Home | About | Forums | Links | Contact | LR X-treme | Video | RSS
Daily e-mail updates from
Libertarian Republican.

LATE NIGHT BREAKING NEWS!! Ebola outbreak in Sacramento, California. Patient at local hospital in isolation. Details coming...

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

The hypocrisy of the Pro-Marijuana crowd: Legalize Pot, but perfectly fine to ban cigarettes in private establishments

C'mon Marijuana Dudes, Dude-dettes. How 'bout being Pro-Choice on Everything?

by Eric Dondero

A couple years ago, I worked on a petition drive in Washington State to legalize marijuana dispensaries in the city of Tacoma. On the 4th of July I worked all day at an outdoor marijuana rally in a public park. I was utterly amazed at how many of the younger folks signing the petition advocated banning tobacco. No consistency whatsoever. They even held signs saying "Legalize Weed: Ban Cigarettes".

A reporter with the Pryor Times, in Pryor, Oklahoma has caught on to this hypocrisy from the marijuana crowd.

Excerpted via The Daily Caller, "Why legalize pot and ban tobacco?":

Now, I’m not against legalizing marijuana. It’s a natural product and it has a calming effect on those who use it.

But I find it strange that the states most intent on legalizing pot are the ones that are moving most aggressively toward banning tobacco. In Colorado and Washington State, for instance, it’s illegal to smoke in public places like bars and restaurants. The same is true in many of the states where medical marijuana is legal, like California, Oregon and Hawaii.

People who support marijuana legalization but oppose tobacco often say that marijuana is less dangerous than tobacco. That’s questionable. Smoking marijuana can lead to bronchitis, emphysema and general difficulty breathing.

In many ways, marijuana and tobacco are a lot alike — they’re both recreational drugs with relatively minor side effects. The growing momentum behind the marijuana legalization movement is an opportunity for tobacco supporters to remind Americans of these similarities.

Earlier this year, Denver Mayor Michael Hancock announced that Denver International Airport would be closing its four smoking lounges. It would be ironic, but not altogether surprising, if they reopened them as marijuana smoking lounges.
C'mon marijuana advocates. Stop with the hypocrisy. Believe it or not, many people get a little buzz, a jolt if you will, off of tobacco smoking. Hookahs, flavored smokes, cloves, cigars. Why ban their chosen pleasure?

And tobacco smokers. Grow a fucking backbone will ya. Stand up to the anti-smoking Nazis, 99% of whom are Democrat politicians. And join some pro-marijuana demonstrations holding up signs for legalized tobacco.

Editor's note - Never once smoked a cigarette in my entire life. Never, even a puff. (photo credit - tobaccoworldnews)

31 comments:

Gary said...

The right to breath clean air in businesses open to the public is a treasured right here in the People's Republic of California.

The law went into effect in 1995 under Conservative Republican Governor Pete Wilson.

Eric Dondero said...

Since when has Pete Wilson ever been viewed as a "Conservative"?

BTW, we're probably never ever going to see a Republican Governor of California. Does that make you happy?

Rational Nation USA said...

Cigarette smoke is the number one contributor to many serious health conditions. It is responsible for a great number of deaths each year. Thus, the right of each individual who wants to remain healthy is infringed upon when forced to breathe the toxins in tobacco smoke in public places. I'm sure there are harmful toxins in weed as well.

That aside, yeah, on private property and in private clubs etc. you're absolutely right. Folks have a choice to NOT visit ot join if they prefer.

Jemas said...

Any person has the right to smoke when they're 18. That is inarguable. BUT other people, of any age, also have the right to not inhale other people's second hand smoke (which causes health issues, up to and including lung cancer). If a person is smoking in a bar or other public establishment, then s/he is automatically infringing on the other people in the bar's right to not smoke their second hand smoke; The other people are being FORCED to breathe the other person's smoke.

Basically, this is a place where two rights conflict, and the logical thing to do is to go with the right to not inhale other people's second hand smoke. They cannot escape the smoke without giving up the right to be at that establishment, and the workers at the place have to give up the right to not inhale second hand smoke entirely. However, by banning smoking in those establishments, while still allowing it in specific places, means that no one has to give up any right. The smokers can still smoke, just not in the establishment, and everyone wins.

In other words, banning smoking in bars is not anti-rights or anti-libertarian or what have you.

James
Queens, New York, NY

Gary said...

***** Since when has Pete Wilson ever been viewed as a "Conservative"? ******

I will take ten Pete Wilson's any day of the week over the Communist Mutherfucker Jerry Brown we have now.

Kenneth Williams said...

This is a non issue. Most cannabis users know the folly of trying to ban such things as tobacco or alcohol. In the many years I have been a pot smoker and legalization advocate, I have never heard any of my friends or associates seriously call for the banning of tobacco. I have heard people use this argument only facetiously.

Ken
Yuba City, CA

Brandt Hardin said...

The War on Drugs failed $1 Trillion ago! This money could have been used for outreach programs to clean up the bad end of drug abuse by providing free HIV testing, free rehab, and clean needles. Harmless drugs like marijuana could be legalized to help boost our damaged economy. Cannabis can provide hemp for countless natural resources and the tax revenue from sales alone would pull every state in our country out of the red! Vote Teapot, PASS IT, and legalize it. Voice you opinion with the movement and read more on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2011/01/vote-teapot-2011.html

Chuck said...

Second hand smoke is not a health concern. This has been proven beyond the shadow of any doubt.

The Right Guy said...

It might be after he lights a match in his habitrail.

Eric Dondero said...

Should we ban cheap cologne too? It's offensive to my nose. How about smelly homeless people on the public sidewalks. Definitely offensive to my ears. Given the choice I'd MUCH rather take a cigarette smoker blowing in my face, than having to walk past a fucking bum who hasn't taken a bath in weeks.

We start going down this road of banning everything that smells bad, it will never end.

The Right Guy said...

I see Brute is making a come back.

jgeleff said...

There is ZERO link between "second hand smoke" and health concerns. It's all BS, a total lie.

The Right Guy said...

What about second hand calories?

Chuck said...

A fart in an elevator is genocide. Or something to that effect.

Chuck said...

"Should we ban cheap cologne too?

Constant battle at my house. Hehe My wife likes stuff I can't stand. The smell of burning cinnamon. Super stron vanilla. Uggh. I got home tonight and asked, "Why does it stink to high heaven of fabric softener in here?" She put a little bit of Downy in one of those oil burner/ incense dealios that a tart candle heats up. Goddam.

What next?

Eric Dondero said...

Good point Chuck. What about farting in public?

My gosh. What would you rather have at a restaurant? Someone smoking in the corner, or some fat dude walking past the tables passing gas?

Where does this end? What about people offended by the smell of marijuana smoke?

Chuck said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chuck said...

What about stoned fuckers after their done making smoke?

Rational Nation USA said...

Really. Have you a link to provide to substantiate this.

Chuck said...

What sort of stoned fuckers would you like linked?

Rational Nation USA said...

Well Eric many things I find offensive, and as long as they do no harm to my heath, other than to annoy I live with it.

No need to ban cogs, just prohibit smoking in enclosed places, just like we already do.

Chuck said...

Is there an "enclosed place" you're required by law to inhabit?

The Right Guy said...

His mind?

Chuck said...

Gross.

Chuck said...

That was mean. As a society, we've been lulled into this stupid neurosis about "traditional" forms of pleasure. At the same time, we've been told to worship the truly deviant for the sake of deviancy.

Many obey. Proudly.

Chuck said...

Les,
As a member of the human race, I want to thank you for not shaving your head bald at the first sign of a receding hairline. Stand against the tide, Brother. I'd rather see a guy pull a Michael Bolton and revel in what little hair he had going for him than see a sea of shiny bald heads out there because they didn't have the balls to own their place in life.

Good on ya'.

Chuck said...

Mankind was such a master of fire that he became a connoisseur of various types of smoke. The stone age aborigines who lived where we now do invented smoking for smoking's sake. While the folks on the other side of the world were developing opiates, American aborigines were smoking tobacco. Just because. Tobacco became a hit. It's yummy. People around the world came to love it. Potatoes and tomatoes are also tobacco genus plants. Only native to the Western Hemisphere.

Jemas said...

Ahhh, the slippery slope argument. You know, however subconsciously, that your argument can't hold water, so you make the argument that if this happens, something bad will happen.

But Eric, your argument fails the moment I add logic. Funny how often that happens. See, cheap cologne or smelly homeless people don't damage you.

On the other hand, second hand smoke causes...wow, lots of stuff. Cancers (lung, brain, breast), heart problems, ear infections (up to and including hearing loss), risk of asthma, mental issues in older people...and you don't even want to know what it does to fetuses.

Of course, it causes all these things in people who actually smoke, but that is their choice. I don't smoke, what if I want to go to a bar where people are smoking? They are removing my right to attend an establishment I enjoy without inhaling their smoke. And that's just for a customer, what if I work there? What about my right to work there without inhaling secondhand smoke?

This is the problem with libertarians; You're intellectual cowards. Everything is black and white, no shades of grey. And if facts directly contradict your viewpoint (which they will, constantly, since your viewpoint is inconsistent with reality and logic), you have to ignore or work around those facts. Chuck admitted as much. Second Hand Smoke isn't a health concern? Care to cite something backing that up? Cuz I have a wikipedia article full of citations about how damaging it is. Check it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondhand_smoke

But hey, if second hand smoke is a health concern, you might actually have to think about or consider your opinion for a moment, rather than just believe it blindly.

James
Queens, New York, NY

Rational Nation USA said...

Your worldly knowledge of these and many other things is simply awesome Chuck. Leaves one just stuptified.

FINCHNEST13 said...

The catalytic converter on your vehicle also emits toxic fumes that are harmful to the health of all of us, but I'm not hearing about banning catalytic converters or vehicles because of the harm they cause people. After all, isn't the ozone the most important natural creation in the universe? I believe that smoking in all government buildings, whether it be marijuana, crack, or tobacco should be banned. The issue is the infringing upon the rights of those people who have invested THEIR money in THEIR businesses being told that they aren't allowed to permit what is legal activity inside of the property they own. If one has a concern about working in an establishment that allows smoking, then they also have the RIGHT to not work for that establishment. In fact, there is no RIGHT to work anywhere, employers have the RIGHT not to hire somebody as long as they aren't discriminating against someone on the basis of gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. Opposition to tobacco smoking or drinking alcohol aren't protected by anti-discrimination laws. The same RIGHT also exists for patrons. If you are concerned about inhaling second hand smoke in an establishment that permits smoking, then you have the RIGHT to not patronize that establishment. Nobody has the RIGHT to be in an establishment that they don't own or have a financial interest in and they shouldn't have the RIGHT to demand that those who have invested their money in said establishment ban legal activities within the establishment.

As for having wikipedia articles that support theories on the damage second hand smoke does -- since when is wikipedia a valid scientific source? In fact, since when is it a valid source, period? Anyone can write an article in wikipedia and they don't have to have any expertise on what they are writing about, nor do they even have to have any knowledge, experience, or sources to back whatever they are putting forth.

Rational Nation USA said...

Check out verifiable scientific research and medical sources on second hand smoke. Wikipedia is smart laymen writing about what they know, or think they know.

However. There is a lot of good, well researched stuff on Wikipedia.