The Borders of Things

Paul;

I guess repression is in the eye of the beholder. I personally find anti-smoking policy to be liberating. Repression to me is not wanting to go out for fear that my clothes will stink and my lungs will be inhaling that garbage. There is a good reason as to why I quit smoking in the first place :)

And the "brilliant" response to Harper Collins' editing? To me it seems trite and akin to a two year old's temper tantrum.

Just my two cents.

But they're bars.

I totally forgot about this. I would not have spent the night watching TV if I had known. Television is trashier than cigarettes.

They're bars

AND you have to stand 25 feet from the doorway (why it is repressive and not just unfortunate).

AND there is no clause protecting hookah lounge which here in Seattle is often practiced as a cultural (Middle-Eastern) tradition. Also why it is repressive.

I'm not arguing with you, it is "repressive" from one point of view. But, from my biased vantage, it pleases me to no end to see policy that values health. And make no mistake about it, that is the purpose and effect of this legislation.

This legislation may be, prima facie, an encroahcment on personal liberty; however, it is an encroachment that is based on sound social policy. Of course, I'm a left-leaning Canadian that pays an inordinate amount of taxes to provide health care for cancer patients, heart attack victims, and asthmatics.

So call it repressive if you want, I will call it enlightened.

According to Foucault, all Enlightenment is repression, remember? (C'mon mikey, you knew I'd go there. . .)

I think the issue in Canada is more complicated, since yes, the gov't foots more of the bill. And don't get me wrong, either: I don't want people to smoke as much as they do, nor do I want employees to suffer from possible exposure. That said, I often feel like the "trite" author of that critique: well-intentioned "enlightment" can be, well, boring.

And I haven't seen the numbers, but I would guess that this ban mostly effects people like myself, who only smoke on the weekends in bars, not the 2 pack a day guy with ashtrays in his bathroom. Taxes are what do that. Which is why I am not opposed to higher taxes on cigarettes here or in Canada. Fine, make it more of a luxury item to prevent people from abusing it, but don't force them to be out in the street because some yuppie doesn't want her kid to see someone having a drag.

Hahaha, I'm glad to see you picked up the reference.

I don't see how a smoking ban makes going to the bar any more boring/exciting than it already is. In fact, with the ban, the element of danger is now higher to smoke in bars, which would make it more exciting. Now, instead of only being physically harmful, that weekend smoke session is also illegal, dangerous on two levels. On the other hand, the challenge of not smoking is also exciting; resisting that craving just to see if you can do it. Exciting if you do, exciting if you don't.

Yes, I am being fascetious. However, I just don't see how a public smoking ban somehow makes life more boring and, even if true, how the lack of boredom brought about through smoking in public can trump the pressing health issue that is at the core of this legislation.

On another note, how is school going? I am in the middle of finals, but getting me through it all (besides the modest satisfaction inherent in learning about evidentiary issues) is the promise of Christmas at my parent's house and New Years in Fernie. What are you two doing for the holidays?

I wasn't saying the ban itself was boring, just the "let's control every possible factor so we can die in the nursing home" _enlightenment_ and moral indignation that tends to fuel the proponents of these bills.

But enough of that. I've got two papers due monday -- pretty much finished, but in the laborious fine tuning stages that makes any distraction so appealing. We're heading back east to Pennsylvania on the 23rd. Fernie sounds fun, though. You two should think about Seattle for reading week, as there's some pretty good snowboarding here as well.

The lesson I've learned here is that drawn-out arguments are best left to pubs (smoke-free or not) and not blog replies. You don't know how tempting it is, when studying should be your most pressing issue, to check the replies every fifteen minutes to see how your last assertion is being construed. Actually, you probably do know how tempting it is. I'm glad that I am not the only one.

Snowboaring in Seattle would be cool. Doing pretty much anything in Seattle would also be cool. I am really hoping to make it out to Vancouver this summer; if I do, I would really like to get down there and see you guys.

I think we should ban alcohol from bars, and not let them serve fried food, and take away the steak knives, and make them use only unbreakable plastic cups, and make them use the 3 ft pool ques...b/c you know, someone could get hurt. Helena, MT, had a smoking ban and the legislature overturned it for fear that it violated the freedoms in their constitution. I'm not a smoker, but what annoys me is when the majority that pass this sort of legislatation aren't even the ones that go to bars. And to the person who says, "where I am I supposed to go if I don't want to be around smokers"...go to a smoke free bar, we've got a bunch of them here in ATL.

Hey, while we're at it, let's revoke statutes pertaining to the transport of biohazardous waste, bestiality provisions, and workplace health and saftey codes; the majority that pass this sort of legislation probably don't engage in this type of behavour either, therefore it should be struck down. Long live individual rights!

wow, you missed the target by miles. Workplace health and safety codes effect EVERYONE and are in place b/c of the disproportionate control the ERs hold over EEs, bestiality provisions are going to be under attack in the next 20 yrs and are currently in place b/c society has decided that it is morally reprehensible...which of course can change w/ a majority vote (but bestiality has nothing to do w/ one group of society trying to keep the other from causing physiclal harm to their bodies),and the transportation of biohazardous waste is such a huge threat to everyone w/in hundreds of miles of its movement and the people theatenend have no control over it, that it needs legislation. The point of the comment was to question how far the Gov't plans to go in controling the day to day lives of the people, and at what point do they exert too much control in telling the people just what sort of harm they cannot do to themselves. It's a control issue...but you really missed that que. If you're going to be a lawyer, you need to work on comparing similar instances, if you try to use a biohazard case to discuss the individual rights issues involved in a smoking ban, you'll never get past summary judgment and will get laughed right out of ct. Sure, you could go after a health, safety and general welfare type argument, but you still have the problem of comparing nuclear waste rolling down the highway at 70mph to choosing to go to, and smoke in, a bar. The only one of your comparisons that was even close was the bestiality law. And that is only close b/c both deal w/ the broad issue I discribed above. But, it fails to be a good comparison b/c protecting the moral fiber of the community at large and protecting the physical health the few who choose to smoke in bars are two vastly different issues. I would prefer to see legislation that says, hey, smoke if you want to, but the gov't isn't going to flip the bill when you need medical care for a smoking related illness. I just can't figure out how to structure such a bill. You do seem like a bright kid over all so maybe you can figure something out where I haven't been able to. Oh yeah, stop using "prima facie" in anything other than a legal brief, no one talks like that except first year law students (and you appear to be a 2L).

yes!
My two law school buddies busting it out. Finally my blog is working. Have fun and no hits below the belts, fellas.

Hahaha, you kill me with your off-the-cuff legal argument. But, if YOU'RE going to be a lawyer, you had best learn how to identify live issues and address them.

I only chose those examples to highlight the ridiculous nature of your "annoyance". The issue was whether a law is necessarily bad simply because it was passed by a majority that doesn't partake in that activity. You indicated your aversion to the bylaw by saying it "annoyed" you that the law was passed by a majority that probably doesn't even go to bars. And, as I indicated, many laws are passed even though the majority responsible for passing that law do not participate in that activity. That's it. I think most people would not object to those statutes (ie: tranpsportation of dangerous materials, bestiality, workplace health and safety codes) simply because they were passed by a majority lacking first hand knowledge of them. And so it is with smoking bylaws passed by a majority "who aren't even the ones that go to bars" and therefore, presumably, lack first hand knowldege of that activity; although you can be "annoyed" with anything your little heart desires, annoyance with the legislative process in this example is not a very compelling reason for condemning this piece of legislation.

You really went off on a tangent there, and, without too much investigation into the legal principles you have proffered, I would agree with your analysis. Unfortunately, your argument was misguided from the start as I did not tender those particular examples as support for the proposition that they are laws which infringe on personal liberties in a manner analogous to a smoking bylaw. They were tendered solely to rebut your assetion that first hand knowldege acquired through first hand experience is somehow a prerequisite for making law.

Nice bit of sleuthing to determine my 2L status. And, by the way, the term "prima facie" is apropriate to many areas of written discourse and, as such, I will continue to use it where appropriate. Thanks for the "real world" heads up though. Wouldn't want to do something no one else is doing.

That is all I have time to say right now. I reiterate my earlier point; it would be nice to do this in person over some drinks. Nonetheless, I look forward to hearing your responses.

Nice move, arguing over what we're arguing over rather than trying to win in the framework I set up. Classic Plato. He who defines the argument wins the argument. However, I did address your concerns re the majority voting for laws that don't affect them. In fact I pointed out that your exemples were, again, irrelevant b/c they do affect a vast majority of the public that votes for those measures contrary to your position that they do not.

The funny thing is...I don't even want to be a litigator. I hope to end up in T&E and Wealth Management, so I'm heavy on Estates, Tax, Securities, and such. In fact, I have a wonderful Bankruptcy exam tomorrow...and since the US just passed a major overhaul that went into efect 10/17/05, no one really knows how it works yet...should be fun. It would be fun to get a beer sometime, however, I fear the space btwn Calgery and Atlanta is far too much.

Back to the books. Good luck on your exams. Oh yeah, the Evidence class gave your 2Lness away.

I think the parameters of our argument were indeed unclear; when I spoke of "majority" I was speaking of the majority in Parliament that is needed to pass a bill while your definition was of the PUBLIC majority. That is why posting on blogs is so inefficient; that could have been reconciled immediately if we had been talking instead of typing.

Anyway, good luck to yourself as well.

Thank goodness our Canadian Parliament never overhauls anything. Epitome of "paralysis by analysis" :)

(And for the record, I live in Edmonton, the colder, more northern city)

Get a bus!
http://www.cbc.ca/calgary/story/ca_smoking-bus-20051220.html

Just a follow-up: I got kicked out of a bar for smoking in it last week. It was the first time I've ever been kicked out of . . . well anywhere. Just thought I'd share.