey, what else is there?

Posted 31 March 2012 - 04:50 PM

A classic ad from 1949, one that now qualifies as black comedy.

"More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette." That's good to know, since I also smoke Camels. 8-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCMzjJjuxQI

Ghs


Oh yes! We got a TV just in the last years of cigarette advertising on TV. I remember a lovely ad showing a calm winding stream forget the brand, tsk tsk MadMen of the day! The ad was sponsoring the popular sitcom "Father Knows Best" with the future Dr Marcus Welby in the lead role.

#48 George H. Smith

George H. Smith

    $$$$$$

  • VIP
  • 5,611 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bloomington, IL
  • Interests:Books, ideas, jazz, chess, and intelligent people

Posted 31 March 2012 - 04:50 PM

Barbara went back to smoking at least temporarily after she wrote the article. She was smoking a lot when Larry and I visited her in Santa Fe a week or so after 9/11. I don't know if she subsequently re-quit.

About Nathaniel's smoking: Back in the late 90s, at which time I was having an email exchange with Nathaniel on various topics, the subject of smoking somehow came up. He told me that he never learned how to inhale when he smoked.

Ellen


I've never inhaled cigarettes. I puff on them as I would puff on a pipe or cigar. The net result is that I can go through a pack of cigarettes very, very quickly.

Ghs

#49 George H. Smith

George H. Smith

    $$$$$$

  • VIP
  • 5,611 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bloomington, IL
  • Interests:Books, ideas, jazz, chess, and intelligent people

Posted 31 March 2012 - 04:58 PM


Oh yes! We got a TV just in the last years of cigarette advertising on TV. I remember a lovely ad showing a calm winding stream forget the brand, tsk tsk MadMen of the day! The ad was sponsoring the popular sitcom "Father Knows Best" with the future Dr Marcus Welby in the lead role.


I loved "Father Knows Best" as a boy. I recall the scandal when Billy Gray (the actor who played Bud) was arrested for marijuana possession. Gray also played the boy in "The Day the Earth Stood Still," with Michael Rennie.

I saw Billy Gray interviewed on a talk show during the early 1990s. He was racing motorcycles at the time, and he talked quite a bit about being an atheist.

Ghs

Addendum: Some interesting tidbits about Billy Gray from the Wiki article:


Gray's "Bud Anderson" character is a teenager prone to mischief but always brought in line by his understanding and all-wise father, James Anderson, Sr., with a lot of prodding too from his mother, Margaret Anderson. On December 18, 1977, Gray appeared in the television movie Father Knows Best: Home for Christmas, a reunion of the entire cast from the former series which had left the air seventeen years earlier, including Lauren Chapin, and veteran stars Robert Young and Jane Wyatt. Had the ratings been higher, CBS would have considered a revised Father Knows Best series. In a 1983 interview, Gray spoke disparagingly of Father Knows Best:

"I wish there was some way I could tell the kids not to believe it. The dialogue, the situations, the characters ­ they were all totally false. The show did everyone a disservice. The girls were always trained to use their feminine wiles, to pretend to be helpless to attract men. The show contributed to a lot of the problems between men and women that we see today. . . . I think we were all well motivated, but what we did was run a hoax. 'Father Knows Best' purported to be a reasonable facsimile of life. And the bad thing is, the model is so deceitful. It usually revolved around not wanting to tell the truth, either out of embarrassment, or not wanting to hurt someone. If I could say anything to make up for all the years I lent myself to (that), it would be, 'You Know Best.'"[3]

Over the years, Gray maintained contact with former Father Knows Best cast members. Young died in 1998, Wyatt in 2006.

As the co-owner of a company called BigRock Engineering, Gray markets several products that he has invented, including a self-massager, high-technology guitar picks, and a candleholder for jack-o-lanterns.
He also hopes to revive Class A bike racing with a redesigned diamond-shaped course to permit sharper turns and to make the competition more thrilling. Gray raced competitively at dirt tracks in southern California from 1970–1995. He has since been a spectator and finds the sport is shrinking in availability.[3]
Gray still resides at the house in Topanga, located between Malibu and Santa Monica, California, which he purchased in 1957 at the height of his Father Knows Best popularity. The house has over the years become something of a "motorcycle museum".[3]



#50 daunce lynam

daunce lynam

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 8,016 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Hockey, what else is there?

Posted 31 March 2012 - 05:10 PM



Oh yes! We got a TV just in the last years of cigarette advertising on TV. I remember a lovely ad showing a calm winding stream forget the brand, tsk tsk MadMen of the day! The ad was sponsoring the popular sitcom "Father Knows Best" with the future Dr Marcus Welby in the lead role.


I loved "Father Knows Best" as a boy. I recall the scandal when Billy Gray (the actor who played Bud) was arrested for marijuana possession. Gray also played the boy in "The Day the Earth Stood Still," with Michael Rennie.

I saw Billy Gray interviewed on a talk show during the early 1990s. He was racing motorcycles at the time, and he talked quite a bit about being an atheist.

Ghs




Oh yes! We got a TV just in the last years of cigarette advertising on TV. I remember a lovely ad showing a calm winding stream forget the brand, tsk tsk MadMen of the day! The ad was sponsoring the popular sitcom "Father Knows Best" with the future Dr Marcus Welby in the lead role.


I loved "Father Knows Best" as a boy. I recall the scandal when Billy Gray (the actor who played Bud) was arrested for marijuana possession. Gray also played the boy in "The Day the Earth Stood Still," with Michael Rennie.

I saw Billy Gray interviewed on a talk show during the early 1990s. He was racing motorcycles at the time, and he talked quite a bit about being an atheist.

Ghs


I liked watching the show, mainly because it came on at 7 and I was allowed to stay up and watch it. I could not really relate to the relentless middleclassness though I did not think in those terms then obviously. I do remember the complacency with which I accepted that American people all had big houses and the married couples slept in twin beds, which even my twin cousins did not have and were forced to share a bed till they were 6 and got bunk beds. Yet the married couples never had bunks, unless they were on their honeymoons on a train. Twas a puzzlement.

#51 George H. Smith

George H. Smith

    $$$$$$

  • VIP
  • 5,611 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bloomington, IL
  • Interests:Books, ideas, jazz, chess, and intelligent people

Posted 31 March 2012 - 05:22 PM



I loved "Father Knows Best" as a boy. I recall the scandal when Billy Gray (the actor who played Bud) was arrested for marijuana possession. Gray also played the boy in "The Day the Earth Stood Still," with Michael Rennie.

I saw Billy Gray interviewed on a talk show during the early 1990s. He was racing motorcycles at the time, and he talked quite a bit about being an atheist.

Ghs


I liked watching the show, mainly because it came on at 7 and I was allowed to stay up and watch it. I could not really relate to the relentless middleclassness though I did not think in those terms then obviously. I do remember the complacency with which I accepted that American people all had big houses and the married couples slept in twin beds, which even my twin cousins did not have and were forced to share a bed till they were 6 and got bunk beds. Yet the married couples never had bunks, unless they were on their honeymoons on a train. Twas a puzzlement.


Check out Gray's FB info page at:

http://www.facebook....5151966&sk=info

He says that "Father Knows Best" was originally a radio show with Robert Young, and that the original title was "Father Knows Best?" Robert Young fought to keep the question mark for the television show, but to no avail.

I love trivia like this....

Gray lists The Bible According to Mark Twain as one of his favorite books. He is still a freethinker, obviously.

Ghs

#52 Peter Taylor

Peter Taylor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 2,256 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Land of Sky Blue Water

Posted 31 March 2012 - 06:12 PM

George wrote:
Would you happen to have copies of my Ortho Docks posts? I lost all of them during a computer crash years ago, and I would very much like to read them again.
End quote

I could find nothing with Ortho Docks or a signature, “Ortho.” I then tried Ortha. Nope. Sorry, George. Anything else you want me to search for?
Peter

From: Michael Hardy <hardy@math.mit.edu>
To: atlantis@wetheliving.com
Subject: ATL: Re: Smoking (Out) Fascists
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 200118:44:07 -0400 (EDT)

Russ Madden suggests that if you don't want to get hit in the face by tobacco smoke, then "don't go where the property owner says smoking is allowed." Once upon a time in a shopping mall, a woman's breasts were grabbed by a passing male stranger. Would Russ Madden have responded by first asking whether the property owner says that is allowed? The essential issue is NOT: "Did the owner post a conspicuous sign identifying a NO-GRABBING-STRANGERS'- PRIVATE-PARTS-AREA?" Rather the issue is "Did the person so intruded upon CONSENT?". Consent to such conduct may be made a condition upon which people are admitted to the shopping mall. But if whose-turf-is-it is made essential rather than consent being considered essential, then any time a theft or a murder happens at McDonald's we must first inquire whether the owner has promulgated rules against those activities. I've actually had people cite the absence of a "No Smoking" sign as justification for spraying that stuff in my face, whose normal effect on normal people is to cause physical pain and difficulty in breathing. The law has a name for that kind of behavior: It is battery. It is the same crime that you commit when you walk up to a stranger and punch him in the face with a closed fist.
Mike Hardy

Russell Madden wrote:
>And, of course, Mr. Riggenbach also completely ignores my very points re: the initiation of coercion: that it is not permissible under any circumstances.

Exactly. BUT _some_ things that _would_ be initiation of coercion under _some_ circumstances, are _not_ initiation of coercion if there is _consent_. This does _not_ mean that a property owner has a right to "allow" the groping of strangers' private parts on his property without consent. No owner has a right to allow that.

_BUT_ it _does_ mean the owner has a right to _exclude_ those who will not consent to that behavior.

Now: What is the difference? If you can _exclude_ those who will not _consent_, is that different from saying you can _allow_ the behavior?

This I answer affirmatively -- I say it _is_ different -- for two reasons: (1) If groping happens at McDonald's, one should not begin by inquiring whether the owner _allows_ it; rather, there is a burden of showing that those who have not consented have been excluded; consent consists of _something_, not merely an _absence_ of _non-consent_. (2) This whole thing about property rights is used as an excuse for a disguised attempt to preserve special privileges of people who smoke. If you doubt this, notice that no one defends grabbing strangers' private parts by saying "I don't see a sign saying the owner prohibits it." But smokers _do_ say that, and that is a special privilege -- a niggers-to-the-back-of-the-bus attitude directed against normal people by smokers. And it gets retaliated again by a counter-niggers-to-the-back-of-the-bus attitude directed against smokers by normal people. That's the wrong way to handle it. The right way is to be clear about the need for consent and the right of owners to exclude people, and that that is not the same as saying that owners have a right to allow it without consent.

>Like Mr. Hardy, he assumes that smoking is the equivalent of physical assault.

Incorrect. Smoking at one's own expense is not physical assault. Blowing it into someone's face without consent is _battery_. This is not to say it is the same degree of battery as if you maimed someone. It is a minor case. But if done deliberately, it certainly justifies punching the malefactor in the nose in self-defense.

> That is what needs to be demonstrated.

That's ridiculous. This point is obvious. Those who claim they didn't know normal people suffer physical pain as a result of inhaling tobacco smoke are just being sarcastic.

> (And re: Mr. Hardy, come on; who -- on this list anyway – seriously would argue that grabbing someone's private parts is not wrong?)

It is _not_ wrong if there is consent. And a property owner may exclude non-consenters. But consent is not merely the _absence_ of non-consent; it is not merely the absence of a conspicuous "No Groping" sign.

Mike Hardy

From: Thomas Gramstad <thomas@ifi.uio.no>
Reply-To: thomas@ifi.uio.no
To: atlantis@wetheliving.com
Subject: Re: ATL: Smoking Out Fascists
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 200119:11:00 +0200
Russ Madden wrote:
> I guess Michael Hardy didn't bother to notice a crucial line in my essay: "You have zero 'right' to tell anyone what to do with his property as long as he does not coercively make you associate with him."
> What part of "not coercively" doesn't he understand? Do I really have to explain property rights to Mr. Hardy and all their implications?

Explain how my property rights to my body, and to my lungs and airways in particular, gives other people the right to expose me to poisonous and pain-inducing chemicals against my will.

> Sure, I suppose we could require that an owner of a "public" space post a "smoking permitted" sign. I guess I could accept that.
> (Though why should the burden be on the property owner?

Because the normal assumption is that one will not be subjected to coercion and physical attack -- neither on one's own or on other people's property.

> If you don't like smoke,

It has nothing to do with likes and dislikes, and everything to do with force vs. consent.

> [Cf this to "organic" farmers who want _non"organic"_ farmers (who might use genetically enhanced seeds) to have _their_ food labeled as "nonorganic" or whatever rather than having "organic" food labeled as such.]

As in his article, Madden spends a lot of time introducing spurious analogies. No argument is made for establishing that they really are analogies, which they aren't. These repetitive diversions with an army of non-analogous red herrings instead of addressing the real issue indicate that his argument is a weak one at best.

> But a puff of smoke the equivalent of a _punch_ in the face with a closed fist [as opposed to an open fist...?]...?

Well, I guess that would all depend on the strength, skill, angle etc. of that fist, among other things... I certainly would consider a regular open fist slap in the face less annoying than a head-on exposure to a big puff of tobacco smoke. On the other hand, I'd say that head-on exposure to one of those big stinker cigars are generally more comparable to a closed fist. But this analogy stinks (so to speak) because of the complexities of where and how hard that closed fist is supposed to hit. So perhaps the analogy to unexpected and without-consent groping may be a better and more accurate one. "Analogy" may be a misleading term here anyway; they are all different referents of "coercion".

> As Stossel would say, give me a break. This is the same tyrannical impulse from the PC crowd

Name calling is no substitute of argument.

> who literally maintain that "hurtful" words are the equivalent of that "punch in the face."

More spurious analogies, and they are no substitute for argument either.

> "Normal" people don't go into "physical pain and difficulty in breathing" from mere second-hand smoke.

Yes, they do. Most people experience various degrees of physical annoyance and pain (usually in the airways and eyes, and in the head) or symptoms of poisoning when exposed to tobacco smoke (not to be confused with allergy symptoms, which are different). Some try to ignore the symptoms, more or less successfully.

Only a minority of people are not annoyed by tobacco smoke. The tobacco issue is usually cast as a conflict between smokers and non-smokers, but that's false. The real conflict is between "normal" people who experience those poison symptoms, and who consist of non-smokers _and_ smokers, on the one side -- and

people who deny or do not experience such symptoms (a very small minority of non-smokers and a rather big minority, but still a minority, of smokers) on the other side.

Experiencing those symptoms does not necessarily protect one from becoming or staying a smoker. But these smokers are usually considerate to other people when they smoke. These smokers prefer non-smoking seats in trains, restaurants etc., and go to the smoking section when they need to smoke. The minority of smokers

who does not experience the poison symptoms or who have been able to build tolerance or acceptance of them, may be inclined to be less considerate, and these are the troublemaking smokers.

Yet few people, in my experience, are as fanatical about permitting smoking everywhere, as that very small minority of non-smokers who claim to not experience any of the poison symptoms and annoyance of tobacco smoke. It is as if they sense their own abnormality and feel out of place, and so are fanatically driven to recreate the world in their image: "_I_ am not bothered in the least by tobacco smoke, and therefore I will not allow the fact that you (and you and you and...) legitimately and objectively are physically annoyed by tobacco smoke to enter anyone's consciousness either!".
Thomas Gramstad
thomas@ifi.uio.no

"A custom loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs, and in the black stinking fume thereof, nearest resembling the horrible Stygian smoke of the pit that is bottomless." James I, _A Counterblast to Tobacco_, 1604

From: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>
Reply-To: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>
To: "*Atlantis" atlantis@wetheliving.com
Subject: ATL: Re: Smoking Out Fascists
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 200113:13:33 -0500

Thomas Gramstad wrote (in regard to public smoking):

"Explain how my property rights to my body, and to my lungs and airways in particular, gives other people the right to expose me to poisonous and pain-inducing chemicals against my will."

Thomas is opening a Pandora's Box, for his argument would also apply to the fumes from automobiles, boats, lawnmowers, and other combustible engines; the smoke from barbeques and fireplaces; and hundreds of other chemicals that we encounter every day. (The same reasoning might also apply to the low level of radiation from nuclear power plants, to the electrical field generated by high voltage lines, and so forth.) These byproducts of human activity are a normal part of living in a society, and the fact that they may pose a low level of risk is not sufficient to rank them with "coercion and physical attack."

Thomas wrote:
"Most people experience various degrees of physical annoyance and pain (usually in the airways and eyes, and in the head) or symptoms of poisoning when exposed to tobacco smoke (not to be confused with allergy symptoms, which are different). Some try to ignore the symptoms, more or less successfully."

There is no legitimate reason, given Thomas's reasoning, to exempt people with allergies or other special infirmities. If I assault a person with frail bones and fracture his arm as a result, I am responsible for his injury, even if my assault would not have normally caused a comparable injury in other people. The same reasoning applies to a person who has an allergic reaction, say, to perfume. If I have an allergic reaction to perfume, if it causes me to experience "physical annoyance and pain," then the woman wearing the perfume would be assaulting" me just as surely as if she blew smoke in my face. Libertarians should think long and hard about the threshold problem of when an annoying act with potentially undesirable consequences qualifies as an act aggressive act against others. Given the logic of the argument that public smoking is aggression, it would be impossible to carry on our normal, everyday activities without being legally liable (in a civil court at least) for violating the rights of others. I could sue my neighbor if the smoke from his barbeque wafts into my air space.

I could sue a woman if her cheap perfume causes me to gag while we are in an elevator (which it frequently does, btw). I could sue a gardener mowing my neighbor's lawn if I inhale the fumes from his mower or
leaf-blower. The potential for litigation is unlimited.

If you don't like cigarette or cigar smoke, then stay away from people who smoke. If you don't like annoying and potentially dangerous chemicals of any kind, then find a cozy cave, settle in, and call it home. If you are looking for a risk-free life, you won't find it in a free society. If we blur the line between physical coercion and bad manners, then our defense of individual freedom will die the death of a thousand qualifications.
Ghs

From: BBfromM@aol.com
To: atlantis@wetheliving.com
Subject: Re: ATL: Re: Smoking Out Fascists
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 200118:38:46 EDT
Russ Madden wrote:
<<If you don't like smoke, you should assume that unless it is posted as "no smoking" that smoking is permitted.>>

I would add: And you should go elsewhere if you are bothered by smoke.

Jeff Riggenbach responded:
<<And if you don't like murder, you should assume that unless it is posted as "no murder" that murder is permitted! >>

I can't think of a more irrelevant analogy. Have you noticed, Jeff, that smoking is NOT and should not be illegal, although you appear to think it should be. Do you really want a "tobacco war" to go with the "drug war?" Murder IS illegal, at any time, in any place, on anybody's property. That's why no one needs to post signs forbidding murder, but does need to have a signs forbidding the lawful activity of smoking on his property. The lack of a "No Smoking" sign is clearly understood both by smokers and nonsmokers to mean that smoking is allowed; the presence of such a sign also is clearly understood.
Barbara

From: Michael Hardy <hardy@math.mit.edu>
To: atlantis@wetheliving.com
CC: bbfromm@aol.com
Subject: ATL: Answer to Barbara Branden
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 200119:52:58 -0400 (EDT)

ABSTRACT: I explain why smoking should NOT be forbidden in "non-smoking areas", and why Barbara Branden should be considered polite but very very very confused. Ayn Rand's identification of the logical fallacy of reification of the zero is relied upon: Non-smoking is not something; it is nothing. (Reification of the zero is how you prove that a $5 is more valuable than perfect happiness, by a short syllogism: Nothing is more valuable than perfect happiness; and having $5 is more valuable than having nothing.) First I address legalities, then I address politeness.

Barbara Branden wrote:

> Russ Madden wrote:
> <<If you don't like smoke, you should assume that unless it is posted as "no smoking" that smoking is permitted.>>
>
> I would add: And you should go elsewhere if you are bothered by smoke.

That would be full-scale niggers-to-the-back-of-the-bus. The fact that someone smokes does not justify their ordering me to leave whenever they feel like it. And this practice is ruder than saying "Niggers step to the back of the bus!", because saying that is using words rather than physical violence. If you sneak up on them and slap their faces to indicate that you want them to step to the back of the bus, and act as if you don't notice their presence when you do it, that's the same as saying "you should go elsewhere if you are bothered by smoke."

> Jeff Riggenbach responded:
And if you don't like murder, you should assume that unless it is posted as "no murder" that murder is permitted! >>

> I can't think of a more irrelevant analogy. Have you noticed, Jeff, that smoking is NOT and should not be illegal, although you appear to think it should be.

Non sequitur. It is NOT smoking that was objected to. It was _FORCING_ smoke on bystanders. My "groping" analogy is commensurate. You should not be allowed to grab stranger's private parts WITHOUT CONSENT. (What?? Am I saying physical contact with another's body should be ILLEGAL??? No: I said "WITHOUT CONSENT.")

Now Barbara, you say you and others DID and DO ask for consent first. And _that_ is exactly as it should be! And _some_ people do _not_ do that, when they clearly should. That's bad manners at best.

Smokers should be accorded _exactly_ the same rights as others and _no_more_. And no less. People have retaliated against the bad manners of smokers by waging an equally unjustified niggers-to-the- back-of-the-bus campaign _against_ smokers. That's not the right way to do it. The right way to remedy the conflict is to say

(1) consent is needed to expose people to tobacco smoke (Barbara, you tacitly acknowledged this by asking for consent);

(2) consent is not merely the _absence_ of something; and

(3) property owners may exclude non-consenters.

As far as I can see, those points address the _legal_ aspects of the matter. There are also some issues of _politeness_. Consider genuinely public place such as a state university campus. When "smoking areas" and "non-smoking areas" existed, someone told me that "my" territory had recently greatly expanded, while "smoker's" territory had contracted. The tacit premise is that it's like providing men's and women's restrooms, where fairness would dictate reasonable numbers of each. So fairness, on that theory, would prescribe an equitable division of territory and of inconveniences resulting from the division. Ayn Rand called a certain logical fallacy "reification of the zero", and this is an instance of it. Smoking has costs; non-smoking has NO COSTS! Smokers should pay the costs of smoking; non-smokers should not pay any costs of non-smoking, because none exist. If smoking areas are set aside, any inconveniences and any other costs should be borne by smokers. "Non-smoking areas" are not areas set aside for the activity of non-smoking, since there is no such thing as the activity of non-smoking; they are areas _not_ set aside for smoking. Should smoking be forbidden in such places? NO. (BARBARA BRANDEN, PAY ATTENTION HERE: I just said smoking should NOT be forbidden in non-smoking areas!) Rather, what should be forbidden (and at this point I'm talking about politeness and not about laws, which I addressed separately above) is smoking at others' expense, WITHOUT CONSENT. Therefore, Barbara Branden should be considered polite, since she did ask for consent.

Does anyone doubt that reification of the zero is happening? Then let them consider this: I have been told that smokers are not allowed to sit at some tables in some restaurants. This is false. There is no such table. There is no such restaurant. Smokers are allowed to sit wherever anyone else is allowed to sit, and to do anything while sitting there that anyone else is allowed to do while sitting there.

Moreover, a celebrity who had recently quit smoking said on TV that all of his time is now taken up by (brace yourself): Not smoking. I have never smoked, and _NONE_ of my time has ever been taken up by

the activity of Not Smoking. Put so baldly, that celebrity's statement is humorous, and that is how he intended it. But I think it describes a real phenomenon; he actually did feel that that was an activity that was occupying him all the time to the exclusion of other things. That explains the reification of the zero that is involved.

Mike Hardy

From: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>
Reply-To: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>
To: "*Atlantis" atlantis@wetheliving.com
Subject: ATL: Re: Smoking Out Fascists
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 200119:22:08 -0500
Jeff Riggenbach wrote:
"To briefly recapitulate the point Mike made: what we're dealing with here is an issue of *consent.* Many activities (murder not being one of them, granted) are only illegal in the absence of *consent.* It is not
illegal to grab someone's private parts, either, *provided you have consent to do so.* Should we therefore suppose that grabbing other people's private parts is okay if we're on private property and there's no sign stating "No Grabbing of Private Parts"?"

Consent is juridically relevant only if an action would otherwise constitute an aggressive action against others, i.e., one that violates their rights. So the question becomes: If I smoke a cigarette near a person who has not previously given his "consent" for me to do so, am I violating his rights?

I say no, so I also say that we should *presume* that smoking is permitted, unless a property owner has expressly indicated otherwise. If some people find cigarette smoking annoying or offensive, the same may
be true of the colorful language that I have heard Jeff use on many occasions. But this doesn't establish a presumption that Jeff should be prohibited from speaking his mind, unless there is a sign posted that says, "You are permitted to speak freely." And just as we don't require the consent of other people to speak freely, even if they may find this annoying, so we don't require the consent of other people to smoke a cigarette, even if they find this annoying.

If a property owner wishes to prohibit strong language, smoking, or other potentially offensive behavior, then he should so inform those people who are on his property. Otherwise, the presumption should rest with freedom.

Jeff wrote:
"But even this doesn't adequately plumb the depths of the ridiculous reached by Barbara's apparent belief that on private property it is okay to do anything that is not either illegal or expressly forbidden by a sign posted by the owner of the property. Why, for example, shouldn't I play handball in a privately owned china shop? It's certainly not illegal to play handball! And if there's no sign saying "No Handball Playing," then obviously it's okay to do it! How about giving a speech through a megaphone in a bookstore? Giving a speech through a megaphone is not illegal, after all! So if there's no sign saying "No Speeches with Megaphones Allowed," then obviously it's okay to do it! Is this ridiculous enough yet?"

This confuses a number of different issues. To play handball in china shop would violate the rights of the shop owner. To give an speech, whether through a megaphone or not, may or may not constitute a technical violation of the store owner's rights, but in any case this boorish behavior would quickly get oneself thrown out. There are obviously many social conventions pertaining to acceptable behavior that are taken for granted in our everyday interaction, but these have little to do with the current dispute. Jeff's examples pertain to the relationship between property owners and people who are on their property, *not* to the relationship between different individuals who happen to be on property that none of them owns.

The current dispute over smoking, to repeat, hinges on whether a smoker is violating the rights of those around him, if he fails to obtain their consent. If so, then their consent is required. If not, then their consent is irrelevant. If Jeff agrees that smoking is not an inherently aggressive act, then there is no reason to presume that a property owner wishes to prohibit smoking unless he has so indicated. We are here dealing with the wishes of the owner vis-a-vis his property, not with the relationship between a smoker and those around him, none of whom own the property in question.

There may be a cultural presumption against smoking, in which case people may assume that smoking is socially unacceptable unless otherwise indicated. But this has to do with social conventions, customs, and good manners -- not rights. It is a different issue entirely.
Ghs

From: William Dwyer <wsdwyer@pacbell.net>
To: Atlantis <atlantis@wetheliving.com>
Subject: ATL: Re: Smoking Out Fascists
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 200123:23:36 -0700
The question of whether smoking is permissible on private property if there is no sign explicitly forbidding it gets into the issue of implied consent. Clearly, it does not follow that anything is permitted on private property so long as there is no sign forbidding it. Certain things are understood as forbidden, because it is assumed from the context that they would not be consented to by the owner of the property, unless otherwise indicated.

Jeff Riggenbach gave some good examples (e.g., playing handball in a China shop). Now, there are clearly borderline cases, in which it is not altogether obvious that the owner would object to a certain activity taking place on his or her property. In case there is any doubt, it is important to ask. For example, if you are invited to a party, there might be some doubt as to whether or not you can bring a guest. In that case, you ask ahead of time. The same thing would be true of smoking. If you are not sure whether or not the host permits

smoking on the premises, then you ask. In this day and age, it cannot be assumed that the owner would not object.

What about a "public" place, like a baseball park? In the recent past, if there was no policy expressly forbidding smoking (as there wasn't in most baseball parks), it could rightly be assumed that smoking was permitted. So if the person seated next you at the game was smoking, it might have been annoying to you (as it was to me), but in that situation, it would not have violated your rights any more than it would the rights of the owner. Today, thankfully, smoking is not permitted even in outdoor stadiums.

In cases such as these, context and precedent are important indicators of what is implicitly permitted or forbidden on private property.

As to whether or not smoking could be a violation of anyone's rights on unowned land, here I would agree with George Smith. If we say it is, we are on a slippery slope, in which such things as bad perfume and bad language become violations of our rights as well. If it could be shown that a few whiffs of smoke caused ~physical harm~, then of course, there would be an argument against it in public. But if it's simply an annoyance, then it's not per se a violation of anyone's rights.

Bill

From: Michael Hardy <hardy@math.mit.edu>
To: atlantis@wetheliving.com
Subject: ATL: Re: Answer to Barbara Branden
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 200112:41:04 -0400 (EDT)
Barbara Branden wrote:
< The fact that someone smokes does not justify their ordering me to leave whenever they feel like it. If you are on the property of someone who allows smoking, no one orders you to leave. You keep forgetting the issue of property rights.

How have I forgotten that issue? I said explicitly and repeatedly that owners may exclude anyone the wish from their property. It does _not_ follow that if someone gropes a stranger's private parts without consent in your house, they are exonerated of any offense by your later statement that you allow that on your property, and that it is then appropriate to consider the matter concluded by an instruction to the recipient of that attention that "If you don't like it, go somewhere else." You may exclude those who have not consented, but you are not entitled to wait until after it happens and then put the matter to rest by announcing that you allow it.

> If you're in my house, I can have a sign that says: Making Love Allowed. That does not mean that you have to make love, or that you're ordered to leave if you don't.

And similarly at MacDonalds there can be a sign that says: Smoking Permitted. That does not mean you have to smoke, or that you're ordered to leave it you don't. AND ALL OF THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING, REPEATEDLY. Why do you consider this relevant to what I was saying? I said that the ABSENCE of any such sign gets cited as proof that there is a "smoking area", and then people are told to leave if they don't like it. That DOES mean I am forced to participate and ordered to leave if I don't like it, NOT by the property owner, but by OTHERS. The scenario you describe involves the PRESENCE of a sign in your house. How is that relevant to my statement that the ABSENCE of a sign at McDonald's does not imply consent? -- Mike

From: William Dwyer <wsdwyer@pacbell.net>
To: atlantis@wetheliving.com
Subject: ATL: Re: Consensual mugging?
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 200112:26:45 -0700
I wrote,
"Suppose that a neighborhood were a gated proprietary community in which the owner permits mugging and that this policy were clearly posted at the entrance. If you enter the neighborhood, have you consented to being mugged?"

Morganis replied, "No."

Victor Levis then asked: "OK, how about this: This 'gated community' is a boxing arena? Does that change anything?" To which Morganis replied,

"No. However, at this point, it appears that some elucidation is called for, re my responses. Ok... One might as well use the example of 'going into a bar on a wharf,' or entering a territory clearly marked 'DANGER!'

"One is knowingly *taking a Risk,* and, thereby, has no justification for holding anyone else responsible/accountable/blamable for whatever happens.

"This does not mean that one has *consented* to whatever happens to one; it merely means that one has *consented*...to take the risk(s). The difference is in whether or not one...or an Other...can validly say: "They DESERVE what happened to them."

But the question is whether or not your rights have been violated if you are attacked in the bar, since you consented to go in there knowing that it was dangerous. Coercion, after all, is defined as the use of your property (which includes your person) without your consent and against your will.

If, for example, you enter a boxing ring to compete against another boxer, and are knocked out, you cannot complain that your rights have been violated because you were assaulted by the other boxer. After all, you consented to this act of "force" when you entered the ring. That doesn't mean that you ~wanted~ to be knocked out; indeed, you tried to prevent it from happening; but it does mean that if you are knocked out, you cannot complain that your rights have been violated.

Now suppose that there is a community in which, by entering, you agree to whatever happens to you, up to and including physical assault, just as in a boxing match you agree to whatever happens to you within the

rules of the fight. If you can consent to the latter, why can't you consent to the former? If you cannot press charges against the boxer who knocked you out, because you consented to that possibility when you chose to enter the ring, then you cannot press charges against the person who mugs you in this savage proprietary community, because you consented to that possibility when you chose to enter the community.

Now suppose that instead of choosing to enter this proprietary community, you choose to enter a bad neighborhood with a high crime rate. Have you consented to being mugged in this neighborhood,

because you chose to enter it, knowing that it was dangerous? And if you haven't, what exactly is the difference?

In my opinion, the difference is that the proprietary community is someone else's property, which you have no right to be on unless you agree to the conditions, one of which is that you are subject to being mugged. The same would be true of a boxing ring. You have no right to be there unless you agree to the terms of the boxing match. But you have every right to enter a bad neighborhood without being mugged, because consenting to that possibility is not a requirement of your presence there. In other words, the bad neighborhood is not someone else's property, which has as one of the conditions of your being there that you consent to being mugged (if that should happen), just as the boxer consents to being knocked out.

The same is true of being present in someone's house in which smoking is permitted. You cannot complain that your rights are being violated by the second-hand smoke, because you chose to enter the house knowing
that smoking was allowed, which means that you consented to being the recipient of second-hand smoke. This would be true even if second-hand smoke were a violation of your rights on unowned land.

One way to approach the question of smoking on unowned land is to see it as an issue of first-come, first served. Suppose you are situated in a particular location (say a campsite) and are smoking there. An
outsider cannot enter your immediate vicinity and complain that you are "assaulting" him with second-hand smoke. That much is clear.

However, suppose that you are a non-smoker who occupies a particular location, and a smoker comes into your immediate vicinity after you are already there and forces you to breath his second-hand smoke. In
that event, you may have a case that his action is invasive. Here we are dealing with a right of first occupancy, which is a corollary of the right to property.

So, in the absence of existing regulations by a property owner, the rule would be this: If you are smoking, a non-smoker who enters your space cannot claim that you are violating his rights. After all, you were there first. But as a smoker, neither can you approach the space of a non-smoker and smoke in his presence if he objects, since he was there first.

This issue has implications for whether or not pollution in general violates someone's rights. If a factory is polluting and you decide to build a house downwind of the pollution, you cannot demand that the factory cease polluting, because your property is now being affected. In that case, the factory's pollution wouldn't violate your property rights, because the factory was there first. By choosing to build a house downwind of the factory, you have consented to the pollution.

But if you are already living in the house, and the factory moves in and starts dumping pollution on your property, then you do have a right to complain, because you were there first. If the factory wants to continue dumping pollution on your property, it will have to compensate you enough to gain your consent, assuming there is some price that you would be willing to accept in exchange for the pollution.

At any rate, that's one possible approach to the problem of pollution, of which smoking can be seen as a separate case
Bill

From: Michael Hardy <hardy@math.mit.edu>
To: atlantis@wetheliving.com
Subject: ATL: Re: Answer to Barbara Branden
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 18:12:21 -0400 (EDT)
Barbara Branden wrote:
> Why should smokers be the only ones to accommodate themselves to others?

They should be the only ones _required_ to accommodate themselves to problems caused by smoking, because the costs of smoking should be borne by smokers or those who have otherwise consented to bear them. There are no problems caused by non-smoking, so non-smokers cannot be required to accommodate themselves to problems caused by non-smoking.

>To begin with, I don't know why the anti -smokers always assume that smokers want nothing more than to blow smoke in their faces.

There actually is a reason for this exaggerated assumption: It is an exaggeration, but it is not entirely unfounded.

Since no one has said anything against smoking on this list, and given her other comments, I am guessing that what Barbara means by "anti-smokers" is not people who are against smoking (which might
include Barbara herself), but rather, people who are against smokers.

>Murder, rape, and theft are ILLEGAL, they are crimes. No restaurant owner or private person can give us the right to commit a crime on his premises. These activities are illegal anywhere, at any time, and at any place. Smoking is NOT ILLEGAL

But what should be illegal, or at the very least, considered exceedingly boorish behavior, is exposing people to tobacco smoke when they have NOT CONSENTED. This is even more true in a restaurant than in most other places, since smoking is inherently destructive of the purpose for which restaurants exist, which includes deriving pleasure from eating. Smoke prevents pleasure.

>It is therefore up to the decision of the property owner whether or not he shall allow it.

The owner should be able to EXCLUDE NON-CONSENTERS. That can be done by posting a conspicuous "Smoking Permitted" sign, and perhaps often by less explicit means. But that is done BEFORE the activity that is consented to. To wait until afterwards, is often used as a means of maintaining customs according to which all iconveniences that result from smoking should be borne by non-smokers.

> I don't know what all the fuss is about. For years, smokers have been treated like criminals.

Perhaps so, but that is a response to the chronologically earlier custom of making non-smokers step meekly to the back of the bus. The solution is to allow smokers to _buy_ what they were formerly allowed to _steal_. As follows: First, people should recognize that exposing others to smoke requires consent, which
in _some_ circumstances is implicit in their presence in certain places, and in others should be sought before proceeding. Second, it should be realized that recognition of rights of smokers does NOT require provision of sufficient "smoking areas" in buildings, but rather, these should be made available for a price. (The price could be included within the bill you pay in a restaurant in which you can smoke anywhere, as is already often done, and ought to be permitted by law everywhere.)

But one must realize that places that are not smoking areas are NOT areas set aside for the activity of non-smoking that therefore support non-smokers' habit of non-smoking, thereby depriving smokers of equal treatment unless enough smoking areas are similarly provided. Smoking is an activity that has costs; non-smoking is not an activity, and has NO costs. Inconveniences suffered by smokers as a result of being in areas not set aside for smoking, are not costs of non-smoking, but costs of smoking; inconveniences suffered by non-smokers who are in smoking areas are also not costs of non-smoking, but costs of smoking.

>I would think that libertarians would fight for the rights of smokers just as they fight for the rights of people who take drugs.

I will defend the right of people to smoke AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE, and ONLY at their own expense or at the expense of those who have consented to bear costs.

>Smokers are quite aware that some people are allergic to smoke, that others find it very unpleasant

..... and often they equate that with the alleged fact that some people are allergic to non-smoking or find non-smoking very unpleasant. They see a spurious symmetry here. They forget that BOTH the unpleasantness suffered by non-smokers exposed to smoke AND that suffered by smokers forbidden to smoke, are costs of smoking, and neither is a cost of non-smoking.

>Why should smokers be the only ones to accommodate themselves to others?

They should be the only ones _required_ to accommodate themselves to problems caused by smoking, because the costs of smoking should be borne by smokers or those who have otherwise consented to bear them.

Mike Hardy

From: "Morganis Chamlo" <phyrm_x@hotmail.com>

To: hardy@math.mit.edu, atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: ATL: Answer to Barbara Branden

Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 19:26:23 -0000

>From: Michael Hardy <hardy@math.mit.edu>

I explain why smoking should NOT be forbidden in "non-smoking areas", and why Barbara Branden should be considered polite but very very very confused. Ayn Rand's identification of the logical fallacy of reification of the zero is relied upon: Non-smoking is not something; it is nothing.

Per se, true. However, the 'effort' put into Refraining from something for the sake of some Demander (not to be confused with a Requester - 'allowed options' are implied in one case, but not the other) is not, ipso facto, a

'nothing'; it is a 'something.' It is a 'something' Demanded by one that 'nothing' bother them.

(Reification of the zero is how you prove that a $5 is more valuable than perfect happiness, by a short syllogism: Nothing is more valuable than perfect happiness; and having $5 is more valuable than having nothing.) First I address legalities, then I address politeness.

>

> Barbara Branden wrote:

> Russ Madden wrote:

> >

> > <<If you don't like smoke, you should assume that unless it is posted as "no smoking" that smoking is permitted.>>

> >

> > I would add: And you should go elsewhere if you are bothered by smoke.

>

> That would be full-scale niggers-to-the-back-of-the-bus.



As little (then) Drew Barrymore said in _ET_: "Gimme a break." Sheesh! Like, your advertised attitude isn't smokers-to-the-back-of-the-bus?

The fact that someone smokes does not justify their ordering me to leave >whenever they feel like it.

Absolutely correct! No argument! Agreed!

Uh, when was the last time you (or, anyone here in ATL) ran into this 'ordering' by a smoker in some restaurant?

And this practice is ruder than saying "Niggers step >to the back of the bus!", because saying that is using words rather >than physical violence.

Absolutely correct, again! No argument! Such is definitely ruder (well, to some, anyway; possibly...not to some others [like, the ones it was told to]). However, I ask again: have you really ever run into this

(hypothetical?) *experience?*

I got a bit confused here; you're saying that using 'ordering' Words is 'ruder' than physical violence?

I'm not sure if any, self-defined, *niggers* would agree...

Indeed, I'm unaware that such is a 'practice'; could you document this...apparent verbiage?

(I could speak from a personal example about a conversely analogous situation which happened to me with a self-advertised non-smoker in a diner where ONLY they and I were customers-of-the-moment, and, we were on opposite sides of the room, and, after I lit up...but...as Socrates said, "I won't do that.")

If you sneak up on them and slap their faces to >indicate that you want them to step to the back of the bus, and act >as if you don't notice their presence when you do it, that's the same as saying "you should go elsewhere if you are bothered by smoke."

Really? (That 'sneaking up on them' part is really interesting, btw. Smokers are stalkers-in-disguise! Shades of Hannibal Lector!) The 'face-slapping' really shouldn't be necessary, since all non-smokers know that Smokers are *The Man* (yeah, right...)

> > Jeff Riggenbach responded:

And if you don't like murder, you should assume that unless it is posted as "no murder" that murder is permitted! >>

> >

> > I can't think of a more irrelevant analogy. Have you noticed, Jeff, that smoking is NOT and should not be illegal, although you appear to think it should be.

>

> Non sequitur. It is NOT smoking that was objected to. It was _FORCING_ smoke on bystanders.

You mean like: "_FORCING_" one's own carbon dioxide, horrible fashion, ungainly deportment, low IQ (uh, skip that one, here), stupid arguments, etc. "...on bystanders"?

[size=4][color="#000000"][font="Times New Roman"]Oh. Pardon us i
Semper cogitans fidele,
Independent Objectivist,
Peter Taylor

#53 Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 15,022 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:All kinds of stuff

Posted 31 March 2012 - 06:52 PM

Thx for the long post Peter. My fav part was, "Making Love Allowed."

--Brant

Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--limited government libertarian heavily influenced by Objectivism


#54 Xray

Xray

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,178 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 01 April 2012 - 03:46 AM


From: Michael Hardy <hardy@math.mit.edu>
To: atlantis@wetheliving.com
Subject: ATL: Re: Smoking (Out) Fascists
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 200118:44:07 -0400 (EDT)

>Russ Madden suggests that If you don't want to get hit by tobacco smoke, then " don't go where the property owner says smoking is allowed."

What about those who can't "leave the property and go elsewhere", like kids? I grew up with a father who smoked like a chimney. He didn't even stop while reading my beloved Grimm's fairy tale books to me. :D
Although I had countless colds and quite heavy throat infections a kid, I can't say I (subjectively) suffered from the smoke. I thought of smoking as something dads just do. Virtually all other fathers I knew smoked too. As Brant said, it was a "pro-smoking" culture back then.

A classic ad from 1949, one that now qualifies as black comedy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCMzjJjuxQI

Ghs

Yes, those were the days ... ! :smile:
(The Grace Kelly-like type smoking a cigarette at the end of the clip comes pretty close to how I imagined Dagny Taggart to look like.
I've always visualized Dagny as a blonde, despite her being described as a brunette in AS. It's probably the Scandinavian name 'Dagny' that caused me to connote 'blond' with it).





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Peikoff, smoking, health, values

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users