The Nazi Legacy: Dead Jews and "No Smoking" Signs
Over in LJ Land there's this fun little community by the name of

damnportlanders. It's an awesome comm for the most part, but does have its share of, shall we say, disproportionately passionate folks. Exhibit A:

bennetfox.

Yesterday he posted a rant entitled To the Anti-Smoking Gestapo. From zero to Godwin's in 1.3 seconds? This can only get better.

The crux of his complaint is the smoking ban placed on Pioneer Courthouse Square in Portland, Oregon. Bear in mind that this ordinance went into effect on 1 January 2007, so I'm not sure why his frothing rage had to marinate for 5 months first, but okay.

bennetfox is incensed with this inconvenience to his personal liberties, and lashes out at everyone who supported this ban. All of whom are planet-killing SUV owners who deserve a painful and messy death.

And as I watched this unfold yesterday, I was just going to let it be stupid all on its own. But

bennetfox returned today, enthusiastically pointing the Gestapo to other major cities that they can "ruin" next.

But really it's all okay cuz he's just doing it for the lulz.

Keep Portland Wanky!

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

	rachel_pi 2007-05-03 03:21 am UTC (link)
	Heh, the Pittsburgh livejournal community is arguing over much the same thing. Mostly with the libertarian "let the market decide!" people versus the "yay, now I won't come home all stinky" people. Except our smoking ban is on hold once again. :/ (Reply to this)(Thread)

	onaga 2007-05-03 03:49 am UTC (link)
	...shit, I hope my brother does not have a LJ I don't know about. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	tangentialone 2007-05-03 04:59 am UTC (link)
	I would be on the "let the market decide" side, except that then anyone unfortunate to work in a restaurant/bar/whatever that allows smoking gets fucked over if they need the job and can't just go somewhere else. (Reply to this)(Parent)

iwanttobeasleep
2007-05-03 04:47 pm UTC (link)

Gah, I hate it when people talk about letting the market decide, or letting people vote with their money, for things like this. Firstly, because arguably this is the market deciding, just deciding through laws and votes rather than shopping. Secondly, because there's no way to guage this. How is the market supposed to know that I'm eating at home because I don't want to eat in their smokey restaurant, or that I'm going to a different restaurant that voluntarily doesn't have smoking because of the smoke, and not because of the food/service/atmosphere? Bah, libertarians.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	rachel_pi 2007-05-03 08:06 pm UTC (link)
	That's my feeling. My family is more likely to go to a restaurant with slightly worse food if it's totally non-smoking (brother and mom are slightly allergic). And it really doesn't destroy the economy. The bars and restaurants I went into in Ireland after the smoking ban was passed seemed like they were doing great business. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	iwanttobeasleep 2007-05-03 08:20 pm UTC (link)
	I think they'd do better. I don't know that anyone would not go to a restaurant because they can't smoke (unless it's a sports bar or something), but I know I, and many other people (my entire family is allergic like woah), won't go to smoky restaurants. (Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -