PDA

View Full Version : Smoking Ban



Pages : [1] 2

onasuma
2007-07-01, 09:14 AM
As of today, throught england, it is illegal to smoke in public places or anywhere with at least 3 walls and a roof. So, driving in my car, looking at all the people ingnoring this as such (well, only 2 really), i wondered what are peoples thorghts? Is it good that people dont have to smell smoke any more? Does the loss of income to the government outway the benefits on peoples well being? Will in incorage more people to smoke at home, thus effecting their kids?

Personally i think its a bad thing, removing free will (Not that i like smokers, i think its foolish) and potentially increasing tax o be able to make up for lost revinue for the government (And lets face it, with Gordon Brown in power, the amount spent on food will be increasing anyway)

Skippy
2007-07-01, 09:19 AM
Well, I think it's OK to limit the smoking fellas. Yes, I know they have their free will as much as I do, but I guess we non-smokers aren't smoking for a reason, and I think we should be respected too. The not-smoking areas are because there is a lot of people out there who don't smoke and we need to have some spaces where we can be comfortable too, don't you think?

Vampiric
2007-07-01, 09:28 AM
Yeah, I'm pretty happy about the ban. I can't stand smoke - it makes me gag and choke. I understand the whole 'free will' thing, but eventually it's other people's tax money that goes towards treating them when they have cancer. Plus it's such a waste of money. [/rant] :smallredface: :smallsmile:

Morty
2007-07-01, 09:33 AM
Smoking ban is fine. They have the right to smoke, but we have the right to not inhale the smoke from cigarettes. Such ban is being discussed in my conutry as well, though I don't know if it'll pass.

Dispozition
2007-07-01, 09:34 AM
I'm pretty sure that happened over here as well. In the land down under...But I don't watch the news, so I could be wrong...

Wait...It's only pubs, bars and clubs here...My bad :P

I think...

Flakey
2007-07-01, 09:35 AM
I understand the whole 'free will' thing, but eventually it's other people's tax money that goes towards treating them when they have cancer.

I dislike smoking in public places but I hate people using this false argument. In Britain the taxes on cigarrettes are so high that far more is raised than is spent on treating the smokers when they eventually become ill because of it (based on the governments own figures).

Lucky
2007-07-01, 09:45 AM
Here in Ottawa, we've had this as a bylaw for at least a few years, and I absolutely love it! Of course, being a non-smoker who is quite irritated by the smell, I'm quite biased. However, I do know plenty of smokers, and none of them have taken too big an issue with it really. Sure it will be a pain for a few months, but then people get used to it and move on.

Rykaj
2007-07-01, 10:00 AM
I don't smoke myself, but I don't think I really like this. You're forcing people to smoke outside. Say you're in a pub, a bar, a disco or whatever and you're with a group of people that contains one smoker. Then he constantly needs to go outside to smoke. Of course that's his own choice but I feel a better option would be to make a large space smoke-free so people who absolutely can't stand smoking can enjoy themselves there. Just like what's happening in restaurants already. If people want to kill themselves smoking, that's alright in my book, but let's not make them social outcasts because of it.

Miraqariftsky
2007-07-01, 10:04 AM
Smoking ban is fine. They have the right to smoke, but we have the right to not inhale the smoke from cigarettes. Such ban is being discussed in my conutry as well, though I don't know if it'll pass.

Not just cigarettes but also clay pipes, wood pipes, cigars, crackpots, even smoke-belching automobile exhaust pipes!

Yeesh! Why not just return to good ol' chewing wads of leaves--- preferrably betel. I'd rather have discolored teeth and spit than have burned out lungs and guts.

djemonk
2007-07-01, 10:08 AM
I live in New York City where we have a limited smoking ban. People complained and whined about it for a few months before it started, but when it was finally enacted the majority of people were pretty happy about it.

In general, it's been a really good thing. You can't smoke in bars here any more, which has made going to bars a much more pleasant experience overall for most New Yorkers.

ufo
2007-07-01, 10:11 AM
I grew up with my dad smoking, and my second mom (no questions, no my first didn't die) smoked too. My dad got pretty darn ill, hospital 'n' stuff, so with with second mom. Personally, I've been fed up with that damned smell, and I can't stand when people start to smoke when you're next to them.

But most of the people I know that smoke at least walks away.

Congratulations on the ban!

Actually, that's a point of view...

nerulean
2007-07-01, 10:20 AM
I don't smoke myself, but I don't think I really like this. You're forcing people to smoke outside. Say you're in a pub, a bar, a disco or whatever and you're with a group of people that contains one smoker. Then he constantly needs to go outside to smoke. Of course that's his own choice but I feel a better option would be to make a large space smoke-free so people who absolutely can't stand smoking can enjoy themselves there. Just like what's happening in restaurants already. If people want to kill themselves smoking, that's alright in my book, but let's not make them social outcasts because of it.

Sadly, there are other people out there who were being made social outcasts because of smokers, except that they were never given the choice as to whether they wanted respiratory conditions that were badly inflamed by cigarette smoke. Having separate sections for smokers and non-smokers doesn't keep the smoke away in restaurants: you can frequently still smell it, and it doesn't need to be nearly strong enough to smell in order to aggravate some respiratory ailments.

Personally, I think the new law is an excellent idea.

The Vorpal Tribble
2007-07-01, 10:25 AM
I think any business should be able to say what or what is not allowed in their buildings. If they say you can smoke, you should be able, and if they say no way Jose, you shouldn't.

Can I presume you can still smoke on your own property?

Flakey
2007-07-01, 10:44 AM
Can I presume you can still smoke on your own property?

Yes you can.

The law been in effect for several months in Wales and its kind of funny, because people are now complaining about the smokers blocking the pavements outside of pubs, and the rubbish this collection of people acumalate during the day.

EntilZha
2007-07-01, 10:45 AM
Can I presume you can still smoke on your own property?

Nah, the law now is that you can only smoke in your home, under a blanket with all the lights out, lol!!

But seriously, this is something I deal with at work on a daily basis. Being a non-smoker, I like to be able to step away from my desk and go outside for a breath of fresh air without having it contaminated by cigarette smoke. The company I work for has set up a designated smoking area where smokers can have a light where they won't be affecting their non-smoking co-workers. At the entrances are signs saying "NO SMOKING" and "NON SMOKING AREA". But there are smokers who use these areas anyway. They are either too stupid to grasp such an elementary concept, or so selfish they don't give a damn about the health of their co-workers, so long as they can sate their addiction. I have registered complaints to management and HR and, to their credit, they have taken some steps to alleviate this problem, such as moving trash cans with built-in ashtrays away from the entrances. But almost every day I have to remind a smoker that they're not supposed to be smoking by the door. Personally, I think this should be Security's or HR's job, not mine. There's talk that the whole complex could become a non-smoking facility if the rules are not adhered to, but I'll believe it when I see it.

JellyPooga
2007-07-01, 11:09 AM
We've had a smoking ban in Wales for a few months now (since April) and as an ex-smoker, it's not made a lot of difference to me. Many of my non-smoker friends believe that it's made pubs and that much nicer (no smoke and stuff) and my smoking friends don't complain about it...in fact a lot of them welcomed the ban becase it gave them an opportunity to meet new people (having to go outside for a smoke meant that they met other smokers that they wouldn't otherwise meet).

I'm neither for nor against the ban...with it in place, I'm not inconvenienced because I don't smoke anymore, without it, it means that I can talk to my mates while they have a *** (and occasionally indulge myself whilst I'm having a pint)...either way I'm not fussed.

Extra_Crispy
2007-07-01, 12:50 PM
Truethfully I am on both sides of this type of law. Here in arizona they passed a law that banned smoking in ANY public building and within 20 fee of an entrance to a building. If you are caught it is a $225 fine. They are even talking about hiring hundreds of more "smoking police" to up keep the ban. I really dont mind because most if not all bars have built a smokers area outside the bar for all the people who smoke. It is not that difficult or really that much of a pain to go outside to these areas. I also do not like smoke around my food when I eat so restaurants that are non-smoking are great, and people that do not smoke should not have to put up with it.

On the other side I agree with the Vorpal Tribble in that it should be a businesses decision. As most of the bars here have lost a good amount of business because of the ban. This leads to a hurting of the overall economy. And it is just another law to limit what is a choice for people to do. After all this is supposted to be the home of the free. I feel businesses, bars particularily, should have the choice in that they can be smoking or non allowing and thus bringing in business as they see fit. If a non-smoker does not want to be around the smoke then dont go to a smoking bar, and visa versa.

As a smoker (i smoke rum rolled cigarellos some, maybe 2-3 a day) I have no problem with the ban but I would rather have had it the way it was so that people still have the option to make a choice and businesses can also make their choice.

Nomrom
2007-07-01, 12:54 PM
I support a ban, because while they have free will to smoke if they want to, I don't have to be killed by their secondhand smoke. At work, people are allowed to smoke while working at the factory. Everyone else is constantly smoking, and sometimes the smell of the smoke can get pretty bad. I would be pretty happy if they had to stop smoking.

zeratul
2007-07-01, 12:55 PM
It's banned here too I think. I'd prefer if you could only smoke in your house, or the home of another smoker, but that would never pass.

Samurai General
2007-07-01, 12:56 PM
I think this counts a " Political "
But if it isn't, that law wouldn't work.Its not banned in America. You just have to do it outside.I saw an ashtray that said no smoking. Why is......?

KuReshtin
2007-07-01, 12:59 PM
Scotland has had this type of smoking ban in place for about a year now, and I think it's a good thing to ban smoking in public places since it alows people with respiratory problems, who are very smoke sensitive, to enjoy a night out with friends without having to worry about getting an asthma attack or the like.

Someone earlier in the thread suggested that smoking and non-smoking zones in pubs would be an option.
As a response to that, I'd like to say that in my mind, a smoking zone in a restaurant or bar or the like, is like having a peeing zone in a public swimming pool. Even if they do it in their own area, it will still affect others that are not in that area.

Here in Scotland, anyone who is caught smoking in a non-smoking area at a work place could face a £200 fine. I haven't heard anyone getting charged with it, though.

Perducci
2007-07-01, 01:08 PM
Boy am I glad to live in the middle of nowhere. You can smoke almost anywhere and no one will really care. Even if the laws were on the books, no one would enforce them. This isn't really a big problem for me. I only smoke when I'm partying, but I do have a lot of friends who smoke. Personally I kind of like the way smoke smells.

Leush
2007-07-01, 01:15 PM
Well I'm all for rights: But like my teachers of old always said: If you're gonna abuse it you're gonna lose it.

If someone has the right to slowly kill me (and make me stink and put me in an off mood whilst they're at it) as I sit in the restaurant then I should damn well have the right to stab them in the face. Call me a psychopath, butt it seems pretty fair to me that the ban was enforced. Makes me pretty happy actually, now if only they made a law against people smoking under my window I wouldn't have to throw bricks at them.

As for the economic implications- firstly I'd like to say that the indirect costs incurred by smoking by far outweigh the revenue- considering that it's a major risk factor in cancer, heart disease and TB (amongst other stuff), now in developing countries these conditions kill over 75% percent of people- that's right, 75% of us are going to die of one these- now I don't know just how much smoking increases these risks- it's dose dependant- but I can safely say, that if all things are added up properly, then you'll find the costs incurred are collosal.

As for pubs beings under threat: More people don't smoke than smoke, and as an extention find smoke unpleasant- therefore, by preventing smoking in bars you're going to attract customers as opposed to repel them in the longterm. Smokers can always go outside for their fix- and before someone says that that's bad for everyone outside- yes, yes it is, and I think that we should be allowed to stab smokers in the face as soon they light up, but the fact of the matter is that outside the smoke will diffuse to a level at which it's concentration is somewhat less dangerous, or if you're in a city just blend in with the rest of the happy carcinogens we breath.

In short, I think that the smoking ban is great news for everyone and is a definate move to free us from the oppression of failed will saves.

DreadArchon
2007-07-01, 01:28 PM
Meh, I think it's too extreme to tell business owners that they can't let people smoke on their premises. Smoking bans on public property or government property I can see, but banning it in private businesses, not so much.

RocketBard
2007-07-01, 02:59 PM
I like the fact that the political system is taking a more active role in limiting the amount of smoking that goes on in public places. I can't stand cigarette smoke, and now I don't have to choke on it in my favorite public places anymore. Not to mention that second-hand smoke causes cancer.

RyQ_TMC
2007-07-01, 03:41 PM
Not saying anything about cancers and so on, because people ALWAYS argue on that point...

Cigarette smoke STINKS!! Yes, the smoke is so horrible it makes me want to puke all over the smoker's clothes, car, dog and their ancestor's tombstones.

OK, back to health reasons. In the whole argument about whether passive smoking leads to lung cancer or not, people forget about one group... Which isn't that small.

I'm talking about asthmatics. Cigarette smoke is a dreadful irritant to us. On one celebrated occasion just one breathful of smoke was enough to put me out of order for a week. I just couldn't breathe normally for a WHOLE WEEK. Please cosider that.

And I repeat - it STINKS!! And the stench is left on your clothes and hair, so that you still feel it two days later.

Luckily, my hometown recently put on a smoking ban in bus stops. It's not much, but hey... It's a start.

phantomhermit
2007-07-01, 03:59 PM
i used to be a chain-smoker. for about four years. i smoked everywhere, but never in a place where it offended others. i always sat in the smoking section, never smoked in my car when there were non-smokers in it, etc. i think the ban is a bad idea, strictly from the point that you are limiting the freedom of the people, even if it is in a small way. smokers will affect smokers, but now they cant go outside to smoke if they dont want to smoke around their kids. it might make people reconsider their smoking habits, but if they did that where i was smoking, i would throw up the backhand two fingers to it all and smoke even more. plus if you smoke inside your house, it gets so smelly when you smoke in it for more than a few minutes. then you can never sell it. same thing with cars. so it is a big thumbs down from me, even though i dont smoke anymore.

Deimos
2007-07-01, 04:07 PM
I like the smoking Ban, why should I have to be affected by somone else's addictions?

KuReshtin
2007-07-01, 04:18 PM
now they cant go outside to smoke if they dont want to smoke around their kids.

This statement is incorrect.

The smoing ban is for Public places enclosed by more than three walls.
If you're at a restaurant and don't want to smoke in front of your kids, you're more than welcome to step outside to do so.

Ranis
2007-07-01, 04:34 PM
Eliminating smoking to ensure the health of those who don't choose to tar up their lungs to shorten their life spans is always a good thing.

Emperor Ing
2007-07-01, 04:39 PM
Ok, is it fair for someone who lives a healthy lifestyle to get lung cancer or emphysema from someone else's mistake? I think that people do have the right to smoke, but it should be limited.

Kiero
2007-07-01, 04:48 PM
People always seem to completely miss the point on this. Your "freedom" is totally irrelevant. What this is about is ensuring consistency of worker protection across all workplaces. Pubs, restaurants and clubs are workplaces too, and until now they've been offered no protection against second-hand smoke.

It's no different from having to provide hardhats (and ensure they are worn) on building sites.

Shadic
2007-07-01, 04:52 PM
The worst part about smoking is that it affects more than the smoker realizes. It stains a lot of things, can give quite a few people headaches (Around certain types, I do get them,) and smoking in the workplace/restaurants affects more people negatively than positively.

I have a huge family history of smokers, but I can't stand what it does to some things.

Gygaxphobia
2007-07-01, 04:58 PM
I think the ban is a good thing, it will effect a cultural change that will persuade people not to start in the first place. It's like anti-discrimination laws, if you're born with it you never know different.
Can you imagine that people used to be able to msoke on Airplanes and Underground trains?!

What I don't like is that businesses cannot decide for themselves, and that your own home cna be subject to the law IF you employ someone to work in it (e.g. cleaning). I believe that you should be able to specify when you employ someone that it is a smoking building.

soozenw
2007-07-01, 06:34 PM
Where I live in Indiana, the city made it illegal to smoke in any restaurant unless they changed their "orientation" to a bar/tavern/pub (which means customers have to be 21 or older).

I personally am thrilled with this. I hated going to restaurants and having the smell of smoke hanging over my head while I was trying to eat. And I smoked for 10 years, and I still am a strong supporter of this. It is also illegal to smoke in any workplace, and supposedly within 50 feet of entrances to any public buildings. The last part (the within 50 feet part) is not enforced, so more often than not everyone has to wade through the smokers to get into stores and restaurants. Even my doctor's office has a herd of smokers outside everytime I go! (and it's an OB/GYN, so you'd think they'd enforce it so pregnant women don't have to be subjected to the smell)

Honestly, with gas prices the way they are, I don't know how ANYONE can afford $3.00+ for a pack of cigarettes.

Gygaxphobia
2007-07-01, 06:40 PM
Cigarettes in the UK cost £5+ or 20 AND our petrol prices are higher too, yet people still smoke and drive...

I hope they raise the legal age to buy cigarettes too, I think it is 16 atm.

Trog
2007-07-01, 06:43 PM
*Wanders in. Pulls out a mithril cigarette case and lights a Coffin Nail brand cigarette.*

Trog's happy to announce that Trog's Tavern does NOT discriminate against those from the demi-plane of smoke. Mephits, Fog Giants, and the like are always welcome. :smallbiggrin:

*Shoots the other posters a dirty look. :smallannoyed: wanders out. Stops and leans his head back in*

Plus... really... what were you expecting from Trog? Compliance?

*leaves trailing smoke behind him*

Arnen
2007-07-01, 06:53 PM
If someone has the right to slowly kill me (and make me stink and put me in an off mood whilst they're at it) as I sit in the restaurant then I should damn well have the right to stab them in the face.

I definitely agree with that. I'd be glad if they had a law like that here in the States (even if it were to a lesser degree, perhaps), even though I don't really go to bars or the like. Whenever I'm around smoke (even non-cigarette smoke, or if I'm in a room where someone smoked a day or two before), I get nauseous really fast, and it'd be nice not to have to put up with that whenever I venture out into public.

Sisqui
2007-07-01, 06:55 PM
I think any business should be able to say what or what is not allowed in their buildings. If they say you can smoke, you should be able, and if they say no way Jose, you shouldn't.

Can I presume you can still smoke on your own property?

One Great Big QFT!! It does not take an act of government to accommodate people. The free market can sort this out on its own. Businesses could just as easily clearly post their smoking/nonsmoking policies on the front doors. Don't like smokers? Go somewhere else. BTW, I am most definitely NOT a smoker. The stuff makes me gag.


I think the ban is a good thing, it will effect a cultural change that will persuade people not to start in the first place. It's like anti-discrimination laws, if you're born with it you never know different.

That is a very, very dangerous sentiment......

Holy_Knight
2007-07-01, 07:02 PM
Just a note about "free will"--no law, about this or anything else, limits free will in any way. It limits what actions you're allowed to take, not what you will to do. The opposite of free will isn't laws, it's mind control.

Now, about the whole smoking ban: I say it doesn't go far enough. I'll be glad when it's illegal for companies to profit by selling addictive poisons for people to ingest.

SDF
2007-07-01, 07:21 PM
Now, about the whole smoking ban: I say it doesn't go far enough. I'll be glad when it's illegal for companies to profit by selling addictive poisons for people to ingest.

Yeah, I wont stop until there is no more fast food, soda, or coffee!

I disagree with the law, but can't post my argument because I follow "da rules." :smallsigh:

Holy_Knight
2007-07-01, 07:32 PM
Yeah, I wont stop until there is no more fast food, soda, or coffee!

I suppose this is the part where I say "those aren't really analogous", and we get into a debate about that. I will say that if I they were, however, I'd take banning all of them over allowing all of them.


I disagree with the law, but can't post my argument because I follow "da rules." :smallsigh:
Hmm... are you sure you can't do it without breaking them? You're right that this could potentially tread into political territory, I suppose.

zeratul
2007-07-01, 07:33 PM
Yeah, I wont stop until there is no more fast food, soda, or coffee!

I disagree with the law, but can't post my argument because I follow "da rules." :smallsigh:

Those things are easy to leave or take whenever. They can also have the damage taken awasy eventually or automatically by lots of exercise / healthy food. These however are proven addictive, and the damage cant be taken away. I agree, they should be illegal, if you ask me cigs are worse than pot. I won't go into anything else, since I to follow the rules.

Sisqui
2007-07-01, 07:39 PM
Those things are easy to leave or take whenever. They can also have the damage taken awasy eventually or automatically by lots of exercise / healthy food. These however are proven addictive, and the damage cant be taken away. I agree, they should be illegal, if you ask me cigs are worse than pot. I won't go into anything else, since I to follow the rules.

This may be a bad time to point out that the AMA is considering legitimizing the diagnosis of "video and computer games addiction".......... :smalleek:

IvoryRaven
2007-07-01, 08:10 PM
Yeah, I wont stop until there is no more fast food, soda, or coffee!

There's a qualitative difference between those addictions and cigarettes, though. None of the above, nor video games, nor things like medication abuse have the same potential "area of effect" as smoking does. Even alcohol, if things like designated drivers are used, doesn't necessarily harm anyone other than the user. Drink booze (responsibly) or take pills or whatnot and you're poisoning yourself- smoke cigarretes and you're poisoning yourself and everyone who's breathing around you, whether they want to be poisoned or not.

I'm all for civil freedoms in general, but restricting one's freedom of action to preserve the rights of other to be free from unneccessary harm is pretty much a keystone of the law. It's not as if there isn't precedent, in spirit if not in paraphrase.

zeratul
2007-07-01, 09:13 PM
This may be a bad time to point out that the AMA is considering legitimizing the diagnosis of "video and computer games addiction".......... :smalleek:

Yes, but with video games you aren't killing your lungs. I mean you're not being productive, but unless you play 24/7, and only play video games, you're fine.

Vonriel
2007-07-01, 09:13 PM
One Great Big QFT!! It does not take an act of government to accommodate people. The free market can sort this out on its own. Businesses could just as easily clearly post their smoking/nonsmoking policies on the front doors. Don't like smokers? Go somewhere else. BTW, I am most definitely NOT a smoker. The stuff makes me gag.

Now, I don't claim to be an expert on legal issues, but didn't businesses already have the option of saying "No smoking on the premises"? If so, how many actually took the initiative to say that?

I'm in favor of a selective smoking ban. Restaurants where anyone under the legal smoking age is allowed? No smoking allowed, end of discussion. But when only those above it are admitted, I say let the owner decide. After all, you are legally allowed to choose whether you want to smoke or not, so you should be allowed to choose whether to inhale it or not.

Sye216
2007-07-01, 09:22 PM
I've always hated it when people smoke in public places. I have a very sensitive nose, and I end up sneezing and coughing for hours after I even catch a whiff of the vile stuff. I think that the big tobacco CEOs are bloodsucking murderous vampires that should go jump off a cliff. In other words, I approve of this ban.

purple gelatinous cube o' Doom
2007-07-01, 10:53 PM
personally, I'm definitely for smoking bans. Yes smokers have the right to smoke, but I believe I also have the right to go out for a drink, and not have to come home smelling like an ash tray. I don't think their bad habits should have to affect others negatively. It's also much better for the health of the workers in establishments where smoking is allowed.

SDF
2007-07-02, 12:23 AM
There's a qualitative difference between those addictions and cigarettes, though. None of the above, nor video games, nor things like medication abuse have the same potential "area of effect" as smoking does. Even alcohol, if things like designated drivers are used, doesn't necessarily harm anyone other than the user. Drink booze (responsibly) or take pills or whatnot and you're poisoning yourself- smoke cigarretes and you're poisoning yourself and everyone who's breathing around you, whether they want to be poisoned or not.

Except drunk drivers kill a lot more people annually than smoking does. Also, people don't smoke then become abusive. Alcohol has a MUCH bigger abuse and consequence potential than smoking does. People who drink smell horrible too. It is generally the smokers responsibility to move to smoke somewhere, and the drinkers responsibility to get a designated driver or cab. Both negative effects come from people not being responsible.

Holy_Knight: The magnitude of the things I listed is different from smoking, but they are all addictive, and all harmful to you.

zeratul
2007-07-02, 12:43 AM
But there are no penalties for second hand smoke. For drunk driving there is a fine, or jail time, you can blacken someone elses lungs and get away scot free.

AtomicKitKat
2007-07-02, 12:49 AM
Here in Singapore the ban in pubs, bars, clubs, etc. came into effect on Sunday as well. Wonder if it's some kind of worldwide conspiracy...:smallwink:

For the record, I've only smoked on and off and have not (directly) smoked for probably 7 years now.

Azrael
2007-07-02, 07:50 AM
What this is about is ensuring consistency of worker protection across all workplaces. Pubs, restaurants and clubs are workplaces too, and until now they've been offered no protection against second-hand smoke.

It's no different from having to provide hardhats (and ensure they are worn) on building sites.

In fact, the first such smoking ban for virtually all workplaces (1994) and bars & restaurants (1998) came from California where the primary point was, literally, a hazardous work place.



Except drunk drivers kill a lot more people annually than smoking does.

SDF, your understanding of the statistics involved is flawed. NHTSA reports 17,013 drunk driving deaths in the US in 2003 (latest year I could find numbers for). Whereas the Nation Cancer Institute reports 160,000 deaths from lung cancer, with smoking as the majority cause. Not the cause of only 10% of lung cancer deaths, which would make your statement true.

(And that's just lung cancer, completely avoiding deaths from various heart disease related causes which are often significantly effected by smoking.)

Gygaxphobia
2007-07-02, 08:05 AM
Originally Posted by Gygaxphobia
I think the ban is a good thing, it will effect a cultural change that will persuade people not to start in the first place. It's like anti-discrimination laws, if you're born with it you never know different.


That is a very, very dangerous sentiment......

That's intriguing, maybe you can start a thread or PM to say what you are reading into my statement and why.

Narmoth
2007-07-02, 08:18 AM
We have a ban on indoor smoking in public areas (bars, shopping malls etc) in Norway. Was a lot of complains when we got it, but now everyone have accepted the situation, no one has lost any money on it, and it's much more comfortable in bars for us non-smokers and the personel now. :smallcool:

DreadArchon
2007-07-02, 11:29 PM
Now, about the whole smoking ban: I say it doesn't go far enough. I'll be glad when it's illegal for companies to profit by selling addictive poisons for people to ingest.
This may be reasonable. Whether or not this is a good idea, however, the whole "smoking is legal, but we're going to jerk you around about it in your own business" thing really gets to me. Ban it or allow it, the on-the-fence restriction on businesses laws are unsavory, IMAO.

geek_2049
2007-07-03, 05:54 AM
I say ban all underheight-with-respect-to-weight people from restaurants. Not everyone has enough food to eat, which causes health complications and ends lives prematurely. People who consume enough food so as to be considered obese or overweight contribute to people that do not have enough food to eat. People starve everyday and underheight-with-respect-to-weight people are killing them. It's not right to kill people, thus underheight-with-respect-to-weight people should not be allowed in restaurants. Besides they are an eyesore to look upon.

I say ban all underheight-with-respect-to-weight people smokers from restaurants. Not everyone has enough food to eat Tobacco smoke has carcinogens which causes health complications and ends lives prematurely. People who consume enough food so as to be considered obese or overweight tobacco in public places contribute to people that do not have enough food to eat smoke getting smoking related illnesses. People starve die from second-hand-smoke everyday and underheight-with-respect-to-weight people smokers are killing them. It's not right to kill people, thus underheight-with-respect-to-weight people smokers should not be allowed in restaurants. Besides they are an eyesore to look upon smell bad.

Jorkens
2007-07-03, 06:07 AM
People always seem to completely miss the point on this. Your "freedom" is totally irrelevant. What this is about is ensuring consistency of worker protection across all workplaces. Pubs, restaurants and clubs are workplaces too, and until now they've been offered no protection against second-hand smoke.

It's no different from having to provide hardhats (and ensure they are worn) on building sites.
Yes, or not allowing companies to expose their workers to asbestos or other toxic chemicals. Which, come to mention it, is exactly what they're doing.

The Prince of Cats
2007-07-03, 06:28 AM
I say ban all underheight-with-respect-to-weight people from restaurants. Not everyone has enough food to eat, which causes health complications and ends lives prematurely. People who consume enough food so as to be considered obese or overweight contribute to people that do not have enough food to eat. People starve everyday and underheight-with-respect-to-weight people are killing them. It's not right to kill people, thus underheight-with-respect-to-weight people should not be allowed in restaurants. Besides they are an eyesore to look upon.
Laughable attempt at a social commentary, missing the point and ultimately hurting your case.


People who consume enough food so as to be considered obese or overweight contribute to people that do not have enough food to eat. People starve everyday and underheight-with-respect-to-weight people are killing them.
Here is the best fallacy. There could (in some twisted way) be a case for this being true if food production did not exceed consumption. The food is there, but there is a serious question of logistics even if that fat person were to cut back and send the food they would otherwise eat to the starving.

To feed the world does not require well-fed people eating less, just well-paid people redistributing the wealth. Fat people don't eat the food that starving people need, any more than an asthmatic hyperventilating could be said to be killing a deep-sea diver who runs out of air.

(And this from a thin non-asthmatic capitalist!)

[Insert Neat Username Here]
2007-07-03, 10:17 AM
A smoking ban where I live would be great. I have sinus problems, and literally have to hold my breath when walking past smokers.

phobiandarkmoon
2007-07-03, 10:37 AM
I think people have pretty much said it all. Free will is all well and good, but if I'm sitiing in a pub and people next to me start smoking it a) annoys the heck out of me and b) makes my clothes stink.

So yay for the smoking ban! *bounces up and down*

Telonius
2007-07-03, 10:53 AM
They've had a smoking ban on in Washington DC for awhile now. Personally I'd be fine with a business allowing smoking if it wants to. But if they do, all the employees ought to get hazard pay, for working in an unsafe environment. Simple, works within the current framework of the law, and preserves choice on both an individual and an economic basis.

Quincunx
2007-07-03, 11:55 AM
Florida, U.S.A.
(I believe)
Businesses could pay for an extra license post-ban and become a Smoking-Friendly Establishment.

Sisqui
2007-07-03, 02:56 PM
I think people have pretty much said it all. Free will is all well and good, but if I'm sitiing in a pub and people next to me start smoking it a) annoys the heck out of me and b) makes my clothes stink.

So yay for the smoking ban! *bounces up and down*

A better solution might perhaps be to not go into a smoke filled pub in the first place. Like I said before, let the restaurants/bars post their smoking tolerances and then the public can vote with their pocketbooks. People seem to forget that patronizing a business of that type is just as much an act of free will as the smoking. No one is forcing you to be there.


They've had a smoking ban on in Washington DC for awhile now. Personally I'd be fine with a business allowing smoking if it wants to. But if they do, all the employees ought to get hazard pay, for working in an unsafe environment. Simple, works within the current framework of the law, and preserves choice on both an individual and an economic basis.

Or simply hire smokers who wouldn't care anyway. :smallwink: My only disagreement with your statement is that inherent in the argument is the idea that it is the government's right to unnecessarily restrict your freedom and then make you pay a fee to be exempt from their control.

zeratul
2007-07-03, 02:59 PM
A better solution might perhaps be to not go into a smoke filled pub in the first place. Like I said before, let the restaurants/bars post their smoking tolerances and then the public can vote with their pocketbooks. People seem to forget that patronizing a business of that type is just as much an act of free will as the smoking. No one is forcing you to be there.

If the majoraty of people there aren't smokers why should he have to put up with the smokers? If most of the people there are smoking I'd agree. But if it's just a few, they should have to leave, not him.

Sisqui
2007-07-03, 03:05 PM
If the majoraty of people there aren't smokers why should he have to put up with the smokers? If most of the people there are smoking I'd agree. But if it's just a few, they should have to leave, not him.

You misunderstand me. I meant let businesses say "No smoking" or "Smoking" on their premises. Potential customers can read the signs and then decide for themselves which business (say, a restaurant) to go spend their money in. Then each restaurant could decide which niche to fill. If a smoke friendly restaurant started losing business to its non-smoking competitor, it would change its business practices to draw in more revenue- it would change to "non-smoking". That is letting every customer get what they want through market forces instead of yielding to unnecessary government intrusion.

SDF
2007-07-03, 03:44 PM
SDF, your understanding of the statistics involved is flawed. NHTSA reports 17,013 drunk driving deaths in the US in 2003 (latest year I could find numbers for). Whereas the Nation Cancer Institute reports 160,000 deaths from lung cancer, with smoking as the majority cause. Not the cause of only 10% of lung cancer deaths, which would make your statement true.

(And that's just lung cancer, completely avoiding deaths from various heart disease related causes which are often significantly effected by smoking.)

You got me, I was looking at an age specific demographic. Also tobacco plants tend to absorb a lot of Rn gas from uranium in the soil causing leukemia, but average exposure from other sources makes it all but impossible to come up with an accurate statistic for deaths attributed to that.

Telonius
2007-07-03, 03:53 PM
Or simply hire smokers who wouldn't care anyway. :smallwink: My only disagreement with your statement is that inherent in the argument is the idea that it is the government's right to unnecessarily restrict your freedom and then make you pay a fee to be exempt from their control.

I don't think it's the government's right to restrict your freedom unnecessarily either. If a person wants to smoke on their own property, in their own home, fine, go to it. The government has no business poking its nose there. But when a particular use of freedom starts harming others, it is within the government's prerogative to regulate that. Smoking does harm other people. I think the science on that is about as close to unanimous as science ever gets. So paying a fee to get out of the general rule that applies to everybody else (don't harm others) seems pretty reasonable to me.

Captain van der Decken
2007-07-03, 03:55 PM
I don't think it's the government's right to restrict your freedom unnecessarily either. If a person wants to smoke on their own property, in their own home, fine, go to it. The government has no business poking its nose there.

With new laws about smokers adopting children, they're starting to.

Sisqui
2007-07-03, 04:13 PM
I don't think it's the government's right to restrict your freedom unnecessarily either. If a person wants to smoke on their own property, in their own home, fine, go to it. The government has no business poking its nose there. But when a particular use of freedom starts harming others, it is within the government's prerogative to regulate that. Smoking does harm other people. I think the science on that is about as close to unanimous as science ever gets. So paying a fee to get out of the general rule that applies to everybody else (don't harm others) seems pretty reasonable to me.

So.........it's OK to hurt people if you PAY for the privilege? Just saying, if that is really the justification for the fee....:smalleek: I think letting people freely associate with or without smokers is a better way.


With new laws about smokers adopting children, they're starting to.

And in your own car too! That was NJ I think.

Starla
2007-07-03, 05:09 PM
I think it is good for the non-smokers like me. I don't think it will cut back on the government revenue on taxes for smoking because I don't think more smokers will quit, or smoke less, they just have to take it elsewhere.

I know there may be some that argue the government is restricting freedoms, but that is why we prefer to be governed. We pay for safety and security with freedom. We subject ourselves (notice that being subject means limiting freedoms from the start) to the government and laws so we can be protected.

For example, traffic lights. We know that it is dangerous to drive through a red light. We stop and limit our freedom of movement temporarily until we are given a green light, and thus accept the message that it is safe to move. Are we not being controlled by the lights? NO. We have the freedom to choose to disregard the laws, but we risk our safety when we choose to go through red lights.

My point is that when we subject ourselves to the body of government we trust that the laws it creates will protect us as long as we obey them. You may feel sometimes you are giving up freedom by obeying the law, but I feel that my freedom is maintain by doing so. Given the example of running red lights, the more often you do it, the more likely you will have an accident, and the higher the risk that you will end up with a damaged body and THAT will truly limit your freedom of movement. Death is definitely a limit to freedom in this life. So I ask you, which do you think the general populace wants more? So-called "freedom" or the supposed "safety". In a utopian society, both would coexist happily, but in the state our world exists in, both concepts are ever-elusive and argumentively one is always sacrificed in support of the other.

Considering that we are celebrating the "dissolving of political bands" :smallredface: with England tomorrow in the US it is appropriate to point out that the founders of our nation actually described my points above (but much more eloquently and without the example of traffic laws)


That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Declaration of Independence link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence#Annotate d_text_of_the_Declaration)

We memorized the preamble in the 8th grade and I am glad we did even though we didn't understand what it said at the time. I recall it with applicable understanding now whenever discussions like these come up. I remembered it a lot during school this last year as we discussed American Indian Law.

Sisqui
2007-07-03, 06:14 PM
For example, traffic lights. We know that it is dangerous to drive through a red light. We stop and limit our freedom of movement temporarily until we are given a green light, and thus accept the message that it is safe to move. Are we not being controlled by the lights? NO. We have the freedom to choose to disregard the laws, but we risk our safety when we choose to go through red lights.


But travel occurs on government roads and it is virtually impossible to live your life without doing so (at least in the US). Let the government ban smoking in government buildings. It has every right to do so. It is a ban which includes PRIVATE property I am concerned about. If a private company says "Within these walls smoking is permissable. Enter at your own risk" then I have no problem with allowing an informed public to decide for themselves. Banning an activity which harms only the person who engages in it is not a legitimate function of the government. Or, to put it another way:

"For your own good" is a persuasive argument that will eventually make a man agree to his own destruction. – Janet Frame, Faces In The Water, 1982

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. – Thomas Jefferson

It is not the business of government to make men virtuous or religious, or to preserve the fool from the consequences of his own folly. Government should be repressive no further than is necessary to secure liberty by protecting the equal rights of each from aggression on the part of others, and the moment governmental prohibitions extend beyond this line they are in danger of defeating the very ends they are intended to serve. – Henry George

Before anyone jumps on my post, please note that the smoking would occur among people who have voluntarily assumed the risk by entering premises clearly marked as smoker friendly. This would also be known as freedom of assembly.

Starla
2007-07-03, 06:51 PM
They own the building, but do they own the air?

Joking aside, Jefferson mentions the right of the government to continually make laws that opress people too.


all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Which could be argued to your point that the government doesn't have the right to make rules for privately own property, but in reality all private property is owned by the government. If it was ever truly private property then we wouldn't have to pay property tax... Even the American Indians have to fight the government for rights to their lands. It is horridly sickening to discuss so lets not get into that.

And on the non-smoker side, non-smokers are also "more disposed to suffer, while the evils are sufferable" too. The bars and restaurants were about the only public places that I had ever encountered indoor smoking other than someone's home and that has only happened 2 times in my 25 years of living that I can recall. I have never enjoyed the side effect of being in company with heavy smokers, even when they are not smoking they come into my tiny rental office and my office smells for a while after they leave. When I go into a smoker's apartment my clothes smell and I feel like I am suffocating while I am in there.

Sisqui
2007-07-03, 07:05 PM
They own the building, but do they own the air?

Inside their own building? Yes.


Joking aside, Jefferson mentions the right of the government to continually make laws that opress people too.

Unnecessary regulation is by definition oppressive.


Which could be argued to your point that the government doesn't have the right to make rules for privately own property, but in reality all private property is owned by the government.

Trust me, I am very well aware of that. But there is, and should be, a limit to the extent to which the government should be allowed to regulate what you do on the property you own- or lease from the government as it were. It is this idea which was central to the philosophers of the revolution. The government should fear the people, not the other way around.



And on the non-smoker side, non-smokers are also "more disposed to suffer, while the evils are sufferable" too. The bars and restaurants were about the only public places that I had ever encountered indoor smoking other than someone's home and that has only happened 2 times in my 25 years of living that I can recall. I have never enjoyed the side effect of being in company with heavy smokers, even when they are not smoking they come into my tiny rental office and my office smells for a while after they leave. When I go into a smoker's apartment my clothes smell and I feel like I am suffocating while I am in there.

But the smokers are not the issue. The issue is: Does a private property owner have the right to determine what is and is not permissable on his own grounds? If it harms those who come on his property unaware of the danger, then I would side with your argument. But- if he clearly marks his property and alerts anyone who enters of the risk- and they still choose to enter of their own free will- who is the government to tell him he can't do it?

And as a further aside, if we are going to ban smoking because it is noxious to others, how about banning the sale of perfume? God knows there are a lot of women (and men!) who walk the streets reeking of cologne :smallyuk:

Starla
2007-07-03, 07:10 PM
I am not sure how much further I can debate your point since we are about to sit down to dinner, but considering it is really the behavior and not the people that is the focus as you rightly pointed out, the bars are a place that the government does have a lot of control over. They require the bartenders to have a special license and I am out time... sorry. I just remember the issue of bartending coming up in AIS law and it is something the government controls in the US more than you may think.

Sisqui
2007-07-03, 07:27 PM
I am not sure how much further I can debate your point since we are about to sit down to dinner, but considering it is really the behavior and not the people that is the focus as you rightly pointed out, the bars are a place that the government does have a lot of control over. They require the bartenders to have a special license and I am out time... sorry. I just remember the issue of bartending coming up in AIS law and it is something the government controls in the US more than you may think.

No problem. Anyone who can hold their own with facts or logic and not emotions in an argument about smoking is worth debating it with :smallsmile:

Jorkens
2007-07-03, 07:30 PM
But the smokers are not the issue. The issue is: Does a private property owner have the right to determine what is and is not permissable on his own grounds? If it harms those who come on his property unaware of the danger, then I would side with your argument. But- if he clearly marks his property and alerts anyone who enters of the risk- and they still choose to enter of their own free will- who is the government to tell him he can't do it?
You'll notice that they haven't tried to ban smoking in your house while you've got friends round.

The issue is whether employees in bars and restaurants can really be considered 'free to choose not to go there.' For waiters / waitresses or bar staff, 'just leave and go and find another job' might be easier said than done. If you're barely earning enough to pay the rent while you are working, you can't really risk chucking one job in the hopes of finding another, not to mention that if you've ruled out a large percentage of bar and restaurant jobs by deciding not to get given lung cancer due to other people's smoking your chances of finding another job at all aren't great...

So yes, in principle I completely support people's right to harm themselves if they freely choose to do so. It's just a question of what constitutes 'free choice.' (This is also part of the reason that things like drugs and prostitution are such knotty issues.)

Sisqui
2007-07-03, 08:39 PM
You'll notice that they haven't tried to ban smoking in your house while you've got friends round.

The issue is whether employees in bars and restaurants can really be considered 'free to choose not to go there.' For waiters / waitresses or bar staff, 'just leave and go and find another job' might be easier said than done. If you're barely earning enough to pay the rent while you are working, you can't really risk chucking one job in the hopes of finding another, not to mention that if you've ruled out a large percentage of bar and restaurant jobs by deciding not to get given lung cancer due to other people's smoking your chances of finding another job at all aren't great...

So yes, in principle I completely support people's right to harm themselves if they freely choose to do so. It's just a question of what constitutes 'free choice.' (This is also part of the reason that things like drugs and prostitution are such knotty issues.)

Actually, most places people refer to as "public" are privately owned. They are only open to the public. When you enter one of these places, you have made an agreement with the proprieter to abide by the rules of conduct he has laid out. It is, in effect, a contract or exchange. He offers a given set of goods and/or services for which the return on your part may be adherence to a dress code, code of conduct, money, etc...

Also, no one is losing their jobs by not banning smoking, but people may lose their jobs if it is banned. People may choose not to go out and do things they used to do if they cannot smoke while they do it (it IS an addiction after all). That might cause a lack of revenue, money without which these workers cannot be paid. And, as I said in a previous post, have prospective employees sign a waiver stating that they understand the risk is part of the job. Or just hire smokers and be done with it. And you can add to that the fact that employers want to keep good employees happy. If they can remove smoking from the workplace without too much cash flow interruption, they may do so to keep their workers happy.

BugFix
2007-07-03, 10:29 PM
De-lurking here to jump into an interesting conversation.


Actually, most places people refer to as "public" are privately owned. They are only open to the public. When you enter one of these places, you have made an agreement with the proprieter to abide by the rules of conduct he has laid out.

This isn't correct. Or rather, it's partly correct, but you're missing the point that a place of public access is emphatically not the owner-decides-all libertarian paradise you seem to be imagining that it is. Public areas like restaurants and stores are subject to all sorts of regulation at all levels of legislation. They aren't allowed to discriminate against customers on the basis of race, sex, etc... They are restricted to operating only in specifically zoned neighborhoods. They aren't allowed to serve alcohol without a license. They aren't allowed to be open past a certain hour.

See the point? The answer to "Does the government have the right to regulate behavior in a bar?" is "Hell yes, it's been doing so for ages, and we're all better off for it." An argument like yours based on smoking-as-an-inalienable-right-of-barhoppers needs to clear the very high hurdle of explaining why smoking is somehow less of a public nuisance than serving booze or drunken shouting at 3am and deserves special treatment. I don't see how that's true, frankly.

You'll have a much easier time making practical arguments, as you do here:


Also, no one is losing their jobs by not banning smoking, but people may lose their jobs if it is banned. People may choose not to go out and do things they used to do if they cannot smoke while they do it

The problem is there's absolutely no evidence for this. You could just as well argue the opposite: banning smoking in bars makes it more likely that non-smokers will show up to listen to the bands now that the places don't stink so badly, thus increasing revenue. I don't have any evidence for that either, but it seems no less plausible to me.

Sisqui
2007-07-03, 10:46 PM
De-lurking here to jump into an interesting conversation.



This isn't correct. Or rather, it's partly correct, but you're missing the point that a place of public access is emphatically not the owner-decides-all libertarian paradise you seem to be imagining that it is. Public areas like restaurants and stores are subject to all sorts of regulation at all levels of legislation. They aren't allowed to discriminate against customers on the basis of race, sex, etc... They are restricted to operating only in specifically zoned neighborhoods. They aren't allowed to serve alcohol without a license. They aren't allowed to be open past a certain hour.

Well, I definitely have libertarian leanings, yes (kudos on that, BTW, most people only know of two political ideologies). However, just because I advocate that does not mean I am under the illusion that it actually exists. The vision of the founding fathers was corrupted long ago. (Read the Thomas Jefferson quote). And, also, I said the transaction was two sided. An owner can decide on his own criteria for providing customers with goods/services only to the extent that he still, in fact, has customers. To take that argument to any further extreme is silly. Also, I happen to think discrimination should be allowed. If some guy thinks he can stay in business in this day and age while preserving racist business practices, let him. I think he would be sitting all alone and wondering where all his business went because the other half of the coin, the customers, would be exercising their right to descriminate against bigots. That is because morality rests with individuals. It is not imposed from on high by the government.


See the point? The answer to "Does the government have the right to regulate behavior in a bar?" is "Hell yes, it's been doing so for ages, and we're all better off for it." An argument like yours based on smoking-as-an-inalienable-right-of-barhoppers needs to clear the very high hurdle of explaining why smoking is somehow less of a public nuisance than serving booze or drunken shouting at 3am and deserves special treatment. I don't see how that's true, frankly.

That illustrates that the government has the power. That is not the same thing as having a right.


You'll have a much easier time making practical arguments, as you do here:



The problem is there's absolutely no evidence for this. You could just as well argue the opposite: banning smoking in bars makes it more likely that non-smokers will show up to listen to the bands now that the places don't stink so badly, thus increasing revenue. I don't have any evidence for that either, but it seems no less plausible to me.

Actually, that argument was what I was responding to :smallwink: Read a little further up in the thread. Also:
http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070619/NEWS10/706190355

Just an example to support the position. There may be equally valid arguments that fewer smoke related health claims keeps more money in people's pockets-which would be seen as a point in favor of the bans- but that is more a problem with the healthcare system. I am willing to listen to an opposing point, and even -gasp :smalleek: - agree with it if I find it logical you know :smallwink:

Edit: Where, oh where, has my averagejoe gone? Where, oh where can he beeeeeeeeee? Admit it, you're gonna fail that will save any minute :smallwink:

Vuzzmop
2007-07-04, 02:21 AM
Here in New Zealand we've had the smoking ban just like that for a while, and I thnk it's great. People can smoke in the streets but not inside, so the idiots who choose to smoke have to stand outside in the cold to do it, while everyone else is warm inside in a clean environment without tabbaco smell. Smoking killed my grandfather, why should I put up with someone elses second hand smoke?

Hell Puppi
2007-07-04, 03:26 AM
Personally, I think it should be the businesses' decision about smoking bans. If enough people complain about the smoke, then they shouldn't be a smoking establishment.
I smoke...I don't really mind the ban aside from pubs/bars where half the fun is to see how much you can destroy your body is one night, but I don't mind going outside if it bugs people. The only thing that really bugs me is when people get morally righteous about it, or as one man I talked to put it "We're going to make you be healthy whether you like it or not".
That kinda irks me.

LCR
2007-07-04, 04:05 AM
I think any business should be able to say what or what is not allowed in their buildings. If they say you can smoke, you should be able, and if they say no way Jose, you shouldn't.

Can I presume you can still smoke on your own property?

Think about the people working in all those businesses. Smoke irritation in a bar can be so high (German) federal regulations would actually require them to wear hazard suits and masks.
While I do think, free will is important, think how all those smokers limit the freedom of non-smokers.

I think, some Lδnder in Germany want to introduce legislation to ban smoking in all bars/restaurants etc unless they have a smoker's room with special air conditioning (while the majority of your space still has to be non-smoking).
And I think that's a good idea.


But travel occurs on government roads and it is virtually impossible to live your life without doing so (at least in the US). Let the government ban smoking in government buildings. It has every right to do so. It is a ban which includes PRIVATE property I am concerned about. If a private company says "Within these walls smoking is permissable. Enter at your own risk" then I have no problem with allowing an informed public to decide for themselves. Banning an activity which harms only the person who engages in it is not a legitimate function of the government. Or, to put it another way:



Before anyone jumps on my post, please note that the smoking would occur among people who have voluntarily assumed the risk by entering premises clearly marked as smoker friendly. This would also be known as freedom of assembly.

Private property and public stores are two different pair of shoes. Those shops maybe private, yet they assume some sort of public function. Sure, you say discrimination should be allowed, because counter-discrimination by the customers (what funny thing) would take care of it. But imagine a small village with just one store and an assumed population of 50% smokers and 50% non-smokers. If the store allowed smoking, half of the village's population would be effectively barred from the store, at least if they don't want to damage their health.
Now, if you do ban smoking, the other half would be restricted in their right to smoke, but now it's a question of priority. What's more important: Their right to smoke in this special place (remember, they are still free to do so outside, at home, in their cars (but then smoking in cars, like using a mobile in cars, is another matter) or the other half's right to breathe freely?
Remember that you're only free to do what you're like, as long as you don't harm somebody else or restrict his freedom.

Sisqui
2007-07-04, 07:58 AM
Private property and public stores are two different pair of shoes. Those shops maybe private, yet they assume some sort of public function. Sure, you say discrimination should be allowed, because counter-discrimination by the customers (what funny thing) would take care of it. But imagine a small village with just one store and an assumed population of 50% smokers and 50% non-smokers. If the store allowed smoking, half of the village's population would be effectively barred from the store, at least if they don't want to damage their health.

Yes. And far be it for some entrepeneur in the town to open a smoke free store to cater to the non-smokers. Your example seems like opportunity knocking to me. Not to mention (as I said before) stores want to make their customers happy so they will continue to patronize the business. If a store suddenly loses 50% of its revenue, I assure you it will change its policies to get those customers back.


Now, if you do ban smoking, the other half would be restricted in their right to smoke, but now it's a question of priority. What's more important: Their right to smoke in this special place (remember, they are still free to do so outside, at home, in their cars (but then smoking in cars, like using a mobile in cars, is another matter) or the other half's right to breathe freely?
Remember that you're only free to do what you're like, as long as you don't harm somebody else or restrict his freedom.

Again, you are free to shop elsewhere. Unless someone sapped you from behind, dragged you in the store, and forcibly spent your money, you went in voluntarily. And it is not as if all places would be smoking or all non-smoking. It is the freedom to choose- for yourself and without government interference- that is important.


Personally, I think it should be the businesses' decision about smoking bans. If enough people complain about the smoke, then they shouldn't be a smoking establishment.
I smoke...I don't really mind the ban aside from pubs/bars where half the fun is to see how much you can destroy your body is one night, but I don't mind going outside if it bugs people. The only thing that really bugs me is when people get morally righteous about it, or as one man I talked to put it "We're going to make you be healthy whether you like it or not".
That kinda irks me.

There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him. – Robert Heinlein

LCR
2007-07-04, 10:03 AM
In an ideal world, you're right. But unfortunately, the world isn't ideal. There are many factors that force people to sometimes act against their own good. That, for example, is the reason, why the government restricts access to drugs, firearms and the like. And more often, you do not even have a choice. Sure, there is another store, but then it's an half an hour drive to get there. Or it doesn't sell my favourite brand of cornflakes and so on ... No matter how hard you argue - Stores and shops and pubs and whatever ARE public places and if you decide to run such a place, you do so for everybody, without excluding anybody. If you still feel like you and you're customers absolutely HAVE to smoke, go get them a designated smoking area, where they can ruin their health without screwing with other people's air.
And what about their employees? They don't have a choice where to work. It's a matter of fact that their work environment is extremely unhealty. So, what are you going to do? Tell them to find another job (not everybody can)? Make them wear gas masks?
You see where this leads.

Pepper
2007-07-04, 10:24 AM
As members of a civilized, highly specialized society, we take the negatives of risky behaviour as a whole, and should not be distinguishing between them due to personal use.

You say i can't smoke because it may cause you lung cancer, well i say you can't drive, because car crashes kill more people, and hospitalize as many as smoking do.

Of course you wont stop driving, but does that give me right to cast all drivers in a negative stereotype and react hostiley to everyone driving a car?

They are both negative aspects of living in a civilized society, and i think live and let live should be the rule of thumb.

We have had the smoking ban for quite a long time where i live, and all it caused me to do was stop going to bars, and it caused my friends to stop going to bars. So if we were tallying up maybe 500-600 bucks a week as a group at our local bar, that is now revenue that has been lost to the local business community.

They keep raising my taxes on cigarettes, do you think that i take that tax money out of my entertainment budget? Of course not, it comes out of what ever charitable donations i used to make every year. And the thousands of seniors that die from air quality every year? thats not from smoking, thats from industry, but noone is quite so happy when industry is closed down, and your dad has to collect pogey for 12 mnths while he tries to find another job.

I agree with making environments more healthy as a whole, but i hope this anti-smoking ban isnt just a government chance to pass publicly favoured legislation to increase votership right before election times.

Strengfellow
2007-07-04, 10:37 AM
Well I know for a fact that there will be a number of landlords who will be running "smoke easies", also not one pub that I frequent has divested itself of it's cigarette vending machines.

What I am waiting for is how the enforcement goes, will there be hundreds of little council employed grasses bar hopping?

What if you get mass public non compliance for instance whole pub loads of people smoking, because I really cant see the police enforcing this law, not whilst theres' teenagers stabbing and shooting each other and terrorist bomb plots left right and centre.

BugFix
2007-07-04, 10:43 AM
You say i can't smoke because it may cause you lung cancer, well i say you can't drive, because car crashes kill more people, and hospitalize as many as smoking do.

This is a terribly flawed analogy, sorry. No one is proposing outlawing smoking. The proposal is for regulating its practice to improve public safety, just as we regulate automobile usage for exactly the same reason. You can only drive on certain parts of the street. You must follow traffic signs. You must drive less than a certain speed. You must yield to pedestrians in crosswalks.

So how is: "You can't smoke in areas with public access, because it's harmful to the public." any different?

Pepper
2007-07-04, 10:44 AM
[QUOTE=BugFix;2829040
So how is: "You can't smoke in areas with public access, because it's harmful to the public." any different?[/QUOTE]

Whys is private business public access?

LCR
2007-07-04, 10:50 AM
It's privately owned, but it's open to public, at least if we're talking about walk-in stores.

Pepper
2007-07-04, 10:55 AM
It's privately owned, but it's open to public, at least if we're talking about walk-in stores.

Thats not what it means at all, it means that NO privately owned business at all can have smoking, or in my country, even regulated smoking areas. Not legions, not private clubs and halls that serve drinks or food, nowhere.

They are not trying to regulate smoking, they are trying to ban it, and its probably a good thing, but its only one step away to say "Your house could potentially have people in it other than yourself so its now a public place, from saying, your private club where nobody can come in but you and who you say can come in, is a public place.

LCR
2007-07-04, 10:58 AM
No, they're trying to ban public smoking, not smoking itself.
Basically, you can do whatever you like, as long as you don't harm anybody. And smoking in public does.

Gygaxphobia
2007-07-04, 11:03 AM
Yes, or not allowing companies to expose their workers to asbestos or other toxic chemicals. Which, come to mention it, is exactly what they're doing.

I don't agree this is the same at all. The equivalent analogy would be giving respirators to workers in smoking areas
Since there is no protection against smoking that doesn't affect your ability to talk and serve customers, the alternative is to let workers sign disclaimers when they CHOOSE to work there.


To feed the world does not require well-fed people eating less, just well-paid people redistributing the wealth. Fat people don't eat the food that starving people need, any more than an asthmatic hyperventilating could be said to be killing a deep-sea diver who runs out of air.
Starving people would not be helped by wealth directly, but by proper government infrastructure, there is already plenty of investment available. You are of course right that fat people don't take food out of others mouths (at least, generally!)

Jorkens
2007-07-04, 11:04 AM
And what about their employees? They don't have a choice where to work. It's a matter of fact that their work environment is extremely unhealty. So, what are you going to do? Tell them to find another job (not everybody can)? Make them wear gas masks?
This is The Point, I think.

You'll notice that if a friend of mine smokes and they invite me round to their house then they're free to blow smoke at me and I'm free to decide whether or not I want to go round there and risk it or not. This is because I don't need to go round to their house in order to pay the rent, feed the kids and so on.

@ Strengfellow: they don't try to enforce it by fining the individual smokers, they do it by fining the landlord, on the grounds that it's much easier to find the landlord the next day than it is to try to grab an individual smoker in the middle of a crowded pub, and the landlord will then have a vested interest in enforcing the ban within their pub.

LCR
2007-07-04, 11:09 AM
I don't agree this is the same at all. The equivalent analogy would be giving respirators to workers in smoking areas
Since there is no protection against smoking that doesn't affect your ability to talk and serve customers, the alternative is to let workers sign disclaimers when they CHOOSE to work there.


You can't always choose where to work. I understand that each job has certain risks, but I think it is a duty to minimize those risks.
And hey, almost everybody gets a smoke-free working environment already (enforced by law, at least in Germany), why not the people in the gastro-business?

Pepper
2007-07-04, 11:13 AM
No, they're trying to ban public smoking, not smoking itself.
Basically, you can do whatever you like, as long as you don't harm anybody. And smoking in public does.
Well in my country your not allowed to smoke in your car if you have kids in the car. Sure it may be a great idea, and proper parenting, but it is not a decision for the government to be making.

These are the kinds of petty laws that lead to eventual revolt, we don't need people telling us not to smoke, non-smokers too timid to tell smokers to butt-out will still be too timid when the law in in place. It's just a gold mine because its hard to find morally and publically favoured legislation at the same time.

Take it to a personal level, if someone is smoking next to you, and you don't like it, make them stop, its the only way to solve the problem. Pushing the problem onto by-law officers and club owners will do nothing to solve the problem of ignorant smokers.

Ive been smoking for 15 years and im very concsious not to do it around those that have a distaste for it, but you can tell me you don't like my smoking, you don't need to get the government to warn me, so that i might stop.

edit: And i bought these cigarrettes from the very government that is outlawing them, if they are so terrible, then why arent they illegal? the government doesnt sell me heroin and crystal meth. I'm a victim here..lol..of a viscious plot between the non-smokers and legislatures, to make sure that i feel so bad about paying my taxes, that i pay more :p

LCR
2007-07-04, 11:24 AM
Well in my country your not allowed to smoke in your car if you have kids in the car. Sure it may be a great idea, and proper parenting, but it is not a decision for the government to be making.

Smoking's bad for your children, undoubtely, but I think this goes a bit too far.

These are the kinds of petty laws that lead to eventual revolt, we don't need people telling us not to smoke, non-smokers too timid to tell smokers to butt-out will still be too timid when the law in in place. It's just a gold mine because its hard to find morally and publically favoured legislation at the same time.

Personal initiaitve and legislation are completely different.

Take it to a personal level, if someone is smoking next to you, and you don't like it, make them stop, its the only way to solve the problem. Pushing the problem onto by-law officers and club owners will do nothing to solve the problem of ignorant smokers.

That seems pretty anarchistic to me. The law helps you people. If you're too timid to tell him to stop smoking and ruining your health, law enforcement will help you. Everything else is self-justice (although smoking may not be the biggest offense).

Ive been smoking for 15 years and im very concsious not to do it around those that have a distaste for it, but you can tell me you don't like my smoking, you don't need to get the government to warn me, so that i might stop.

Yes, I do need the government for this. If I tell you to stop smoking, I am asking you to do this. There is absolutely no obligation on your side to comply and while you might stop, not everybody would. If the government tells you to stop smoking in a public place, you'll have to or otherwise face the consequences.


Bold print is mine.

Pepper
2007-07-04, 11:30 AM
Bold print is mine.

Well you go ahead an call your by-law officer on a smoker and see how long it takes them to get there...if ever. Police wont enforce this on a person to person basis, and you will still inhale as much smoke as you ever did before. Im not arguing against your side, im arguing against the government taking sides on a non-governmental issue, regarding a legal product.
We shouldnt be making polite behaviour into law.

LCR
2007-07-04, 11:37 AM
Well you go ahead an call your by-law officer on a smoker and see how long it takes them to get there...if ever. Police wont enforce this on a person to person basis, and you will still inhale as much smoke as you ever did before. Im not arguing against your side, im arguing against the government taking sides on a non-governmental issue, regarding a legal product.
We shouldnt be making polite behaviour into law.

Let's have a look at the following situation. A non-smoker enters a pub, crowded with people, all of them smoking cigarettes, cigars, pipe etc. Now, what is polite? To ask them all individually to stop smoking? Or just accept that they are ruining your health?

So, this is not about interfering with you consuming a legal product, this is about protecting its citizen.

Pepper
2007-07-04, 11:43 AM
Let's have a look at the following situation. A non-smoker enters a pub, crowded with people, all of them smoking cigarettes, cigars, pipe etc. Now, what is polite? To ask them all individually to stop smoking? Or just accept that they are ruining your health?

So, this is not about interfering with you consuming a legal product, this is about protecting its citizen.

Why are you walking into a private club, without forhand knowledge of the smoking that will be going on there? I don't care if i ever smoke in a museum, or a MacDonalds, in my whole life, but the private club, where you can't go anyways, should be our domain, not yours.

Now (in my country) you still cant come into the club, but now we cant smoke there either...who is winning here?

LCR
2007-07-04, 11:45 AM
Why exactly can't I come to your club?

Jorkens
2007-07-04, 11:46 AM
Why are you walking into a private club, without forhand knowledge of the smoking that will be going on there? I don't care if i ever smoke in a museum, or a MacDonalds, in my whole life, but the private club, where you can't go anyways, should be our domain, not yours.
For the seventeenth time:
you can do it in private IF IT ISN'T SOMEWHERE WHERE PEOPLE HAVE TO WORK.

Pepper
2007-07-04, 11:50 AM
For the seventeenth time:
you can do it in private IF IT ISN'T SOMEWHERE WHERE PEOPLE HAVE TO WORK.
No that is not correct, you cannot smoke in any clubs, regardless of who is working there.
Like the Royal Canadian Legion, where members serve members, or the Italian social club down the street, where one person runs the whole show, but they sell bottles of beer and soda during soccer games.
It's not just on big restaurants and cafes, where 50 people work, its tiny family owned business, who only have 10 customers, all of which smoke, and now can no longer stay in business, or do so at a fraction of their former profits.

LCR
2007-07-04, 11:53 AM
If it's public, you can't smoke there. So what ...? If you'd make exceptions, it would only soften the rule and in the end, it wouldn't make sense any more.

Pepper
2007-07-04, 11:58 AM
If it's public, you can't smoke there. So what ...? If you'd make exceptions, it would only soften the rule and in the end, it wouldn't make sense any more.

Then what is a private business to you? and any definition of a private business you can come up with, is not allowed to have smoking in their building.
You are not allowed to rent a building for you and your smoking friends, and sell each other beer there and smoke under any circumstances, and i think it's wrong.

Jorkens
2007-07-04, 12:01 PM
No that is not correct, you cannot smoke in any clubs, regardless of who is working there.
Like the Royal Canadian Legion, where members serve members, or the Italian social club down the street, where one person runs the whole show, but they sell bottles of beer and soda during soccer games.
It's still a place of work, though.

Okay, there's a good argument for allowing smoking in places where there are no paid workers other than the owner. But that's a pretty tiny fraction of the number of places that are affected by the ban. And I'm not sure that many of the people complaining about the ban are really thinking about the injustice to that tiny fraction of places. I suspect a good number of them - not neccessarily here, but from other arguments I've had - are complaining because their life has been made a little less convenient in order to protect other people's health.


It's not just on big restaurants and cafes, where 50 people work, its tiny family owned business, who only have 10 customers, all of which smoke, and now can no longer stay in business, or do so at a fraction of their former profits.
For what it's worth, the biggest meta-survey so far done on the effects of the ban on Ireland concluded that the effect on businesses was negligable.

LCR
2007-07-04, 12:02 PM
The what is a private business to you? and any definition of a private business you can come up, is not allowed to have smoking in their building.
You are not allowed to rent a building for you and your smoking friends, and sell each other beer there and smoke under any circumstances, and i think it's wrong.

Yup, you're not allowed to sell anything - at least officially. You can still rent a house and smoke with your friends.
But if you can't just make it a "private pub", outside of legislation.
You just cannot sell beer "only to your friends", just like you cannot sell something to everybody - except blacks. You can't because your store became public, the second you decided to sell something there.



For what it's worth, the biggest meta-survey so far done on the effects of the ban on Ireland concluded that the effect on businesses was negligable.

Thank you for this important piece of evidence.

Pepper
2007-07-04, 12:04 PM
For what it's worth, the biggest meta-survey so far done on the effects of the ban on Ireland concluded that the effect on businesses was negligable.

Ill refrain from any "hell would have to freeze over before you found an empty pub in Ireland" jokes :p

but thats the same studies that my government gave out as well, and yet some local pubs still closed, and some folks are still out of work. Now ill give you that as of now the patios of pubs are still fair game for smoking, and as such, still draw large crowds in the summer, but mark my words, smoking on patios is the next to go.

Pepper
2007-07-04, 12:06 PM
Yup, you're not allowed to sell anything - at least officially. You can still rent a house and smoke with your friends.
But if you can't just make it a "private pub", outside of legislation.
You just cannot sell beer "only to your friends", just like you cannot sell something to everybody - except blacks. You can't because your store became public, the second you decided to sell something there.



Thank you for this important piece of evidence.

but you ARE allowed to have a private club, and exclude non-smokers, blacks, women or whoever else youd like to discriminate against, you just cant smoke there.

LCR
2007-07-04, 12:07 PM
but you ARE allowed to have a private club, and exclude non-smokers, blacks, women or whoever else youd like to discriminate against, you just cant smoke there.

Sorry, I really don't understand whatever you mean by "private club".

Pepper
2007-07-04, 03:18 PM
Sorry, I really don't understand whatever you mean by "private club".

For example, the "Moosehead Lodge" (fictional) is a club owned and maintained purely by members. They have no public funding, and are not required to extend membership to the general public. They have a small lodge for members, that on tues & thurs they meet to play darts and drink $1 drafts.

They have ten members, most of whom are in their 60's, and now they cannot smoke and play darts in their own small club.

This is what i would consider a private club. The general public can't go there, in most cases wouldnt want to go there, but nonetheless their traditional nights are infringed upon, in the name of protecting the general public, that can not go there without being invited (hence no chance of not expecting what to find), and in most cases has no desire to go there anyways.

And this is not hyperbole, this is exactly the people who are being penalized by this law, not the big box bars with acres of smoking patio, or even the smaller upscale restaurants downtown, whos clientele can afford price increases to cover lulls in business (currently a good pint is almost $7-10 at any downtown bar, and believe you me i dont live in an upscale town)

Hell Puppi
2007-07-04, 03:34 PM
You know I hate to say it, but sometimes I think the whole thing is just 'hey, we can solve this problem, so let's do it and make people feel better and think things are getting done.'
or 'This is a quick fix, so let's put this up for vote!'
It may just be my state/country, but it seems like it's easy to get people fired up about an easily fixed situation (i.e. smoking ban), and get them to not think about any of the other huge problems goin' on that aren't so easy (homelessness, healthcare, ect).
Or maybe I'm just being paranoid.

dish
2007-07-04, 03:45 PM
Something I find fascinating is the correlation between public opinion and legislation.

I'm old enough to remember when people in the UK would think nothing of smoking in buses, underground trains, and planes. Now, of course, no one would dream of doing such a thing. Was the legislation a result of an upswell in public opinion and/or an effective campaign by the anti-smoking lobby, or did the legislation come first and public opinion fall into line?*

I currently work in China, which has a very high smoking rate. People smoke pretty much everywhere - in offices, in shops, in bars, in restaurants (except McDonald's or KFC), in hospitals (I've seen a doctor smoking while treating a patient), in banks, on trains, etc. Chinese people are educated about the risks of smoking, and can all tell you how dangerous it is, yet I've never had a Chinese person tell me that they can't go somewhere because it's smoky, and I've never heard from or met a member of the Chinese anti-smoking lobby, or heard any Chinese person suggest that smoking should be restricted in public areas. I wonder where all the Chinese asthmatics are. Has nobody told them that smoke can be a trigger? Are they immune to it through repeated exposure? Did they just all die young, especially as China is pretty much the most polluted place on earth (http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no=354010&rel_no=1)? Or does anti-smoking public opinion only start to appear once restrictive legislation comes into place?

*Of course, you could argue that the ban on smoking in the underground was a direct result of the Oxford Circus fire (http://www.answers.com/topic/oxford-circus-fire) and King's Cross disaster (http://www.answers.com/topic/king-s-cross-fire), and that the ban on smoking in planes was a result of airlines realising they could save money by recycling air if it was uncontaminated by cigarette smoke. Also, IIRC, British Airways was one of the last airlines to ban smoking.

gojira
2007-07-04, 03:46 PM
We have a similar ban where I live, in Washington State. I love it, because I am asthmatic- it's not "I don't like the smell of smoke" but " I have to use medication when exposed to it".

Pepper
2007-07-04, 04:31 PM
We have a similar ban where I live, in Washington State. I love it, because I am asthmatic- it's not "I don't like the smell of smoke" but " I have to use medication when exposed to it".

But would you not also love it, if there was a bar that clearly stated in big bold letters on the front sign , so that you had absolute knowledge of what was inside..."VENTILATED SMOKING AREA AVAILABLE".

zeratul
2007-07-04, 05:04 PM
Well you go ahead an call your by-law officer on a smoker and see how long it takes them to get there...if ever. Police wont enforce this on a person to person basis, and you will still inhale as much smoke as you ever did before. Im not arguing against your side, im arguing against the government taking sides on a non-governmental issue, regarding a legal product.
We shouldnt be making polite behaviour into law.

Then let's make it illegal. Is there even a poison warning on packs of cigs?

Rex Idiotarum
2007-07-04, 05:12 PM
Hm... Smoking:
Negatives:
- Potential for cancer of about a hundred things.
- Poor quality Cooperate machines, you don't eat McDonald's 3 times a day, you shouldn't smoke 3 times a day.
- Smells bad and dulls senses
- Causes fires
- Probably the highest cause of litter.
- Poor teeth,
- Causes discomfort to other people

Positives:
+ Weight Loss
+ Looks cool.

zeratul
2007-07-04, 05:15 PM
Hm... Smoking:
Negatives:
- Potential for cancer of about a hundred things.
- Poor quality Cooperate machines, you don't eat McDonald's 3 times a day, you shouldn't smoke 3 times a day.
- Smells bad and dulls senses
- Causes fires
- Probably the highest cause of litter.
- Poor teeth,
- Causes discomfort to other people

Positives:
+ Weight Loss
+ Looks cool.
QFT, it also messes up your rhespretory system.

Jorkens
2007-07-04, 05:47 PM
Hm... Smoking:
Negatives:
- Potential for cancer of about a hundred things.
- Poor quality Cooperate machines, you don't eat McDonald's 3 times a day, you shouldn't smoke 3 times a day.
- Smells bad and dulls senses
- Causes fires
- Probably the highest cause of litter.
- Poor teeth,
- Causes discomfort to other people

- really bad for pregnant women.

Gygaxphobia
2007-07-04, 05:56 PM
You can't always choose where to work. I understand that each job has certain risks, but I think it is a duty to minimize those risks.
And hey, almost everybody gets a smoke-free working environment already (enforced by law, at least in Germany), why not the people in the gastro-business?

Yes you can. You can always choose where you work. If you can't it's called slavery.

People choose to work in places where smoking is allowed, because they are greedy (i.e. put their wages before their health). Ergo, their choice whether to inhale smoke or not = stupid law.

TheOOB
2007-07-04, 06:11 PM
While I don't believe smoking should be banned outright, it should only be allowed in your own private residence or areas specifically designated to allow smoking.

Just as my right to live takes priority over your right to kill me, my might to not have to be subjected to second-hand smoke takes priority over your right to force second hand smoke upon me. Smoking near others could in a very real sense be considered assault with a deadly weapon. That may seem a little over-dramatic (and it is), but the fact remains that smoking is dangerous, deadly even, and second hand smoke is no better, and oftentimes worse.

A governments job is to protect it's people, thus a government is obligated to prevent smokers from smoking around others.

Plus if a smoking ban has the side effect of making smokers stop smoking, that can hardly be considered a bad thing.

Jorkens
2007-07-04, 06:18 PM
People choose to work in places where smoking is allowed, because they are greedy (i.e. put their wages before their health).
Yeah. Those greedy people who want to pay the rent and feed their family and not get lung cancer. It's shocking.

BugFix
2007-07-04, 06:21 PM
People choose to work in places where smoking is allowed, because they are greedy (i.e. put their wages before their health). Ergo, their choice whether to inhale smoke or not = stupid law.

So your position is that, say, a non-smoking waitress should be expected to simply quit if she becomes unexpectedly pregnant and doesn't want to expose her fetus to the carcinogens. She has no reasonable expectation of a safe work environment, and must choose between her livelihood and her child. Does that sound right?

I have to wonder if all the energy expended by all the 2-pack-a-day libertarians here might be better directed at, y'know, quitting instead of trying to justify what is an increasingly marginal position.

Yiel
2007-07-04, 06:26 PM
I thought I'd post here with my viewpoint. I was working in Hospitality in Brisbane when the smoking laws began to be tightened. I was used to having a collection of ashtrays in my bar, and accepted that if I was going to be a Bartender through Uni that I just had to put up with the smoke. If I couldn't, I would have to find another job.

There were rules about smoking within a certain distance from food if you required cutlery, but most of our clientele preferred a bowl of chips to a sit-down meal while the footy was on.

When the laws hit that made it illegal to smoke in bars, clubs etc, it was glorious for me as my asthma problems cleared right up. But it was hell on the bars. More people sat outside, more people were stuck on the pavement where we legally couldn't put ashtrays, and we swept up more butts from around doorways than ever before. The smell of smoke had gone, but the litter had increased tenfold.

In Brisbane there is a lock-down law in our Clubs that prevents people from entering after 3am, even if they had been inside and had just jumped outside for a smoke. This is supposed to decrease the amount of drunken brawling, but it really puts young female smokers in serious danger. A girlfriend of mine who is a light smoker didn't see the time when she went outside of a local Valley venue to have a cigarette. She had left her handbag inside with friends, and her mobile phone. She was not allowed back inside and the bouncers refused to contact her friends inside for her. A cold drunken stumble through the Valley at 4am in the morning brought her to my doorstep where I rang through to her friends for her.

Gygaxphobia
2007-07-04, 06:44 PM
Yeah. Those greedy people who want to pay the rent and feed their family and not get lung cancer. It's shocking.

Ah sarcasm! You lose!


So your position is that, say, a non-smoking waitress should be expected to simply quit if she becomes unexpectedly pregnant and doesn't want to expose her fetus to the carcinogens. She has no reasonable expectation of a safe work environment, and must choose between her livelihood and her child. Does that sound right?

Funny how she didn't care about a safe work environment before, and now liberty has to suffer. Her employer could offer redeployment if she was a worker they wanted to keep. I'm sure there are plenty of non-smoking establishments looking for waitresses who get irresponsibly pregnant.
After all, the female construction worker/miner/lumberjack/other dangerous occupation is in the same position.


I have to wonder if all the energy expended by all the 2-pack-a-day libertarians here might be better directed at, y'know, quitting instead of trying to justify what is an increasingly marginal position.

I don't smoke. Freedom is never a marginal position despite what socialist regulators might think.

BugFix
2007-07-04, 07:00 PM
Funny how she didn't care about a safe work environment before, and now liberty has to suffer. Her employer could offer redeployment if she was a worker they wanted to keep. I'm sure there are plenty of non-smoking establishments looking for waitresses who get irresponsibly pregnant.

Uh, you might want to back off the sexism there a little. I said "unexpectedly" pregnant, not "irresponsibly" -- you do recognize the difference, right? Blaming the woman for actually wanting to keep both her job and her baby is stepping over a bunch of lines that I don't think anyone here wants to get into...


After all, the female construction worker/miner/lumberjack/other dangerous occupation is in the same position.

Indeed, which is why our governments provide extensive and elaborate safety regulation of those industries, just as they are now doing for smoking environments. If you really hate this regulation stuff so much, you might have spoken up for the poor oppressed miners. Doing so now on behalf of smokers seems a little less principled to me.

BugFix
2007-07-04, 07:13 PM
I thought I'd post here with my viewpoint. (...) The smell of smoke had gone, but the litter had increased tenfold.

That's sound entirely plausible; it's a classic law of unintended consequences thing. But to be fair, smoking restrictions aren't about smells, or litter, or even asthma symptoms. They're about very serious long term health consequences for the people exposed.


A girlfriend of mine (...) was not allowed back inside and the bouncers refused to contact her friends inside for her. A cold drunken stumble through the Valley at 4am in the morning brought her to my doorstep

And clearly that's a real safety problem. But it seems to me that if it needs to be solved with a law, it would be much simpler to amend the 3am law to making retrieving your keys allowed, and not by repealing the smoking regulation, no?

Yiel
2007-07-04, 07:32 PM
That's sound entirely plausible; it's a classic law of unintended consequences thing. But to be fair, smoking restrictions aren't about smells, or litter, or even asthma symptoms. They're about very serious long term health consequences for the people exposed.

And clearly that's a real safety problem. But it seems to me that if it needs to be solved with a law, it would be much simpler to amend the 3am law to making retrieving your keys allowed, and not by repealing the smoking regulation, no?

I'm not pro or con for smoking bans. I was just stating my viewpoint.

Icewalker
2007-07-04, 07:39 PM
And you have almost convinced me to move to England.

Smoking in public = being an *******. I'm sorry. You can do whatever you want to your own lungs, but when you start putting cancerous smoke down those of anybody passing by? That's just not fair.

Amotis
2007-07-04, 07:49 PM
Hm... Smoking:
Negatives:
- Potential for cancer of about a hundred things.
- Poor quality Cooperate machines, you don't eat McDonald's 3 times a day, you shouldn't smoke 3 times a day.
- Smells bad and dulls senses
- Causes fires
- Probably the highest cause of litter.
- Poor teeth,
- Causes discomfort to other people

Positives:
+ Weight Loss
+ Looks cool.
+ Flavor/Taste (differing)
+ Slight Body High (relaxation, etc)

Forgot a few things. Not that it balances out but just saying.

Sisqui
2007-07-04, 07:58 PM
It's privately owned, but it's open to public, at least if we're talking about walk-in stores.

That is irrelevant. It is still privately owned. And for people hung up on the roads issue- they are government owned and can legitimately be called public property. The government not only can, but should, regulate traffic on roads, rivers, etc... But stores are not the same. They are privately owned and should be recognized as such.

And one last thing.....freedom isn't free. It involves effort. Superhuman effort that it may be, driving half an hour to another store to buy what you want is perfectly plausible- which is entirely different than being pleasing. Freedom doesn't mean free to have anything you want in the way you most want it. It means having a finite number of choices, evaluating your choices, ranking them according to your own personal preferences/mores, and then making the choice that is most appealing (or least offensive) to you. Freedom does not guarantee that a perfect choice is available, just that some choice is available and you are not compelled by force to make one you do not want.

Hell Puppi
2007-07-04, 07:58 PM
This is going to make me sound like a ****, but:
"War, hunger, disease, rampant drug problems, inferior healthcare, overpopulation, pollution.... but hey we banned smoking!"

Sisqui
2007-07-04, 08:02 PM
Uh, you might want to back off the sexism there a little. I said "unexpectedly" pregnant, not "irresponsibly" -- you do recognize the difference, right? Blaming the woman for actually wanting to keep both her job and her baby is stepping over a bunch of lines that I don't think anyone here wants to get into...


Um....you might not want to be so fast to accuse someone of sexism. He is not being sexist, he is being factual. And as a new mother who got pregnant while working in a high risk profession- I will still back his position. Hats off to you Gygax for the honesty.

Rex Idiotarum
2007-07-04, 08:03 PM
Ah sarcasm! You lose!

No, it's Roman Irony, a valid practice even used by Cicero.

Anyways, why bother? Would it kill you to quite or get a breath of fresh air?

zeratul
2007-07-04, 08:07 PM
That is irrelevant. It is still privately owned. And for people hung up on the roads issue- they are government owned and can legitimately be called public property. The government not only can, but should, regulate traffic on roads, rivers, etc... But stores are not the same. They are privately owned and should be recognized as such.

And one last thing.....freedom isn't free. It involves effort. Superhuman effort that it may be, driving half an hour to another store to buy what you want is perfectly plausible- which is entirely different than being pleasing. Freedom doesn't mean free to have anything you want in the way you most want it. It means having a finite number of choices, evaluating your choices, ranking them according to your own personal preferences/mores, and then making the choice that is most appealing (or least offensive) to you. Freedom does not guarantee that a perfect choice is available, just that some choice is available and you are not compelled by force to make one you do not want.

Which is exactly why we should ban smoking. The pain over the smokers (whom there are less of), is better than the pain of the non-smokers (which there are more of). They need to accomodate to us, not the other way around.

Sisqui
2007-07-04, 08:07 PM
I have to wonder if all the energy expended by all the 2-pack-a-day libertarians here might be better directed at, y'know, quitting instead of trying to justify what is an increasingly marginal position.

I too, do not smoke- a fact which I stated earlier in the thread. I think before you label us as smokers who are too irretrievably biased in favor of our addiction to see reason, you might want to find out if we do, in fact, possess such a habit in the first place. Do the research.


Which is exactly why we should ban smoking. The pain over the smokers (whom there are less of), is better than the pain of the non-smokers (which there are more of). They need to accomodate to us, not the other way around.

Except that my whole point is not that non-smokers should be forced to shop at smoking stores, but rather that stores of both the smoking and non-smoking type should be freely available for consumers to choose from. You seem to want to rephrase my argument to have me say that all stores should be smoking. I am not. I am saying that each store should choose its own practice. Please, get my argument correct before you refute something I didn't say.

Pepper
2007-07-04, 08:10 PM
Which is exactly why we should ban smoking. The pain over the smokers (whom there are less of), is better than the pain of the non-smokers (which there are more of). They need to accomodate to us, not the other way around.

First they came for the smokers, and I said nothing because i was not a smoker...

BugFix
2007-07-04, 08:19 PM
First they came for the smokers, and I said nothing because i was not a smoker...

And Godwin wins again! OK, this thread has clearly run itself out. Analogies between smoking bans and the holocaust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...)? Good grief...

Rex Idiotarum
2007-07-04, 08:20 PM
Except that my whole point is not that non-smokers should be forced to shop at smoking stores, but rather that stores of both the smoking and non-smoking type should be freely available for consumers to choose from. You seem to want to rephrase my argument to have me say that all stores should be smoking. I am not. I am saying that each store should choose its own practice. Please, get my argument correct before you refute something I didn't say.
So, you want to force Smoking and Non-Smoking business to exist? Isn't that like Socialism? You're a damn, Commie, aren't you!
* Blacklists Sisqui *

My point is that smoking will sooner or later be snuffed out, and I'm all for Social Darwinism,
or just plain Darwinism, but when it effects me a person that doesn't drink, doesn't smoke, doesn't do drugs, and certainly doesn't do any stupid things, then I want the problems removed. I'm all for a person killing themselves, just so long as they don't take anyone else with them.

Pepper
2007-07-04, 08:20 PM
And Godwin wins again! OK, this thread has clearly run itself out. Analogies between smoking bans and the holocaust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...)? Good grief...
The poem is about defending the liberties of those whose values dont match your own. It was your poor comparison to the holocaust

Sisqui
2007-07-04, 08:22 PM
So, you want to force Smoking and Non-Smoking business to exist? Isn't that like Socialism? You're a damn, Commie, aren't you!
* Blacklists Sisqui *

My point is that smoking will sooner or later be snuffed out, and I'm all for Social Darwinism,
or just plain Darwinism, but when it effects me a person that doesn't drink, doesn't smoke, doesn't do drugs, and certainly doesn't do any stupid things, then I want the problems removed. I'm all for a person killing themselves, just so long as they don't take anyone else with them.

:smallsigh:
Rex, I would have expected better of you than that. Did I not just say that if you are a non-smoker you would not be forced to patronize a smoking establishment? If you don't shop there, they can't hurt you. You may freely choose to shop in a non-smoking store and a smoker may choose to shop in a smoking one just as freely.


And Godwin wins again! OK, this thread has clearly run itself out. Analogies between smoking bans and the holocaust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...)? Good grief...

Well, that seems to be a bit of a stretch........

zeratul
2007-07-04, 08:23 PM
I too, do not smoke- a fact which I stated earlier in the thread. I think before you label us as smokers who are too irretrievably biased in favor of our addiction to see reason, you might want to find out if we do, in fact, possess such a habit in the first place. Do the research.



Except that my whole point is not that non-smokers should be forced to shop at smoking stores, but rather that stores of both the smoking and non-smoking type should be freely available for consumers to choose from. You seem to want to rephrase my argument to have me say that all stores should be smoking. I am not. I am saying that each store should choose its own practice. Please, get my argument correct before you refute something I didn't say.

Oh, I misread, I'm soory. Yeah, i mean if they had smoking, and non smoking bars, then it's probly work out well, your right.

Also people choose to smoke, I'm not okay with people choosing to possibly kill me. So I'm not okay with smoking.

Sisqui
2007-07-04, 08:25 PM
Oh, I misread, I'm soory. Yeah, i mean if they had smoking, and non smoking bars, then it's probly work out well, your right.


No problem. Sometimes I don't always read things the right way the first time either :smallredface:

zeratul
2007-07-04, 08:26 PM
I get kind of annoyed about how whenever I walk into a store, I have to walk past a bunch of employes smoking. I hold my breath, but it's kinda annoying.

Scorpina
2007-07-04, 08:26 PM
Either smoking should be banned (in which case people would still do it, like they do with other drugs) or not. I really, really dislike this law, and - were I a smoker - I would flaunt it.

I may take up smoking just to do so.

It's the government telling people what to breathe, and it's wrong. Especially when there's no conclusive evidence of passive smoking causing any harm to anyone, ever.

...agh!

Of course, the government can't afford to actually ban smoking, since so much of their income comes from tobacco taxation...

*mutters and rants*

zeratul
2007-07-04, 08:28 PM
Either smoking should be banned (in which case people would still do it, like they do with other drugs) or not. I really, really dislike this law, and - were I a smoker - I would flaunt it.

I may take up smoking just to do so.

It's the government telling people what to breathe, and it's wrong. Especially when there's no conclusive evidence of passive smoking causing any harm to anyone, ever.

...agh!

Of course, the government can't afford to actually ban smoking, since so much of their income comes from tobacco taxation...

*mutters and rants*

Scorp, we have TONS of proof that it causes various cansers, and respiratory problems.

Scorpina
2007-07-04, 08:32 PM
No, see, no you don't. There is NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE of that. Yes, it 'has been linked with' stuff, which obviously must mean that smoking is a bad thing (tm), but no, there is no PROOF of it, AT ALL.

For that matter there is no PROOF that smoking causes lung cancer, yet they still see fit to put it on the boxes.

Britain has a relatively low percentage of smokers and, for that number, an absurdly high number of 'smoking related illnesses'. Comparatively, for example, Germany has a relatively massive number of smokers and very little smoking related illness.

...that doesn't add up, does it? Could it be that the number of 'smoking related illnesses' in Britain is exaggerated? Could it be that smoking is not, in fact, the devil? I think it could.

zeratul
2007-07-04, 08:34 PM
Dude, you think it's coincidence that TONS of smokers get cancer, or respiratory problems? You think it's coincidence that it causes people's asma to act up? This isn't a corporate scam.

J_Muller
2007-07-04, 08:35 PM
For that matter there is no PROOF that smoking causes lung cancer, yet they still see fit to put it on the boxes.


...:smallconfused: In that case, I suppose it's alright for me to shove you down a huge flight of stairs, since there's no PROOF that you'll break your neck on the way down.

Sisqui
2007-07-04, 08:36 PM
No, see, no you don't. There is NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE of that. Yes, it 'has been linked with' stuff, which obviously must mean that smoking is a bad thing (tm), but no, there is no PROOF of it, AT ALL.

For that matter there is no PROOF that smoking causes lung cancer, yet they still see fit to put it on the boxes.

Britain has a relatively low percentage of smokers and, for that number, an absurdly high number of 'smoking related illnesses'. Comparatively, for example, Germany has a relatively massive number of smokers and very little smoking related illness.

...that doesn't add up, does it? Could it be that the number of 'smoking related illnesses' in Britain is exaggerated? Could it be that smoking is not, in fact, the devil? I think it could.



Dude, you think it's coincidence that TONS of smokers get cancer, or respiratory problems? You think it's coincidence that it causes people's asma to act up? This isn't a corporate scam.


Perhaps you should each post some links with relevant facts to support your positions and let the other thread readers evaluate the evidence for themselves. I wouldn't mind getting more info on the subject.......

zeratul
2007-07-04, 08:37 PM
Saying smoking doesn't cause disease is like saying "I just shot the person, it was the bullet rippin through them that killed them!"

J_Muller
2007-07-04, 08:38 PM
Perhaps you should each post some links with relevant facts to support your positions and let the other thread readers evaluate the evidence for themselves. I wouldn't mind getting more info on the subject.......

Gladly.

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35427


Smoking is the number one cause of lung cancer. Lung cancer may also be the most tragic cancer because in most cases, it might have been prevented -- 87% of lung cancer cases are caused by smoking. Cigarette smoke contains more than 4,000 different chemicals, many of which are proven cancer-causing substances, or carcinogens. Smoking cigars or pipes also increases the risk of lung cancer.

Scorpina
2007-07-04, 08:39 PM
I'm not saying they're not linked, there's a lot of evidence to support the theory that they are, but there is not any scientific proof (yet). ESPECIALLY with passive smoking, where there is very little evidence to support the idea that it causes any serious harm.

Yes, if I smoke I'm more likely to get lung cancer. Well, that's my choice. You can bugger off and keep your lungs clean if you want, but if I want to smoke I'm going to smoke, even if that means I have to go outside.

See, I find it perfectly acceptable for, say, a bar or a restaraunt or whatever to say "No, you can't smoke in our building." That's great, that's fine. However, when the command comes from on high that "It's illegal to smoke in any building, even your own home!" (if, say, you live in University accomodation like me) REGARDLESS of whether the OWNER of that building wants you too or not (or even if you ARE the owner, for that matter), then it becomes a complete load.

*wanders into a public building with three walls and a roof and lights a cigarette*

Sisqui
2007-07-04, 08:39 PM
Saying smoking doesn't cause disease is like saying "I just shot the person, it was the bullet rippin through them that killed them!"

Actually, both halves of that statement are equally true.....:smallwink:



See, I find it perfectly acceptable for, say, a bar or a restaraunt or whatever to say "No, you can't smoke in our building." That's great, that's fine. However, when the command comes from on high that "It's illegal to smoke in any building, even your own home!" (if, say, you live in University accomodation like me) REGARDLESS of whether the OWNER of that building wants you too or not (or even if you ARE the owner, for that matter), then it becomes a complete load.

*wanders into a public building with three walls and a roof and lights a cigarette*

Exactly the point I have been trying (and apparently failing) to make :smallsmile:

Hell Puppi
2007-07-04, 08:40 PM
*coughs* I hate to cause a fuss, but Penn and Teller's show "BS" proved that's there no link between second-hand smoke and disease.
It DOES cause problems from asmatics, but the other part is conclusively true.
I'm not saying second-hand smoke is the best thing for you, but everyone can benefit from Penn and Teller's "BS".
I'm not saying it's not rude to smoke in front of people either, just sayin'.

(note: the show is actually called 'Bull****'. They were going to name is 'Humbug' but thought it wasn't strong enough. There's an entire show on 'offensive' language as well. I suggest it to everyone.)

BugFix
2007-07-04, 08:40 PM
No, see, no you don't. There is NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE of that. Yes, it 'has been linked with' stuff, which obviously must mean that smoking is a bad thing (tm), but no, there is no PROOF of it, AT ALL.

Um... that's simply incorrect. The reason these laws are becoming common in so many parts of the developing world is precicely because the case for passive smoking being dangerous has become increasingly solid. Check out the 86 (!) references at the bottom of the Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking) just for a start.

It's not just a nuisance. It's a very serious problem. The money quote is this one:


The study estimated that living or working in a place where smoking is permitted increases the non-smokers' risk of developing heart disease by 25-30% and lung cancer by 20-30%.

That's a far, far higher health risk than any nuisance. It's on par with things like morbid obesity, diabetes and drug abuse. Really, folks: this only seems like a minor issue if you don't know the facts.

Scorpina
2007-07-04, 08:40 PM
...:smallconfused: In that case, I suppose it's alright for me to shove you down a huge flight of stairs, since there's no PROOF that you'll break your neck on the way down.

See, the analogue there would be with me forcing you to smoke. Guess what? I'm not doing that by smoking myself (which I'm not actually doing either...).

zeratul
2007-07-04, 08:41 PM
Perhaps you should each post some links with relevant facts to support your positions and let the other thread readers evaluate the evidence for themselves. I wouldn't mind getting more info on the subject.......

well ther's this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_smoking#Health_Risks_of_Smoking), and there's this (http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2001pres/01fstbco.html) for starters.


See, the analogue there would be with me forcing you to smoke. Guess what? I'm not doing that by smoking myself (which I'm not actually doing either...).

But you are forcing people around you to inhale the smoke, and if you are pregnant, causing a developing infant to smoke (which has caused birth defects).

Sisqui
2007-07-04, 08:44 PM
That's a far, far higher health risk than any nuisance. It's on par with things like morbid obesity, diabetes and drug abuse. Really, folks: this only seems like a minor issue if you don't know the facts.

And what, exactly, in our posts has given you the idea that we treat self sovereignty as a minor issue? I have not stated that second hand smoke isn't dangerous- in fact, that is entirely irrelevant to the argument that I am making.

J_Muller
2007-07-04, 08:45 PM
See, the analogue there would be with me forcing you to smoke. Guess what? I'm not doing that by smoking myself (which I'm not actually doing either...).

Did I say I was supporting/not supporting any sort of smoking ban? I'm just saying that there are conclusive links between smoking and lung cancer.

Scorpina
2007-07-04, 08:47 PM
Forcing? No. No I'm not. If someone near you and smoking, and you don't want to inhale the smoke, you can leave. Go on, there's the door. Go home. Nobody's forcing you to stay, and I can't imagine why you'd want to be in the same building as a filthy smoker anyway. After all, they smell bad and give you cancer! And they eat children!

If I'm pregnant, then yes, I probably shouldn't smoke. However, I'll hazard a guess that the majority of smokers aren't pregnant. I also feel compelled to point out that my mother smoked while she was carrying me, and I'm perfectly healthy. Not that that means that smoking while pregnant is okay, but just to show that it doesn't ALWAYS destroy the baby.

Sisqui
2007-07-04, 08:49 PM
well ther's this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_smoking#Health_Risks_of_Smoking), and there's this (http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2001pres/01fstbco.html) for starters.



But you are forcing people around you to inhale the smoke, and if you are pregnant, causing a developing infant to smoke (which has caused birth defects).

I would be curious to see if the study cited here corrected for other lifestyle factors affecting longevity. For instance, a non-smoker probably is more health concious in general and therefore might eat better and exercise, both of which would increase their lifespan.

zeratul
2007-07-04, 08:49 PM
Forcing? No. No I'm not. If someone near you and smoking, and you don't want to inhale the smoke, you can leave. Go on, there's the door. Go home. Nobody's forcing you to stay, and I can't imagine why you'd want to be in the same building as a filthy smoker anyway. After all, they smell bad and give you cancer! And they eat children!

If I'm pregnant, then yes, I probably shouldn't smoke. However, I'll hazard a guess that the majority of smokers aren't pregnant. I also feel compelled to point out that my mother smoked while she was carrying me, and I'm perfectly healthy. Not that that means that smoking while pregnant is okay, but just to show that it doesn't ALWAYS destroy the baby.

But of the majority of the people in the area are non smokers, who don't like the smoke, why should they have to put up with it? As I said, pain of the few over the pain of the many.

Scorpina
2007-07-04, 08:51 PM
But of the majority of the people in the area are non smokers, who don't like the smoke, why should they have to put up with it?

They don't. They can still leave. Or they can ask the smoker to stop. You'll find that most of them are reasonable about it, if you're polite.

[qutoe]As I said, pain of the few over the pain of the many.[/QUOTE]

That's called the tyranny of the majority. Tell me, what do you have against oppressed minorities?

Sisqui
2007-07-04, 08:52 PM
But of the majority of the people in the area are non smokers, who don't like the smoke, why should they have to put up with it? As I said, pain of the few over the pain of the many.

Inconvenient, then, that our Constitution was written with the express intention of preventing majority rule from infringing on individual liberties.

zeratul
2007-07-04, 08:52 PM
That's called the tyranny of the majority. Tell me, what do you have against oppressed minorities?

Nothing, unless they're slowly killing me. As Rex said, wanna kill yourself, go for it, just do it in a fashion that isn't gonna kill others.

Hell Puppi
2007-07-04, 08:54 PM
Errr not sure if this is a good point or not, but I quit smoking when I was pregnant...a few other things too.
Just because we smoke doesn't mean we want to harm others.....

zeratul
2007-07-04, 08:54 PM
Errr not sure if this is a good point or not, but I quit smoking when I was pregnant...a few other things too.
Just because we smoke doesn't mean we want to harm others.....

I'm not saying you do, I'm saying you are when you smoke, want to or not.

Sisqui
2007-07-04, 08:55 PM
Nothing, unless they're slowly killing me. As Rex said, wanna kill yourself, go for it, just do it in a fashion that isn't gonna kill others.

GAH!!! How many times do we have to say that there are non-smoking facilities freely available to those who want them. We are not speaking of banning smoke free areas, we are speaking of NOT banning ones that allow it!

Hell Puppi
2007-07-04, 08:56 PM
Read my previous post, there's no conclusive link between second hand smoke and disease.

zeratul
2007-07-04, 08:58 PM
GAH!!! How many times do we have to say that there are non-smoking facilities freely available to those who want them. We are not speaking of banning smoke free areas, we are speaking of NOT banning ones that allow it!

At least where I live most places don't ban it though. Most of them are for smokers, and non smokers ,maybe NYS is just different *shrug*.

Scorpina
2007-07-04, 09:00 PM
Most of them don't ban it? Well, that's their choice (in America, because you don't have a moronic government ban like us). Since it's not all of them, you and the other non-smokers who don't want to be around smokers still have smoke-free places you can go, while smokers and those who don't mind being around them can go to the other places. What, exactly, is wrong with that?

Sisqui
2007-07-04, 09:00 PM
At least where I live most places don't ban it though. Most of them are for smokers, and non smokers ,maybe NYS is just different *shrug*.

Perhaps they are, but that is a situation best remedied at the local level by petitioning the owners to change their policies. Convincing them to do so of their own volition (through appeals to higher profits from non-smoking customers, etc...) is the free market solution. Bans are mob rule by legislative fiat.

zeratul
2007-07-04, 09:01 PM
Nothing, all I'm saying is I'm not sure if any of the bars have banned it. I mean they just got around to banning it on playgrounds..

Rex Idiotarum
2007-07-04, 09:04 PM
(Let's see, Holocaust Reference was done, so I'll do the Civil Rights one.)

I see what you're saying, Sisqui, we should open up separate, but equal parts of the community, there will be Smoker and Non-Smoker schools, Smoker and Non-Smoker Bars, and even a separate part of the bus where smokers can sit, preferably in the back so the smoke won't drift into the Non-Smoker section.

Scorpina
2007-07-04, 09:06 PM
...in an ideal world, no. In an ideal world, smokers and non-smokers would live together in harmony.

...but some non-smokers, apparently, don't want that.

zeratul
2007-07-04, 09:06 PM
(Let's see, Holocaust Reference was done, so I'll do the Civil Rights one.)

I see what you're saying, Sisqui, we should open up separate, but equal parts of the community, there will be Smoker and Non-Smoker schools, Smoker and Non-Smoker Bars, and even a separate part of the bus where smokers can sit, preferably in the back so the smoke won't drift into the Non-Smoker section.

To be fair, I'm pretty sure you can't smoke at schools or on busses.

Hell Puppi
2007-07-04, 09:08 PM
I'm not afraid of a smoking ban...I'm afraid of the world becoming like 1984, the Giver, or some other dystopia universe. Sure no one gets HURT...kinda....

zeratul
2007-07-04, 09:09 PM
...in an ideal world, no. In an ideal world, smokers and non-smokers would live together in harmony.

...but some non-smokers, apparently, don't want that.

Yes we would be very harmonious corpses:smallamused: .

Vuzzmop
2007-07-04, 09:12 PM
I'm not saying they're not linked, there's a lot of evidence to support the theory that they are, but there is not any scientific proof (yet). ESPECIALLY with passive smoking, where there is very little evidence to support the idea that it causes any serious harm.

Yes, if I smoke I'm more likely to get lung cancer. Well, that's my choice. You can bugger off and keep your lungs clean if you want, but if I want to smoke I'm going to smoke, even if that means I have to go outside.

See, I find it perfectly acceptable for, say, a bar or a restaraunt or whatever to say "No, you can't smoke in our building." That's great, that's fine. However, when the command comes from on high that "It's illegal to smoke in any building, even your own home!" (if, say, you live in University accomodation like me) REGARDLESS of whether the OWNER of that building wants you too or not (or even if you ARE the owner, for that matter), then it becomes a complete load.

*wanders into a public building with three walls and a roof and lights a cigarette*

No scientific proof? There is a huge amount of evidence to support the fact that smoking, even passive smoking, causes damage to your body. It sounds like you are in denial, trying to support your own view that smoking is alright for everyone around you to put up with. Your university campus doesn't want you smoking because it pisses everyone else who lives there off, who have to put up with your habit's effects. Plus the smell. Don't forget the smell. It's not a matter of infringing on your rights, but simply the government trying to make life better and more civilised for those around you. Marijuana is illegal, and that doesn't infringe on a stoner's rights, does it? Cigarettes are addictive drugs, and if it wasn't already so "important" to our cultures, it would be illegal. Think about it.

Sisqui
2007-07-04, 09:12 PM
(Let's see, Holocaust Reference was done, so I'll do the Civil Rights one.)

I see what you're saying, Sisqui, we should open up separate, but equal parts of the community, there will be Smoker and Non-Smoker schools, Smoker and Non-Smoker Bars, and even a separate part of the bus where smokers can sit, preferably in the back so the smoke won't drift into the Non-Smoker section.

We shouldn't do anything. For one, government schools are free to regulate the activity on their premises as they see fit. Bus companies will set their policies according to their customer feedback. So, if you don't want people smoking, call up their public relations department and raise a little Hell. Again, government interference is unnecessary.

And if it really gets to you, walk. I mean, if we outlaw the buses too, there will be no pollution from them to kill people right? Sure, people will lose their jobs because they can't get to work, but their health is at stake! Isn't saving them more important than their economic livelihood? If I have only their best interests at heart, then surely I must be right! They must accede to my superior knowledge and bask in the beneficence that is the inevitable result of my condescending to master them. They should be grateful, DAMMIT!


Marijuana is illegal, and that doesn't infringe on a stoner's rights, does it? Cigarettes are addictive drugs, and if it wasn't already so "important" to our cultures, it would be illegal. Think about it.

Ahem. Yes, in fact, it does. And before people start harping on that statement, I have never in my life smoked THAT either.

BugFix
2007-07-04, 09:16 PM
*coughs* I hate to cause a fuss, but Penn and Teller's show "BS" proved that's there no link between second-hand smoke and disease.

Um, that's a joke, right? Penn and Teller are Las Vegas entertainers (hardly the most unbiased population when it comes to smoking regulation -- they literally are getting their paychecks from the bars and casinos that are most affected by this legislation). They really aren't capable of "proving" anything here. I'm sorry, but they're just not qualified.

I obviously haven't seen it, but I suspect that their show parroted one of the many criticisms of smoking ban legislation, almost all of which are funded by the tobacco industry and all of which represent minority views in the scientific and medical communities. There's a good section in the wikipedia page I linked to about this stuff too.

You're welcome to believe it if you like, but given the choice between believing Magicians and, y'know, doctors, I know where I'll put my trust.

zeratul
2007-07-04, 09:17 PM
*coughs* I hate to cause a fuss, but Penn and Teller's show "BS" proved that's there no link between second-hand smoke and disease.
It DOES cause problems from asmatics, but the other part is conclusively true.
I'm not saying second-hand smoke is the best thing for you, but everyone can benefit from Penn and Teller's "BS".
I'm not saying it's not rude to smoke in front of people either, just sayin'.

(note: the show is actually called 'Bull****'. They were going to name is 'Humbug' but thought it wasn't strong enough. There's an entire show on 'offensive' language as well. I suggest it to everyone.)

Dude that is hillarious. Pen and tellers show BS is in fact, often a load of BS.

Hell Puppi
2007-07-04, 09:18 PM
Actually marijuana being illegal infringes upon a lot of rights, and having it be illegal is putting medicine for those with cancer/ getting chemotherapy a few steps backward.

Hell Puppi
2007-07-04, 09:20 PM
I will, totally and completely believe them because I've looked it up for myself. Making fun of me isn't going to change my opinion.

Vuzzmop
2007-07-04, 09:20 PM
We shouldn't do anything. For one, government schools are free to regulate the activity on their premises as they see fit. Bus companies will set their policies according to their customer feedback. So, if you don't want people smoking, call up their public relations department and raise a little Hell. Again, government interference is unnecessary.

And if it really gets to you, walk. I mean, if we outlaw the buses too, there will be no pollution from them to kill people right? Sure, people will lose their jobs because they can't get to work, but their health is at stake! Isn't saving them more important than their economic livelihood? If I have only their best interests at heart, then surely I must be right! They must accede to my superior knowledge and bask in the beneficence that is the inevitable result of my condescending to master them. They should be grateful, DAMMIT!



Ahem. Yes, in fact, it does. And before people start harping on that statement, I have never in my life smoked THAT either.

So not being allowed to smoke a horrible and mind destroying drug is infringing onn their rights? What about cocaine? Heroine? Crystal Meth? Are we really oppressing these people or are the government just trying to maintain a standard of decency in the country? It's what they are made to do, you know. The government are there to govern, not lay back and watch their country fall apart around them.

Medicinely, yes, marijuana would be better off legal, but that is the only time when it should be. If this had enough public support, it would work, but at the moment there are too many people against it.

Pepper
2007-07-04, 09:22 PM
So not being allowed to smoke a horrible and mind destroying drug is infringing onn their rights? What about cocaine? Heroine? Crystal Meth? Are we really oppressing these people or are the government just trying to maintain a standard of decency in the country? It's what they are made to do, you know.
Is This Steven Colbert?

Hell Puppi
2007-07-04, 09:22 PM
Marijuana is not more potent than drinking, which was banned because it caused women to be beaten by their husbands, if you'll remember?
Pot has nowhere near the destructive capabilities of meth, or even tobacco

zeratul
2007-07-04, 09:23 PM
If people wan't pot they can just go to my old neighbor's house, (when they arrested him, they took out a ton of pot.) In any case we need laws. With out laws there is anarchy, anarchy cannot sustain itself, If there's anarchy anyone can do anything, One could just go and ill everyone without reppercussions.

Hell Puppi
2007-07-04, 09:24 PM
That's not the original point of government. If I remember correctly it was the states right to chose?
I'm saying freedom should be allowing yourself to die at whatever pace you like, and I'm particularly pissed off about pot because it means lots of sick people could be helped with this drug and they're not because of legislation!

"The people have a right to congregate"
I also believe there's something in there (the bill of rights, constitution) about overthrowing a tyrannical government?

J_Muller
2007-07-04, 09:25 PM
Um, that's a joke, right? Penn and Teller are Las Vegas entertainers (hardly the most unbiased population when it comes to smoking regulation -- they literally are getting their paychecks from the bars and casinos that are most affected by this legislation). They really aren't capable of "proving" anything here. I'm sorry, but they're just not qualified.

I obviously haven't seen it, but I suspect that their show parroted one of the many criticisms of smoking ban legislation, almost all of which are funded by the tobacco industry and all of which represent minority views in the scientific and medical communities. There's a good section in the wikipedia page I linked to about this stuff too.

You're welcome to believe it if you like, but given the choice between believing Magicians and, y'know, doctors, I know where I'll put my trust.

Actually, they're probably not slanted that way. They are, however, slanted towards a libertarian atheist viewpoint. I haven't seen the episode in question, but they're usually relatively fair. They do only target those who go against their personal viewpoints, though.

It's also a totally hilarious show. You should watch it sometime.

zeratul
2007-07-04, 09:27 PM
That's not the original point of government. If I remember correctly it was the states right to chose?
I'm saying freedom should be allowing yourself to die at whatever pace you like, and I'm particularly pissed off about pot because it means lots of sick people could be helped with this drug and they're not because of legislation!

I'd be fine if they allowed it exclusively for medicinal purposes. But when it's publicly available (like it pretty mutch is in California, New York, and other areas containing lots of ghettos) things turn ugly.

Hell Puppi
2007-07-04, 09:28 PM
POT????
Pot only tuns things ugly when someone laces it with another illegal drug. What about the tendency of people turning violent on alcohol? Should we ban that again, too?

Scorpina
2007-07-04, 09:29 PM
POT????
Pot only tuns things ugly when someone laces it with another illegal drug.

Which wouldn't happen anywhere near of much if it was legal...

Hell Puppi
2007-07-04, 09:31 PM
Exactly! It could be regulated and taxed, therefore we could have more medicine developed and have more tax money spent on things that are really affecting the country.

zeratul
2007-07-04, 09:32 PM
POT????
Pot only tuns things ugly when someone laces it with another illegal drug. What about the tendency of people turning violent on alcohol? Should we ban that again, too?

Listen personally I don't care if they leagalize pot, I'd rather pot than cigs. But I wish cigs were more like pot is now, people who use it use it usually in their own home, around other people who use it, they don't have to affect us who don't use it.

Rex Idiotarum
2007-07-04, 09:33 PM
My point is that in the privacy of your own home, I don't give a @#$% about what you do. But, Smoking is like walking around naked. I don't want to be near it when it happens. And, yes, public displays of nudity can get you into a lot of trouble, but it does give you an icebreaker when you're forced to meet the neighbors.

Hell Puppi
2007-07-04, 09:33 PM
Where we get put in jail for using it if caught?

Vuzzmop
2007-07-04, 09:34 PM
Tyrannical government? The UK, USA, Australia, NZ etc, are far better off than most countries. Mugabe, anyone?. The government has a right to do what is believed to be for the best, and is backed by the majority. Beer does more damage then marijuana, but is so deeply trapped within our culture that illegalising it would be almost impossible, marijuana on the other hand, is hayed by most of the uneducated masses, and is easier to stop. The government pick thir battles, they just chose the wrong one that time. Smoking on the other hand, is addictive and harmful to a much greater extent, and while a complete ban would be almost impossible, to regulate it to this extent is what I percieve to be fair.

zeratul
2007-07-04, 09:34 PM
That's why people who use it do it in their own homes.:smallamused:

Hell Puppi
2007-07-04, 09:35 PM
...you're still not getting the point...you want tobacco to be an ILLEGAL DRUG?


ARRRGG seriously, you're worried more about tobacco than any of the other problems facing people today?

This was all my original point....you're more worried about something easily fixed than more harrowing problems.

zeratul
2007-07-04, 09:36 PM
(please read whole post)Sure, that's fine with me, I'd like it. But it's not practical, and won't happen. Therefor regulating it as far as we possibly can without banning it is the way to go IMO.

Sisqui
2007-07-04, 09:37 PM
So not being allowed to smoke a horrible and mind destroying drug is infringing onn their rights? What about cocaine? Heroine? Crystal Meth? Are we really oppressing these people or are the government just trying to maintain a standard of decency in the country? It's what they are made to do, you know. The government are there to govern, not lay back and watch their country fall apart around them.


As a matter of fact, yes it does. Government is not your nanny.

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. – H.L. Mencken

Hell Puppi
2007-07-04, 09:39 PM
*mutters to self8*Its either we're going towards the fate of Rome or that of the Giver.
Science fiction regulation seems more likely.... I'm gonna start a fight club....

zeratul
2007-07-04, 09:44 PM
Wow people need to stop comparing The US, and UK to tyrranies. Look at them, then look at Korea, or the many countries with monarchies. We take our freedom for granted.

Sisqui
2007-07-04, 09:46 PM
Wow people need to stop comparing The US, and UK to tyrranies. Look at them, then look at Korea, or the many countries with monarchies. We take our freedom for granted.

But never more so than when we are willing to vote as a majority to deprive a minority/individual of their rights. Remember, a pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.

*notes the sad irony of this discussion on this, of all possible days*

Scorpina
2007-07-04, 09:47 PM
No, no we don't. Because it isn't.

Yes, we're MORE free than lots of other people, but we're not completely free. I want to go out dancing naked in the rain, but I'm not allowed to. Similarly, I have friends who want to sit in a pub and enjoy a smoke with their pint, and now they're not allowed to either. Because we're not completely free and pointing out that other people are less free doesn't change that.

Hell Puppi
2007-07-04, 09:48 PM
I'm not saying we don't have one of the best living statuses out there, I'm saying we just need to keep on track. There's always something wrong that needs to be fixed, and always someone telling you that they're the one to fix it...

zeratul
2007-07-04, 09:50 PM
Please read above post about why anarchy is a bad idea.

We have to accomodate. Everyone doesn't want the same thing. So we have the public vote on what the want, and go with the majority veiw so that most people are happy. You can't please everyone.

BugFix
2007-07-04, 09:52 PM
[OK, one last civics lesson, then I'll take off and head back to lurking. I'll also point out that discussion of illegal drugs is clearly banned on these forums, and limit myself to a discussion about tobacco bans only.]

Chill, folks. Forcing smokers to smoke at home is hardly "oppression," any more than is forcing non-smokers to endure smoke just to go to a night club to see their favorite band.

It's a conflict between two populations, that's all it is, and it is government's job to mediate that conflict. In the past, when we didn't know any better, we were permissive and resolved the conflict in favor of the smokers. Now that we have better information*, we know that what used to be a nuisance to both sides is now a nuisance to one and a danger to the other.

So needless to say, we are in the process of changing our regulation regimes to reflect the best/safest compromise. There just aren't any Great Principles at stake here. It's just democracy working the way it always has.

* Scorpina and HellPuppi, please do some deeper research here, and maybe ask a few doctors or scientist friends to help you interpret things. The arguments for passive smoking being dangerous are elaborate and convincing; the arguments against are industry-funded spin analagous to the global warming denialism you see from right wing interests in the US.

Hell Puppi
2007-07-04, 09:53 PM
I changed my mind...rome....
one word: collesium

Sisqui
2007-07-04, 09:56 PM
Please read above post about why anarchy is a bad idea.

We have to accomodate. Everyone doesn't want the same thing. So we have the public vote on what the want, and go with the majority veiw so that most people are happy. You can't please everyone.

This is a Constitutional republic. That means we are bound by the rights enshrined in the Constitution. These rights are not subject to majority rule. In publicly owned venues, I have no problem with people accomodating each other via government regulation provided no individual rights were trampled on. But, on private property, even that is overstepping the government's authority. Not that that has ever stopped them, mind you. And BTW, a constitutional republic is, by definition, NOT anarchy.


[OK, one last civics lesson, then I'll take off and head back to lurking. I'll also point out that discussion of illegal drugs is clearly banned on these forums, and limit myself to a discussion about tobacco bans only.]

Chill, folks. Forcing smokers to smoke at home is hardly "oppression," any more than is forcing non-smokers to endure smoke just to go to a night club to see their favorite band.

It's a conflict between two populations, that's all it is, and it is government's job to mediate that conflict. In the past, when we didn't know any better, we were permissive and resolved the conflict in favor of the smokers. Now that we have better information*, we know that what used to be a nuisance to both sides is now a nuisance to one and a danger to the other.

Physician, heal thyself.

A civics lesson given by a misinformed instructor, so it seems. Forcing smokers to smoke only in their homes is oppression if they wish to freely associate in privately owned businesses and cannot do so because of the arbitrary whims of mass sentiment. If all smokers got together to ban non-smoking businesses, I would still be making my argument, just defending the non-smokers instead.

Jorkens
2007-07-04, 09:57 PM
So your position is that, say, a non-smoking waitress should be expected to simply quit if she becomes pregnant and doesn't want to expose her fetus to the carcinogens. She has no reasonable expectation of a safe work environment, and must choose between her livelihood and her child. Does that sound right?

Bears restating. (Very slight edit - I don't think it matters whether she expected to become pregnant or not.)

Scorpina
2007-07-04, 10:11 PM
* Scorpina and HellPuppi, please do some deeper research here, and maybe ask a few doctors or scientist friends to help you interpret things. The arguments for passive smoking being dangerous are elaborate and convincing; the arguments against are industry-funded spin analagous to the global warming denialism you see from right wing interests in the US.

I live with a doctor. My mother has been practicing medicene for (I believe) over a decade. She is also a smoker, and firmly of the belief that passive smoking causes no serious harm. Of course, she's not infallible, but I trust her more than I trust Wikipedia, as far as medical issues are concerned at least. Of course, she could be swayed by the fact that - given that she works for the NHS - a sizable portion of her paycheck is dependant on the money raised by taxing tobacco.

It's also naive to thing that the government funded reasearch into smoking is any less biased by where the money is coming from than the industry funded research. Independant research cannot exist in a capitalist society without independant sources of wealth randomly giving it to scientists.

Anxe
2007-07-04, 10:46 PM
I want to point this out to people everywhere and especially governments.
If you make smoking illegal, how do you tax it?

Sisqui
2007-07-04, 10:55 PM
I want to point this out to people everywhere and especially governments.
If you make smoking illegal, how do you tax it?

Simple, you form a huge governmental agency to enforce the ban and force citizens to pay taxes to fund it (but higher taxes than the actual cost of enforcement necessitates, of course:smallamused: ) :smallwink:

Vuzzmop
2007-07-04, 11:22 PM
As a matter of fact, yes it does. Government is not your nanny.

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. – H.L. Mencken

I kind of agree with you on that. The government isn't a nanny service, but it is there to maintain what is percieved to be appropriate standards in the country it rules. Quoting Mencken won't help much though. Marijuana is less dangerous then smoking or drinking, and should be more accessable accordingly, but I do believe that tabacco is a problem, and that the government should be able to control what is accepted in public places. In your own house, do what you want, but I just don't think that people should be allowed to do harmful things to other people, and that is what smoking in a public place is. I don't give a steaming pile if you want to commit slow suicide on your own, but a government restriction on smoking in public is a great way of balancing the "needs" of those addicted, with the rights of the public to be unnaffected by this poison. I don't mean to sound totalitarian, but a balance needs to be found that doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, and that's what this is.

zeratul
2007-07-04, 11:37 PM
Guys let's step back from polotics a bit. It's not allowed on the forum remember.

J_Muller
2007-07-04, 11:41 PM
As a matter of fact, yes it does. Government is not your nanny.

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. – H.L. Mencken

A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

Hell Puppi
2007-07-04, 11:45 PM
That's kinda..anti...your point....

LCR
2007-07-05, 02:19 AM
No, see, no you don't. There is NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE of that. Yes, it 'has been linked with' stuff, which obviously must mean that smoking is a bad thing (tm), but no, there is no PROOF of it, AT ALL.

For that matter there is no PROOF that smoking causes lung cancer, yet they still see fit to put it on the boxes.

Britain has a relatively low percentage of smokers and, for that number, an absurdly high number of 'smoking related illnesses'. Comparatively, for example, Germany has a relatively massive number of smokers and very little smoking related illness.

...that doesn't add up, does it? Could it be that the number of 'smoking related illnesses' in Britain is exaggerated? Could it be that smoking is not, in fact, the devil? I think it could.

Um, that is so wrong it hurts. Smoking is not bad? You've got to be kidding me. My uncle is a pneumologist, believe me, smoking is bad, it causes shortness of breath and yes, it does cause lung cancer.

LCR
2007-07-05, 02:30 AM
GAH!!! How many times do we have to say that there are non-smoking facilities freely available to those who want them. We are not speaking of banning smoke free areas, we are speaking of NOT banning ones that allow it!

Noooooho! There aren't! The world isn't your ideal libertarian paradise! Sometimes there is no choice, because of various circumstances.
There aren't always alternatives, and even the oh-so-powerful market isn't going to provide everybody with perfect alternatives to choose from. That's okay, of course, you just need to compromise a little. But should you compromise your own well-being? Wouldn't it be easier if just the smokers wouldn't smoke inside the store/shop/pub? This is a question of priority and health comes first.

The Orange Zergling
2007-07-05, 02:43 AM
I personally really like the public-smoking ban. Its your bad habit, I shouldn't have to suffer for it.

Flakey
2007-07-05, 06:31 AM
Wow people need to stop comparing The US, and UK to tyrranies. Look at them, then look at Korea, or the many countries with monarchies. We take our freedom for granted.


I am sorry but I had to laugh, and then point this out. I apologise for being rude, but the UK is a monarchy. :smallsmile:

Solo
2007-07-05, 06:36 AM
I personally really like the public-smoking ban. Its your bad habit, I shouldn't have to suffer for it.
What do you propose to do about car exhaust?


No, see, no you don't. There is NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE of that. Yes, it 'has been linked with' stuff, which obviously must mean that smoking is a bad thing (tm), but no, there is no PROOF of it, AT ALL.

For that matter there is no PROOF that smoking causes lung cancer, yet they still see fit to put it on the boxes.

Britain has a relatively low percentage of smokers and, for that number, an absurdly high number of 'smoking related illnesses'. Comparatively, for example, Germany has a relatively massive number of smokers and very little smoking related illness.

...that doesn't add up, does it? Could it be that the number of 'smoking related illnesses' in Britain is exaggerated? Could it be that smoking is not, in fact, the devil? I think it could.

Hate to break it to you, but you're kinda wrong.

Cigarettes have been found to contain lots of harmful chemicals and carcinogens.

The Prince of Cats
2007-07-05, 06:50 AM
I am sorry but I had to laugh, and then point this out. I apologise for being rude, but the UK is a monarchy. :smallsmile:
To be specific, a Constitutional Monarchy like many other European monarchies... There is a difference.

Perhaps it would be better to compare the UK to an autocracy (which we are not). If you wanted to be ironic, you could always compare the US and UK to a democracy (since neither country is a democracy, merely democratic) and point out that neither nation scores more than 8.22 on The Economist's Democracy Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index). (I would argue this is political science, not politics, or I wouldn't even post it)

LCR
2007-07-05, 07:05 AM
What do you propose to do about car exhaust?

Cut exhaustion down to a minimum. But cars, compared to cigarettes, serve a purpose (transportation), while smoking is merely your personal amusement. It is absolutely not necessary.

Quincunx
2007-07-05, 07:13 AM
Note for the non-U.S. debaters: smoking regulations come down from the state level of government, not the federal level, and most of you have been arguing at the federal (nationwide) level. I do not know which level levies cigarette taxes.

I wish that it had been possible to define the smoking bans so that (at least in cold climates) smokers could have a better-sheltered area in which to smoke without making a loophole large enough to hold entire buildings.

Two people can deny the facts at the end of reports for and against second-hand smoke, but they cannot deny nonfactual experience--the smell of nicotine and tightening brachii, walking out of the smell and relaxation of the involuntary muscles.

Mad Scientist
2007-07-05, 08:41 AM
I live in Madison, WI and smoking is prohibited in indoor public places. I'm fine with no smoking in schools, shops, grocery stores, etc. The city recently passed a smoking ban for resturants and bars. You can smoke if they have an outdoor patio that is a designated smoking area, but not inside. I personally appreciate being able to go out and get a drink and play pool without coming home smelling like an ashtray. (I don't smoke). It's too bad the economy can't control whether a business is smoke free or not. If a resturant serves alchohol they need a liquor licence, but that doesn't work for smoking because people don't buy cigaretes at the resturant like you would buy beer. You can't go to a bar with a keg of beer, but you can go with a pack of smokes. So, for a "smoking licence" to work, the bar would have to ban bringing your own cigaretes and insist that you buy from the bar. I don't think smokers would go for it. All in all, I'm fine with the smoking ban. That's my 2 cents.

BugFix
2007-07-05, 08:56 AM
What do you propose to do about car exhaust?

Regulate the crap out of it. Control the way gasoline is manufactured. Regulate the additives to gasoline seasonally. Require vapor recovery nozzles at fuel stations. Require a standard octane analysis of gasoline sold. Require that lead be added to the fuel reduce hydrocarbon emissions, then when it's discovered that lead itself is a pollutant require that all cars have a platinum-based catalytic converter instead. Require a certain mileage average of all cars manufactured. Require that all cars be inspected regularly to ensure they don't develop emissions problems as they age.

You are the third or fourth person to point out this "Cars are just as bad!" idea and my mind boggles as to where it's coming from. It's just a horribly, horribly flawed analogy. Other public health problems (like "car exhaust") are subject to all sorts of regulation in our society. Smoking has not been, primarily because we just didn't know any better. Now we do, and our governments are in the process of fixing that.

So think of your point as being the opposite: why shouldn't we be treating smoking the same way we do car exhaust, and passing legislation to minimize public exposure?

Solo
2007-07-05, 09:14 AM
Not saying that they shouldn't just wondering how you plan to do it.

On a sidenote, seeing people overreact to things is oddly amusing.

Flakey
2007-07-05, 09:42 AM
cars, compared to cigarettes, serve a purpose (transportation), while smoking is merely your personal amusement. It is absolutely not necessary.

I presume you classify amusement parks, cinemas, ice cream etc etc all purposeless too. Since by your definition they do not have a roll outside personal amusement?

Also cars are not absolutely necessary either, they just very very convient for the way half the world has lived in the last 50 years.

Jean d'Eath
2007-07-05, 09:55 AM
i envy the brits... i hope for a smoking ban in germany...

LCR
2007-07-05, 10:03 AM
I presume you classify amusement parks, cinemas, ice cream etc etc all purposeless too. Since by your definition they do not have a roll outside personal amusement?

Also cars are not absolutely necessary either, they just very very convient for the way half the world has lived in the last 50 years.

No, their purpose is amusement. While they do have a cultural role as well, watching a movie has no direct negative effects on the people around you.

I haven't said cars are absolutely necessary, I just said that their main purpose is that of transportation, not amusement.

Azrael
2007-07-05, 10:09 AM
I wouldn't stretch the "amusement/entertainment is not necessary" line too far before the few remaining Libertarians in the conversation smack the living crap out of that with things like Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence)

Zafuel
2007-07-05, 10:12 AM
I live with a doctor. My mother has been practicing medicene for (I believe) over a decade. She is also a smoker, and firmly of the belief that passive smoking causes no serious harm. Of course, she's not infallible, but I trust her more than I trust Wikipedia, as far as medical issues are concerned at least. Of course, she could be swayed by the fact that - given that she works for the NHS - a sizable portion of her paycheck is dependant on the money raised by taxing tobacco.

It's also naive to thing that the government funded reasearch into smoking is any less biased by where the money is coming from than the industry funded research. Independant research cannot exist in a capitalist society without independant sources of wealth randomly giving it to scientists.

No offense, but the government is unlikely to be neutral. If anything, they will be in favour of keeping it; the tax on cigarettes is a massive amount of revenue. Your mother (from what you have said) has a definite vested interest, whilst government funded research has a vested interest the wrong way and still passed the ban.

Aotrs Commander
2007-07-05, 10:16 AM
If someone has the right to slowly kill me (and make me stink and put me in an off mood whilst they're at it) as I sit in the restaurant then I should damn well have the right to stab them in the face.

I like your style.



Positives:
+ Weight Loss
+ Looks cool.

Fixed it for you.


My point is that smoking will sooner or later be snuffed out, and I'm all for Social Darwinism,
or just plain Darwinism, but when it effects me a person that doesn't drink, doesn't smoke, doesn't do drugs, and certainly doesn't do any stupid things, then I want the problems removed. I'm all for a person killing themselves, just so long as they don't take anyone else with them.

Exactly. I personally take the same level of satisifaction from the ban as whe they made it illegal to drive while on a mobile.



I'd be quite happy if they flat-out banned smoking, come to that. I would quite happily endorse a law that had people who go out specifically to become mentally incompetant (i.e drunk, etc) disembowled where they stand, if not unilaterally ban those substances altogether. Were I in a position to to so, I would ensure all cars were converted to electric (probably with computer control to minimise road accidents once the technology was reliable enough) and everywhere had solar cells attached to the roofs to reduce the amount of carbon emissions, since threr's no excuse but ecomomical not to do so. I'd also make stupidity, bigotry and willful ignorance terminal offenses.

The more I see of humanity, the more it convinces me that, frankly, that 'freedom' is all too often espoused by those who use it as an excuse meaning 'I can be as much as an asshat as I want and you/The Man can't stop me'. I speak not of this issue in isolation (nor any specific persons), but in more issues than I can shake a dead Elf at. I'm really beginning to think freedom should be a priviliedge not, right, some days. Most days. The combined obstinate idiocy of humanity overall in this and many other issues is staggering.

If I had my way, I'd put the entire of humanity under continual surveillance, with the threat of instant, summary execution, and keep it there for a few years. And when humanity is thus forced to play nice - or die - it can have it's toys back. Or go extinct.

Either suits me.

LCR
2007-07-05, 10:17 AM
I wouldn't stretch the "amusement/entertainment is not necessary" line too far before the few remaining Libertarians in the conversation smack the living crap out of that with things like Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence)

Last time I checked, cinemas were not necessary for survival. Cinemas are nice to have, sure, and I'm not saying they should be banned (why would I want to do that??), but you could do without.
But we're getting off-topic here. The point is, while smoking maybe nice and all that, it's not necessary and then it's also damaging your health and that of others. What's the big deal with prohibting it in public places (and yes a pub IS a public place, even though it is privately owned)?





Exactly. I personally take the same level of satisifaction from the ban as whe they made it illegal to drive while on a mobile.



I'd be quite happy if they flat-out banned smoking, come to that. I would quite happily endorse a law that had people who go out specifically to become mentally incompetant (i.e drunk, etc) disembowled where they stand, if not unilaterally ban those substances altogether. Were I in a position to to so, I would ensure all cars were converted to electric (probably with computer control to minimise road accidents once the technology was reliable enough) and everywhere had solar cells attached to the roofs to reduce the amount of carbon emissions, since threr's no excuse but ecomomical not to do so. I'd also make stupidity, bigotry and willful ignorance terminal offenses.

The more I see of humanity, the more it convinces me that, frankly, that 'freedom' is all too often espoused by those who use it as an excuse meaning 'I can be as much as an asshat as I want and you/The Man can't stop me'. I speak not of this issue in isolation (nor any specific persons), but in more issues than I can shake a dead Elf at. I'm really beginning to think freedom should be a priviliedge not, right, some days. Most days. The combined obstinate idiocy of humanity overall in this and many other issues is staggering.

If I had my way, I'd put the entire of humanity under continual surveillance, with the threat of instant, summary execution, and keep it there for a few years. And when humanity is thus forced to play nice - or die - it can have it's toys back. Or go extinct.

Either suits me.

This not exactly helping. In fact, it is destructive and not necessary at all. Freedom is important. Constant surveillance and instant execution? Cynic, oppressive and elitist. What makes you think, you and your laws are right? That's why there needs to be freedom of opinion, that's why there need's to be public discussion.
All systems like yours have ever contributed to humanity is oppression, suffering and injustice.

Azrael
2007-07-05, 10:27 AM
Last time I checked, cinemas were not necessary for survival. Cinemas are nice to have, sure, and I'm not saying they should be banned (why would I want to do that??), but you could do without.
But we're getting off-topic here.

No, the irony is that we are, in fact perfectly on topic: In the vast majority of ... hmm, which mildly in appropriate term to use ... free/ democratic/ industrialized nations, the pursuit of personal happiness is as unalienable a right as the right to survival.

Smoking, TV, Cars, Electricity ... how far should we go, all the way to anything except food and shelter? ... are not necessary for survival. Yes, or at least "sort of". But as far as governance is concerned, they are frequently just as important as the right to live.

So arguing that a government can eliminate the ability to do things that are enjoyable to the participants based on the argument that they are not "critical for survival" is laughable -- no government makes distinctions about what is "critical for survival" only what rights an individual has.

And that is where the smoking ban can and will be upheld -- where one individual's right to happiness (smoking) interferes with another's equally inalienable rights.

Solo
2007-07-05, 10:28 AM
I'm really beginning to think freedom should be a priviliedge not, right, some days. Most days. The combined obstinate idiocy of humanity overall in this and many other issues is staggering.

If I had my way, I'd put the entire of humanity under continual surveillance, with the threat of instant, summary execution, and keep it there for a few years.

You first.

LCR
2007-07-05, 10:38 AM
No, the irony is that we are, in fact perfectly on topic: In the vast majority of ... hmm, which mildly in appropriate term to use ... free/ democratic/ industrialized nations, the pursuit of personal happiness is as unalienable a right as the right to survival.

Smoking, TV, Cars, Electricity ... how far should we go, all the way to anything except food and shelter? ... are not necessary for survival. Yes, or at least "sort of". But as far as governance is concerned, they are frequently just as important as the right to live.

So arguing that a government can eliminate the ability to do things that are enjoyable to the participants based on the argument that they are not "critical for survival" is laughable -- no government makes distinctions about what is "critical for survival" only what rights an individual has.

And that is where the smoking ban can and will be upheld -- where one individual's right to happiness (smoking) interferes with another's equally inalienable rights.

This is what I'm trying to say.

Rex Idiotarum
2007-07-05, 11:38 AM
No offense, but the government is unlikely to be neutral. If anything, they will be in favour of keeping it; the tax on cigarettes is a massive amount of revenue. Your mother (from what you have said) has a definite vested interest, whilst government funded research has a vested interest the wrong way and still passed the ban.
On the opposing side, many taxpays and supporters are non-smokers, in fact, a majority of people don't smoke because they are either quiting or dying.Since non-smokers are the group that you want on your side in election year, it is far more important that they get what they want. If a polititian went to a group of non-smokers, and said, "I want everyone to smoke a pack a day where ever they wish." He would very soon become unpopular.

I think payoffs and the massive addictions is all that keep Smoking alive, if not thriving.

I realize that persons are smart, they can come to the right conclusions about problems, but when people get into a group, they'll blindly follow the loudest person and believe whatever he says.

Telonius
2007-07-05, 11:56 AM
So.........it's OK to hurt people if you PAY for the privilege? Just saying, if that is really the justification for the fee....:smalleek: I think letting people freely associate with or without smokers is a better way.


Wow, I leave for two days and the thread goes nuts! Anyway, yes, by current law, it is okay to hurt people if you pay for the privilege, in certain situations. For example, paying for permits. Pollution, noise, alcohol; various businesses pay for these and other such permits. (I'm sure there are some permits that individuals would be able/required to buy, but I can't think of any at the moment). With each one, it's been determined that what the business is doing is - in some way - harming people. The harm is not so large that whatever behavior should be banned altogether, and there are usually subsidiary benefits to what's being regulated - manufacturing jobs, a nice place to have a drink, that sort of thing. But the harm does exist whenever the business does. So the federal, state, and local governments issue permits and force businesses to give compensation to the harm they're causing by existing. They allow the business to harm people if they pay for the privilege.

Fallon
2007-07-05, 03:51 PM
I, as a health-conscious and pregnant non-smoker, am happy about some of the restrictions on smoking. But I would like I guess a nice clear restatement of the different points about smoking in businesses. I like the bans for government areas and malls and such, but I'm still not so sure about businesses that are their own enclosed space. So far I think that businesses should be able to choose whether they are smoking or not, and should have to put a big notice saying that they are a smoking establishment. But I would like more organized points about it.

BugFix
2007-07-05, 05:20 PM
I would like I guess a nice clear restatement of the different points about smoking in businesses.

There are two big arcs to the argument. The first is that places of business serve the public. In our society, that means they are subject to laws governing their behavior for the benefit of all. Typical examples: They must be properly zoned -- you can't open a restaurant in your home. They must not discriminate on the basis of race or sex (with a few exceptions like women-only gyms). They must have a license to serve alcohol. They must not be open between certain hours at night. The list goes on and on. Every one of these laws was enacted because the legislatures thought that they would have a net benefit to society. Smoking bans are just a newer example of the same kind of rule-making (and, IMHO, much more justifiable than some of the examples above).

The second is that a place of business needs to cater to the safety of its employees. There are copious regulations governing workplace safety as well: safety equipment is required by law in certain industries, as is regular safety inspection. Toxic compounds must not be released into the workplace environment. Accidents and other safety-related occurrences need to be logged and reported. Now that we know that passive smoking is dangerous in the same way that chemical exposure is dangerous, it only makes sense that it be regulated in the same way.

Note that I've tried to phrase the arguments above in terms of the kind of regulation that government already does, so we don't get distracted by the libertarian musings about whether government should be doing what it does. There's a place for that sort of argument (and I'm actually more sympathetic to it than I might have seemed in this thread) but frankly it has nothing to do with smoking and is just a distraction here.

I've also ignored the denialist position that "passive smoking isn't (or isn't known to be) dangerous" for simplicity. There are arguments to be found there too, but suffice it to say that the medical and scientific communities as a whole don't lend them much credence. To my (scientifically trained, but non-expert) eyes, and within a very good probability, passive smoking is known to be a public health hazard worth regulating. The wikipedia page on passive smoking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking) is actually very complete, and a great starting point for those interested in the debate about the facts.

Gygaxphobia
2007-07-05, 06:43 PM
I Why does there have to be a compromise?

Tomorrow, I want to take my own money (that I have earnt legally) and invest it in a business.
Yes, a legitimate business that creates wealth and pays tax, a business that employs people.
My business will allow people to sit around and enjoy life with other people, perhaps playing cards, watching TV or otherwise entertaining themselves. I will invite people who wish to work in my business to come and serve the customers, to prepare them food, to clean their shoes and to buy them newspapers. I may sell drinks, and pens and postcards, and even little soft cuddly kitten toys.

I will tell them all and sundry that my business allows smokers, that I would like them to view my business as a smoking establishment, and that anyone is welcome to come to my business and enjoy my entertainment, and (if they wish too) to smoke.
I will put signs on the door, informing people that my establishment allows smoking. I will put up posters informing patrons of the dangers of smoking. I will have leaflets from health organisations on the diseases it can cause, and even on ways to battle smoking addictions.

Why will you stop me, us and anyone who chooses to join us?

Gygaxphobia
2007-07-05, 06:48 PM
II Why does there have to be a compromise?

Tomorrow, I want to take my own money (that I have earnt legally) and invest it in a business.
Yes, a legitimate business that creates wealth and pays tax, a business that employs people.
My business will allow people to sit around and enjoy life with other people, perhaps playing cards, watching TV or otherwise entertaining themselves. I will invite people who wish to work in my business to come and serve the customers, to prepare them food, to clean their shoes and to buy them newspapers. I may sell drinks, and pens and postcards, and even little soft cuddly kitten toys.

I will tell them all and sundry that my business does not approve of smokers, that I would like them to view my business as a non-smoking establishment, and that anyone is welcome to come to my business and enjoy my entertainment, as long as they do not smoke.
I will put signs on the door, informing people that my establishment does not allow smoking. I will put up posters informing patrons of the dangers of smoking. I will have leaflets from health organisations on the diseases it can cause, and even on ways to battle smoking addictions.

Why will you not stop me, us and anyone who chooses to join us?

BugFix
2007-07-05, 06:52 PM
Why will you stop me, us and anyone who chooses to join us?

For precicely the same reasons that we prevent you from being open at 4am, from serving liquor without a license, or from exposing your employees to unsafe levels of pesticides.

The rules are already there, and yes, your business must adhere to them. You can't get around of them by saying "we only serve nightowls", "we don't serve drunks" or "our employees sign pesticide wavers". Those are all directly analogous points for restaurants, bars or nurseries, and they don't work there. So let me ask you: why should smoking be treated any differently?

Basically, your point fits directly into the libertarian philosophy stuff I mentioned. It's not about smoking. You want to live in a society with unregulated business. The problem is, you don't.

Gygaxphobia
2007-07-05, 07:04 PM
Basically, your point fits directly into the libertarian philosophy stuff I mentioned. It's not about smoking. You want to live in a society with unregulated business. The problem is, you don't.

Smoking is about liberty and is just one more right that is being eroded. You can't just discount the entire point of the argument.

I don't like the snowball argument but that's exactly what your position encourages: where do you draw the line?
Where does the government stop regulating what is safe for you?

Everything could be safer, but when does the individual get to decide what level of safety they want?

Hushdawg
2007-07-05, 07:14 PM
People can smoke in my airspace as much as they want, as long as I can piss in their drinks.

The reality is that tobacco smoke is toxic; that is a fact, there's no debating it, even the tobacco companies agree.

Why should anyone other than the one CHOOSING to smoke have to be subjected to it?

All this civil liberties talk is bogus because you smokers using such an excuse don't give a flying flip about the right of us non-smokers to breathe non-toxic air.