As soon as [the far-right Freedom Party] entered a coalition government last year, [its leader, Heinz-Christian] Strache, vice chancellor and sports minister, promised to step back from a total [smoking] ban, saying he was acting “in the spirit of entrepreneurial freedom.”...The "flip side" of something "fits neatly" with it? Something odd about that, but I'm assuming the NYT meant to say that. Here's an Austrian right-wing "freedom of choice" tweet:
[It] fits neatly with the Freedom Party’s anti-establishment and quasi-libertarian tilt. “Freedom of choice” is the flip side of a far-right agenda that otherwise seems inclined to dictate to citizens, especially those from minorities, everything from whether they can wear head coverings to whom they should marry.
Kannst nicht erfinden. pic.twitter.com/RQw6mfcdXU— Florian Klenk (@florianklenk) February 21, 2018
Maybe anyone who wants to strongarm other people about some things has a flip side that's big on freedom about something else. It's the immoderate personality. Most of us go along with some, but not too much government regulation, and some but not too much individual freedom. But maybe it's the case that the extremist types don't want total freedom everywhere or pervasive government control of everything, but a combination of the two. What makes these extremists right or left is which things they choose for government and what they choose for the individual. Just a hypothesis.
The owner [of Café Fürth], Helmut Haller, 30... said he followed trends in the United States, Australia and Britain and never allowed smoking. “Global coffee culture is a nonsmoking culture,” he said. Still, he said he placed his business in the Viennese cafe tradition, which provided a meeting point for great figures of fine arts, literature and philosophy.Freedom is slavery!
“In Austria we’re slower with change,” he said of his country’s position between Germany and the Balkans. He said that both some residents and visitors had their minds set on a certain idea of Vienna, described with the German word “Gemütlichkeit,” which translates as a broad feeling of comfort or cosiness.
But even many smokers who enjoy a chance to light up see in the ban an opportunity to set themselves free. One was Philippe Mayer, a 41-year-old musician... “It’s like a reward for waking up early,” Mr. Mayer said. But even as he enjoyed his cigarette, he, like his country, had mixed feelings about it. “Smoking gives me a kind of feeling like slavery,” he said. “It would be helpful if it were banned.”
ADDED: "It is time for you to gather some idea of what power means. The first thing you must realize is that power is collective. The individual only has power in so far as he ceases to be an individual. You know the Party slogan: 'Freedom is Slavery.' Has it ever occurred to you that it is reversible? Slavery is freedom. Alone— free— the human being is always defeated. It must be so, because every human being is doomed to die, which is the greatest of all failures. But if he can make complete, utter submission, if he can escape from his identity, if he can merge himself in the Party so that he is the Party, then he is all-powerful and immortal. The second thing for you to realize is that power is power over human beings. Over the body— but, above all, over the mind. Power over matter— external reality, as you would call it— is not important. Already our control over matter is absolute.... We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull." — George Orwell, "1984."
Posts
50 comments:
Give me cigarettes or give me death!-- Patrick Heinrich
I imagine for the NYT the only thing worse than being a racist is being a smoker. Global warming denier is third. Believing in God is in the top ten.
The most satisfying political victories are the ones that make fascist progressives scream.
Scott: "...fascist progressives..."
Redundant.
"Call for Philippe Mayer!"
LOL, Rob.
Drago: Well yeah, but people need to be reminded.
Corrections, in Koehler's vision, are administered out of a deep respect for the dog's moral an intellectual capacities. Punishments on the other hand are part -- and this matters tremendously -- of the demeaning repertoire of so-called trainers who propose babbling at the dog as sweetly as possible. Cooing, "Oh my goodness, what a GOOOD doggie!" as one training manual actually suggests, is, for Koehler, profoundly cruel, dishonest and dishonorable, the flip side of a beating. Even moderately self-respecting humans grab their hats when addressed in such a fashion...
Vicki Hearne _Adam's Task_ p.45
I recommend Dennis gloves 'last man in Europe'which goes into the elements Orwell used to compose 1984.
No coffee and cigarettes? How do their ballet dancers survive?
Sounds like the strong-arm examples are designed to discourage Muslims from immigrating or staying without actually banning them.
If the right is arguing for the freedom to smoke, "right" and "left" have no meaning anymore.
the flip side of a far-right agenda that otherwise seems inclined to dictate to citizens,
Well at least they're not actually dictating anything, they just seem inclined.
especially those from minorities,
Grey Poupon voice: "But of course!"
everything from whether they can wear head coverings to whom they should marry.
I guess that means you can't wear a disguise while testifying in court and you're not supposed to marry 9-year-olds or your close biological relatives. Outrageous!
I don't smoke or use tobacco in any other form. Never have. Never will. Yet, it bothers me to see government intrude on the decisions of my fellow citizens. Yes, I prefer restaurants without the smell of smoke in them. I would still prefer leaving the decision of whether to allow smoking inside a restaurant to the owner than to the government.
And, yes, I understand that smoking causes health problems -- almost entirely for the smokers themselves. (Secondhand smoke has almost no discernable health affects.) But, illicit sex has much greater and more immediate health risks associated with it. Are we going to regulate it out of existence, too?
"When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness." Romans 6:20
Banning indoor smoking, he said, was not an attempt to single out smokers but a move against “smoking and harming the health of people.”
It may not be the intention, but it was the result. That's the problem with regulations (BTW, "regulations" are really laws since any rule that is mandatory with punitive consequences for non compliance is by my definition a law) there's always unintended consequences.
"In Austria, the right-wing wants to bring back the "freedom to smoke."'
In America the left-wing wants to enact freedom to smoke marijuana.
It seems most of politics boils down to how gets to choose what the rest of us will be allowed to do. Of course real power is not only empowering your side, but the ability to take rights away from the other.
If you can only give your side stuff while the other people go about their business, how powerful can you be? And if it's not an existential struggle, how impassioned do you expect your supporters to become?
Thus the Dems, out of power, go right on with the social shaming, bullying and ostracizing to show they're still powerful despite Hillary's loss.
The Germans have a word for that: Sturmabteilung.
But for you to have your lets-smoke-til-we-get-a-stroke means my air is fouled. I know the anti-smoking stuff has gone too far, but I'm not willing to let it go all the way back to the days when John Daly and his What's My Line panelists and Johnny Carson and his guests all lit up.
The biggest cause for protest at my high school was the demand by students for a smoking lounge. It was not my cause, but lots of students fought for it, and they won. So if you think that the 60’s was all about peace and civil rights, think again. At Clayton High School, it was about a smoking lounge.
Part of Arnold Kling's post today: Not your 1960s protests
In free Vancouver, BC one can buy Cuban cigars, lots of them. But there is no place to legally smoke them. No cigar lounges, bars or shops. It is illegal to smoke inside, outside, anywhere. Perhaps Austria should make it legal to smoke anywhere but prohibit the sale of tobacco.
But for you to have your lets-smoke-til-we-get-a-stroke means my air is fouled.
Where are all the "I don't want to inhale someone else's smoke" when it comes to marijuana legalization? The people who made this argument against cigarettes are now advocating we should be just find inhaling the smoke from someone's blunt.
Have you heard anyone on TV discussing marijuana legalization talking about secondhand smoke? Of course not.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Progressivism.
gspencer: But for you to have your lets-smoke-til-we-get-a-stroke means my air is fouled.
When it's "your" air (your private property), you can prohibit smoking in it.
When it's "our" air (public property), by all means, let's regulate it via government rule.
When it's "my" air (my private property), sod off.
Kevin:
In my high school, the seniors had a senior smoking lounge. I graduated in 1970.
"Have you heard anyone on TV discussing marijuana legalization talking about secondhand smoke? Of course not."
Is there anywhere outside of private homes where one can legally smoke pot in Colorado or elsewhere?
Seems like there are places that allow cigs but not pot (parks, the street), seems like your example is mostly irrelevant.
" Yet, it bothers me to see government intrude on the decisions of my fellow citizens. Yes, I prefer restaurants without the smell of smoke in them. I would still prefer leaving the decision of whether to allow smoking inside a restaurant to the owner than to the government."
I have been an ex-smoker for many years and like smokefree restaurants and bars. Even after all these years, I still feel an urge to smoke if I smell cigarette smoke.
But I've always thought that individual business owners should have the right to decide if smoking is allowed on the premises or not. If some businesses want to cater to smokers so be it. The gradual ban of smoking in just about all indoor spaces, with no spots set aside for smokers, is when I thought the anti-smoking crusades passed from a commendable concern about health risks to a sort of sadistic bullying, a nasty puritanical desire to punish smokers for being bad, smelly people.
In California, smoking in public is banned just about everywhere, and yet an HIV-positive person is under no legal obligation to inform his or her sex partners of that. So public health concerns are very selective indeed.
Have you heard anyone on TV discussing marijuana legalization talking about secondhand smoke? Of course not.
And why not? Because in every instance where smoking cigarettes is prohibited, the same rules apply to marijuana.
In fact where you can smoke marijuana where recreational use is permitted is more restrictive than tobacco. Most (in may be all, I am to lazy to check) states that legalized recreational marijuana prohibit use in public places.
So you have created the ultimate straw man.
Kevin said... [hush][hide comment]
Have you heard anyone on TV discussing marijuana legalization talking about secondhand smoke? Of course not.
Not on TV, but NPR did a bit about it this morning. It'll be interesting to see where this goes. Nowhere, I'm guessing.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/03/19/592873218/are-there-risks-from-secondhand-marijuana-smoke-early-science-says-yes
But I've always thought that individual business owners should have the right to decide if smoking is allowed on the premises or not.
The problem with this is you are ignoring the rights and health of employees. At what point second hand smoke is dangerous is a very heated topic but there is little doubt that if you are a bartender or waiter in a smoky bar or restaurant, you are going to feel like you smoked quite a few cigarettes by the end of an eight hour shift.
The gradual ban of smoking in just about all indoor spaces, with no spots set aside for smokers, is when I thought the anti-smoking crusades passed from a commendable concern about health risks to a sort of sadistic bullying, a nasty puritanical desire to punish smokers for being bad, smelly people.
I prefer to think of it as punishing tobacco companies for foisting highly addictive, deadly products on an unsuspecting public.
The genius of the marketplace would do the best dictating.
Restaurants and coffee shops would be free to ban smoking if they thought it was good for business.
And they could invite cigarette smokers, or cigar smokers, or both, if they thought it was good for business.
Government would have no role in saying, "No smoking allowed," and also no role in saying, "You must allow smoking."
Freder Frederson said...
"But I've always thought that individual business owners should have the right to decide if smoking is allowed on the premises or not."
The problem with this is you are ignoring the rights and health of employees. At what point second hand smoke is dangerous is a very heated topic but there is little doubt that if you are a bartender or waiter in a smoky bar or restaurant, you are going to feel like you smoked quite a few cigarettes by the end of an eight hour shift.
So if that were the case, and so many bar and restaurant workers wanted to work in a smoke-free environment, the marketplace would dictate that smoke-free establishments would soon find that they are more attractive employers and could hire the best staff at the lowest wages and would have a competitive advantage that would propel them to success.
And that smoking establishments would have trouble; they'd have to pay more for the fewer people who'd be willing to work there.
In reality, I'd expect that the general preferences of patrons and employees alike would sort things out into mostly-smokefree and some-smoky places. Without need of government regulation.
You seem to think that while it may be a somewhat difficult (or easy!?) decision to make, it is a single decision that needs to be made by the state to impose on everyone.
What complete and utter bullshit. Smoking is prohibited in indoor areas, including in restaurants, and has been almost everywhere in Europe for the last 10 years. Which is why every restaurant and bar or similar establishment has an outdoor seating area or beer garden where smoking is permitted and most of the patron congregate. In the winter, those outdoor areas are enclosed by temporary tenting, effectively making them indoor spaces, but smoking is still permitted. Smokers also congregate around entrances to buildings and in lines and at bus stops, etc, and it's really hard to get away from the smell of cigarette or cigar smoke anywhere in a city. It's like it was 25 years ago in the US, more like 50 years ago in the Eastern European countries. And don't even thing about asking anyone to blow their smoke in a different direction. At least 60-70% of the population seems to smoke in many countries, and they ain't all right wingers. In fact, smoking doesn't seem to have anything to do with political leanings at all and you'll find as many leftists as rightists puffing. Everyone from commies to fascists seem to push the limit when it comes to smoking. The NYT is just exaggerating the politics involved in order to take a political shot at the Austrian right wingers.
When I was a kid, half of everybody smoked, and the people next to you in a restaurant would be smoking. You dealt with it.
Then came non-smoking areas, and of course some people who ignored them, or the non-smoking area was right next to the smoking area. You dealt with that, too.
Now we have whole cities and lots of whole businesses where you can't smoke anywhere inside. I've always hated cigarette smoke, but it's ridiculous. A lot of it is justified by some pretty ridiculous pseudo-science that anyone who thinks about it for a minute would know makes no sense at all. Like, second-hand smoke is more dangerous than actually smoking, and just a momentary exposure to it can do severe harm. You know, because the smoker is protected by the filter. Who could actually believe that? But there are studies!
Michael said...
In free Vancouver, BC one can buy Cuban cigars, lots of them. But there is no place to legally smoke them. No cigar lounges, bars or shops. It is illegal to smoke inside, outside, anywhere. Perhaps Austria should make it legal to smoke anywhere but prohibit the sale of tobacco
I used to go to through the Detroit-Windsor tunnel to buy Cuban cigars in Canada. I long ago stopped. Because on top of the skyrocketing prices for the cigars, Canada began taxing them at nearly 100% (or more!) of the cost. I was not going to pay $50 (or more) for a single cigar.
In reality, I'd expect that the general preferences of patrons and employees alike would sort things out into mostly-smokefree and some-smoky places. Without need of government regulation.
This is fine if you believe that government has no role to play in public health. I believe otherwise.
Michael said...
In free Vancouver, BC one can buy Cuban cigars, lots of them. But there is no place to legally smoke them. No cigar lounges, bars or shops. It is illegal to smoke inside, outside, anywhere.
Vancouver is my home. You can smoke a fine cigar outside any restaurant, some will have a table and chairs set up for that very reason.
[It] fits neatly with the Freedom Party’s anti-establishment and quasi-libertarian tilt. “Freedom of choice” is the flip side of a far-right agenda that otherwise seems inclined to dictate to citizens, especially those from minorities, everything from whether they can wear head coverings to whom they should marry.
Fernandistein nailed it. I love the dishonesty of the NYT, leaving out the minor little details, such as
1: Not caring whether the women want to wear those hijabs, or are being forced to wear them
2: When restricting "whom they should marry", it's those "evil right wingers" who are protecting underage females from rape, and the "good hearted left wingers" who want them to be raped, so long as the rapist is "a minority"
I prefer to think of it as punishing tobacco companies for foisting highly addictive, deadly products on an unsuspecting public.
And that's the problem with so much leftism. You screw people but say you're screwing the corporations, so it's okay.
I used to be a heavy smoker. I gave them up many years ago. I spent more time wanting to smoke than in ever actually smoking. There weren't a lot of place in NYC where you could smoke. People treated cigarette smoke like chlorine gas. The heavy taxes and public disapproval were also part of the decision which I don't regret making. Mrs. Grundy was bound to be right about something. The risk reward ratio in smoking is absurdly out of whack. It's not like motorcycle riding, which is a far more fun way to achieve death and disability.
Is there anywhere outside of private homes where one can legally smoke pot in Colorado or elsewhere?
Did you miss the whole, "it's wrong to subject your children to secondhand smoke" argument?
To say the anti-smoking lobby is only concerned once you leave your home is the real strawman here. Tobacco is being regulated as a public health hazard, and the only reason its still allowed is the state governments are so tied into tobacco tax revenues that they had to put the breaks on outlawing it while they decided how to deal with the money issue.
The reason states are pushing marijuana legalization isn't because they suddenly became interested in your civil rights. It's because the minute they can replace the tobacco tax revenues, they can go full monty outlawing your use of tobacco.
So if that were the case, and so many bar and restaurant workers wanted to work in a smoke-free environment, the marketplace would dictate that smoke-free establishments would soon find that they are more attractive employers and could hire the best staff at the lowest wages and would have a competitive advantage that would propel them to success.
Chuck, that is such a reasonable and logical argument that anyone who wanted to believe in the freedom of people to make their own choices could easily come to it.
Therefore, when you're dealing with people who make the "what about bartenders and waitresses" argument and can't see the market would also sort that out, you know you're not dealing with people who believe in individual freedom.
It's like a big red flashing light over a sign saying "Fuck You. Fuck You. Fuck You."
If Muslims are confronted with public disapproval about making the women in their family wear uncomfortable and restrictive clothes and of forcing them to marry their cousin, would that not have an effect on such behavior? Why should Mrs. Grundy only be allowed to disapprove of smokers?
Boston shut down four cigar bars in the city that sold nothing but cigars. You had no reason to go into the shop if you wanted anything else. The only people smoking in there were people who chose to go it. The bars even offered to organize as private clubs to keep anyone who was not a member out.
How is that any different that smoking in your own home?
Didn't matter. The Public Health Commissioner wanted them shut down anyway, so away they went.
I think nowadays the major public health problem is food that tastes good. Fat shaming is out, but you're allowed to profit shame McDonald's.
On my tombstone, I'm going to have engraved "He died within ten lbs of his ideal weight." Such an epitaph would undoubtedly give hope and encouragement to all who passed by. The thing about cigarettes is that eventually the craving disappears. No such luck with food. Every year you have to eat 2 to 3% less food in order to maintain proper weight, so every year you're a little hungrier.
This story reads better in the original Austrian.
Then put on your tombstone "Starved to Death".
Freder Frederson: This is fine if you believe that government has no role to play in public health. I believe otherwise.
It's not a question of whether they have no role, it's a question of how much of a role they have.
It's not a question of whether they have no role, it's a question of how much of a role they have.
That food pyramid certainly was a debacle.
Sodas ye
I would think you are desperately out of touch. Name two restaurants where You see people smoking in chairs provided by the establishments. Joe Fortes? No. The Lift? No. Blue Water Cafe? No. I could go on. And on.
Post a Comment