FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Should Government impose ban on smoking in public?






Should Government impose ban on smoking in public?
YES
64%
 64%  [ 43 ]
NO
35%
 35%  [ 24 ]
Total Votes : 67

dipesh
with the style quotient attached to smoking, is the government imposed ban on smoking in public places going to make a difference in the present times?
Today's youth may try to always get what they want,but it is up to the government to regulate what they get access to. if the government wants people to cut down on smoking,then instead of restricting the places,it should bring in measures that drastically cut down the cigarette production & import. if one doesn't get a cigarette easily then no style , no harm to others through passive smoking & clean air for everybody to breathe. just because of some masses shouldn't suffer.
ocalhoun
No, no, no, NO!

The government's role should stop at informing people that it is bad for them. Any more than that is needless restriction of freedom.
Perhaps, in the interest of potential second-hand smoke victims, you could enact a law that says smokers must stop smoking in a public place when asked, but it should not be banned entirely- even in situations where nobody cares.
Ashtray
In my country (Argentina) smoking is banned from closed enviroments. Nevertheless, smokers can do so outside.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
The government's role should stop at informing people that it is bad for them. Any more than that is needless restriction of freedom.
Perhaps, in the interest of potential second-hand smoke victims, you could enact a law that says smokers must stop smoking in a public place when asked, but it should not be banned entirely- even in situations where nobody cares.
It has been medically proven that smoking is hazardous for our health, both of the smoker and the people in its proximity when it is smoking. I still can't understand why people are acting cautiously about this, as smoking kills, and it really kills in the most inhumane, painful ways. Not to mention putting an already medical care system that is overextended under greater pressure for lung diseases and cancer, as well as heart disease, and other known consequences of smoking. Everyone knows what they are as most Governments have tried to educate people to the hazards of smoking. Also that by the time that one develops those symptoms, that it would almost be too late to do anything about those.

So equally then should we say that the freedom of murderers should not be restricted? I know this sounds extreme, but is that not just about the same thing? How long did Governments do just that, i.e. inform people that smoking is bad for them, and did it make any difference? I don't think so. So I am completely in favour of actively banning smoking in public places. The more banning the better.

Smoking is as bad for your health as they say, even worse. I am seriously worried about especially teenagers who are smoking as they need to be made aware off just how bad it is for their health. Which I believe, thankfully, there are many people who are doing just that. I would like the bans to be extended to all public places, also at bus stops, or any other public congregation sites outside buildings. Preferably smoking should be completely outlawed, but definitely in all public places.
Nameless
Yes, yes, yes, YES! (Also, yes.)

Health concerns be damned there because are far worse offenders, but it stinks and really annoys me. Next on the list: under-use of deodorant on public transport? BAN IT! Overuse of deodorant anywhere at all? BAN IT. Casually littering on my sidewalk? REINSTATE THE DEATH PENALTY VIA INSTANT SNIPING.
DoctorBeaver
I've got mixed feelings about this subject. I'm a great believer in personal freedoms and oppose unnecessary intrusions into people's lives. However, smoking is something that can have a very adverse effect on others. As such, I feel some restrictions should be in place. The question is how far those restrictions should go.

I cannot agree with a total ban in all public places including outdoors. Someone smoking in the middle of a recreation ground is doing no harm to anyone. However, 20 people huddled outside an office building smoking is a different matter; especially if you need to go past them to get into the building.

There were some rather spurious arguments put forward to support the smoking ban in pubs and clubs; notably that bar staff should not be subjectd to second-hand smoke. Whilst that is superficially true, it's a complete red herring as people who work in pubs and clubs do so of their own free will and knew before they started that there would be smokers there. It's the equivalent of enacting a law to stop firemen attending fires in case they get hurt. OK, that's extreme and very silly, but the logic of it is the same. If anyone doesn't want to breathe other people's smoke, don't work in a bar. Simple.

I also feel that it should have been left to landlords to decide whether their establishment should be non-smoking. Pubs already display large signs saying "Pool played here" or "Karaoke every Thursday". Why not display a sign saying "Smoking allowed here"? Anyone wanting to avoid smoke could then go to a non-smoking establishment.
saratdear
As far as I know, Indian Government has already imposed a ban on smoking in public places. And I entirely support the move, because the health of passive smokers are too affected, and this is all the better for them.
goutha
Yes, I think that government should impose ban on smoking in public. People who want to smoke should do it in small isolated areas. Smoking is an unhealthy habit that will probably kill the person doing it. It's time to change that habit.

Tobacco producers are trying to do all they can to let people continue smoking. However, I think that the day without tobacco is near!
ocalhoun
goutha wrote:
Yes, I think that government should impose ban on smoking in public. People who want to smoke should do it in small isolated areas. Smoking is an unhealthy habit that will probably kill the person doing it. It's time to change that habit.


The law, if any, should state that they must stop smoking if asked.

The government shouldn't interfere with people's choices about whether or not to harm themselves, and should only step in when needed to prevent them from harming others against their will.
Ankhanu
I absolutely LOVED when our government imposed restrictions on smoking in public places... it made going out to bars, restaurants, malls, universities, etc. MUCH more pleasant. It's great being able to go see some live music and get home at the end of the night not reeking of stale cigarettes. It's fantastic being able to go out to eat and not have to compete with smoke to taste your food. It hasn't reduced the ability of smokers to go out and have fun in public; they just have to go outside to smoke once in a while... and really, it just makes the outside a social spot too.

I visited my family in the States a bit ago and was reacquainted with public smoking and it was, well, wholly unpleasant. Almost seems barbaric.
deanhills
DoctorBeaver wrote:
I cannot agree with a total ban in all public places including outdoors. Someone smoking in the middle of a recreation ground is doing no harm to anyone. However, 20 people huddled outside an office building smoking is a different matter; especially if you need to go past them to get into the building.
This is a very good posting thanks DoctorBeaver, and you put it better than I did about smoking outdoors. This is what I actually meant. My most recent experience of that kind was outside Heathrow Airport buildings when I was crossing from one Terminal Building to another and hit pockets of outdoor smoking congregations. Ditto also in Hong Kong, a few years ago, when I hit pockets of indoor smoker zones in a building that needed more ventilation to cope with this.

You also put it well about the importance of personal freedom and privacy. They are important to me too. But perhaps other people abusing their choice to smoke, especially when it has been scientifically proven that it is harmful to us, could also be an infringement of my right not to have to inhale other people's smoking.
airh3ad
here in our local goverment are running after two culprits: the irresponsible smokers, who puff their cigarettes in public and enclosed places; and the establishments that either tolerate these smokers or do not impose the smoking ban.The local police are usually tasked by the LGUs to go after these violators. Some cities have created special teams to do the task. Pasig City, for instance, has its Green Police that focuses on monitoring compliance of citizens and firms with the local environmental and sanitation laws, which prohibit smoking. The team, said Green Police coordinator Racquel Naciongayo, has around 200 members but only few of them are focused on apprehending smokers.

one officer mr. Flora Cayas, who has been with the Green Police for the almost a year, says people caught violating the ordinance usually say that they are not aware of the smoking ban. “Some of them even try to bribe us when they surrender their IDs or driver’s license.”
A Green Police, she says, apprehends an average of 10 violators a day. Most of them are jeepney drivers. “They usually smoke in their jeepney after having lunch.”

Drivers caught smoking inside their jeepney must surrender to the Green police their license and must claim it from the city environment and natural resources office (CENRO). Pedestrians, meanwhile, have to present valid identification cards. this is how our place strict in smoking in the city
andrewsteinborn
I think everything should have their own decisions. How about having a seperate room for people who smoke in non-smoking places?
deanhills
airh3ad wrote:
here in our local goverment are running after two culprits: the irresponsible smokers, who puff their cigarettes in public and enclosed places; and the establishments that either tolerate these smokers or do not impose the smoking ban.The local police are usually tasked by the LGUs to go after these violators. Some cities have created special teams to do the task. Pasig City, for instance, has its Green Police that focuses on monitoring compliance of citizens and firms with the local environmental and sanitation laws, which prohibit smoking. The team, said Green Police coordinator Racquel Naciongayo, has around 200 members but only few of them are focused on apprehending smokers.

one officer mr. Flora Cayas, who has been with the Green Police for the almost a year, says people caught violating the ordinance usually say that they are not aware of the smoking ban. “Some of them even try to bribe us when they surrender their IDs or driver’s license.”
A Green Police, she says, apprehends an average of 10 violators a day. Most of them are jeepney drivers. “They usually smoke in their jeepney after having lunch.”

Drivers caught smoking inside their jeepney must surrender to the Green police their license and must claim it from the city environment and natural resources office (CENRO). Pedestrians, meanwhile, have to present valid identification cards. this is how our place strict in smoking in the city
OK, good reason for moving to the Phillipines for me .... I have heard many other good things too. Smile
mattyj
ocalhoun wrote:
goutha wrote:
Yes, I think that government should impose ban on smoking in public. People who want to smoke should do it in small isolated areas. Smoking is an unhealthy habit that will probably kill the person doing it. It's time to change that habit.


The law, if any, should state that they must stop smoking if asked.

The government shouldn't interfere with people's choices about whether or not to harm themselves, and should only step in when needed to prevent them from harming others against their will.


so we should legalize Heroin, Cocaine etc? Coz its peoples own choice to harm themselves?
ocalhoun
mattyj wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
goutha wrote:
Yes, I think that government should impose ban on smoking in public. People who want to smoke should do it in small isolated areas. Smoking is an unhealthy habit that will probably kill the person doing it. It's time to change that habit.


The law, if any, should state that they must stop smoking if asked.

The government shouldn't interfere with people's choices about whether or not to harm themselves, and should only step in when needed to prevent them from harming others against their will.


so we should legalize Heroin, Cocaine etc? Coz its peoples own choice to harm themselves?

Actually, yes.

Legalizing and regulating it would eliminate many of the problems associated with it.
Taxing it would pay for rehab programs and treatment, and -perhaps- also pay for education programs about the danger of it.

Not only that, but you'd also free up prison space and police manpower, from reduced crime rates, reduced gang activity, and the elimination of most narcotics arrests. Which would allow the government to save money, and focus on more dangerous crimes.
JBotAlan
I am not for complete government control over everything. However, there is a lot at stake for me regarding this particular point.

My grandfather is killing himself with cigarettes. I realize this is his freedom, but that doesn't make the emotional firestorm stop. I don't understand how cigarettes are legal, and other drugs are not. Where is the line? I wonder if the history behind the decision to keep smoking legal wasn't to do with popularity.

Also, there is a legitimate health risk to second-hand smoke, and it goes beyond the obvious. There are people who are susceptible to having asthma attacks, for instance, and they don't need to be in a smoky room to trigger their symptoms. All they need is one face-full of smoke--inside or outside--and it is enough to cause a major problem.

Smoking is disgusting and really never should have been legal.
ocalhoun
JBotAlan wrote:


Smoking is disgusting and really never should have been legal.

That's exactly what I have a BIG problem with!
Laws should not be based on what's disgusting and what's nice.
What about gays? Should being gay be outlawed because some people think it's disgusting?
They should be based on ensuring that every individual has the smallest possible limitation of freedom.
JBotAlan
ocalhoun wrote:
Laws should not be based on what's disgusting and what's nice.


I agree with you when it comes to the "disgustingness" being the only factor in making the law. I am all for allowing people to be free. I like freedom. However, when it begins impacting other people, that is when the behavior must be brought to a halt. For instance, I should have the freedom to come home from the bowling alley without smelling like an ashtray. That is disgusting, and encroaches on my freedom.

I suppose if I had simply posted the part you quoted as opposed to the entire post, I could understand how I would probably irritate many people. However, that is not by any means the only factor I brought into consideration.
ocalhoun
JBotAlan wrote:
I should have the freedom to come home from the bowling alley without smelling like an ashtray. That is disgusting, and encroaches on my freedom.

That should be up to the manager of the bowling alley, not the government.
It would usually come down to which group of customers is more important (numerous), the smokers who won't go if they can't smoke there, or the people who won't go there unless there is no smoking.
Nameless
ocalhoun wrote:
The law, if any, should state that they must stop smoking if asked.

That is a horrible idea for a law. You'd end up with nervous people still being afraid of asking a larger man to stop smoking, rude smokers pretending they didn't hear (and if something was contested, it would be a nightmare to prove in many situations), rude nonsmokers demanding they put it out even when they're just passing, people still being affected by the older smoke hanging around even when the smoker complies ...
deanhills
JBotAlan wrote:
I don't understand how cigarettes are legal, and other drugs are not. Where is the line? I wonder if the history behind the decision to keep smoking legal wasn't to do with popularity.
Neither do I. Especially when there is irrefutable scientific proof that it is not only harmful to the smokers, but also the people who have to inhale the smokers' smoking as well, without having a choice in the matter. Smoking has been proven as the equivalent of russian roulette, with a good chance of developing chronic diseases such as lung and throat cancer and heart disease. I also can't understand why people are allowed to smoke if there is such a good chance of getting these diseases, as technically it is allowing people to commit long-term suicide, and I thought suicide was against the law. Twisted Evil
ocalhoun wrote:
JBotAlan wrote:


Smoking is disgusting and really never should have been legal.

That's exactly what I have a BIG problem with!
Laws should not be based on what's disgusting and what's nice.
What about gays? Should being gay be outlawed because some people think it's disgusting?
They should be based on ensuring that every individual has the smallest possible limitation of freedom.
I doubt that is the reason why smoking is banned, i.e. being disgusting. It is banned as it is harmful to health.
ankitdatashn
See smoking at anytime is bad whether it is passive smoking or active smoking. I strongly condemn when people dont care for others and smoke in their very presence, endangering life of both the people. It is not that what we believe is correct, we should also respect what other believes to be true.

Because smoking has been proved dangerous because of its ill effects@ Tubeculosis, cancer etc therefore at a general scenerio a ban should be imposed at smoking in public places.
deanhills
ankitdatashn wrote:
See smoking at anytime is bad whether it is passive smoking or active smoking. I strongly condemn when people dont care for others and smoke in their very presence, endangering life of both the people. It is not that what we believe is correct, we should also respect what other believes to be true.

Because smoking has been proved dangerous because of its ill effects@ Tubeculosis, cancer etc therefore at a general scenerio a ban should be imposed at smoking in public places.


I found the following Website with information on the harmful effects of smoking:
Quote:
Side Effects of Smoking Cigarettes
Every year hundreds of thousands of people around the world die from diseases caused by smoking - Smoking KILLS.

One in two lifetime smokers will die from their habit. Half of these deaths will occur in middle age.

Tobacco smoke also contributes to a number of cancers.

The mixture of nicotine and carbon monoxide in each cigarette you smoke temporarily increases your heart rate and blood pressure, straining your heart and blood vessels.

This can cause heart attacks and stroke. It slows your blood flow, cutting off oxygen to your feet and hands. Some smokers end up having their limbs
amputated.

Tar coats your lungs like soot in a chimney and causes cancer. A 20-a-day smoker breathes in up to a full cup (210 g) of tar in a year.

Changing to low-tar cigarettes does not help because smokers usually take deeper puffs and hold the smoke in for longer, dragging the tar deeper into their lungs.

Carbon monoxide robs your muscles, brain and body tissue of oxygen, making your whole body and especially your heart work harder. Over time, your airways swell up and let less air into your lungs.

Smoking causes disease and is a slow way to die. The strain of smoking effects on the body often causes years of suffering. Emphysema is an illness that slowly rots your lungs. People with emphysema often get bronchitis again and again, and suffer lung and heart failure.
Lung cancer from smoking is caused by the tar in tobacco smoke. Men who smoke are ten times more likely to die from lung cancer than non-smokers.

Heart disease and strokes are also more common among smokers than non-smokers.

Smoking causes fat deposits to narrow and block blood vessels which leads to heart attack.

Smoking causes around one in five deaths from heart disease.

In younger people, three out of four deaths from heart disease are due to smoking.


Cigarette smoking during pregnancy increases the risk of low birth weight, prematurity, spontaneous abortion, and perinatal mortality in humans, which has been referred to as the fetal tobacco syndrome.

This list can only begin to convey the health effects of smoking cigarettes and why quitting makes sense. Next we consider reasons why smoking is bad those around you in the effects of second hand smoke.

Effects of second hand smoke
Passive smoking (also known as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), involuntary smoking or second hand smoke) occurs when the exhaled and ambient smoke from one person's cigarette is inhaled by other people. Non-smokers exposed to second hand smoke are at greater risk for many of the health problems associated with direct smoking.

In 1992, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a review of the evidence available from epidemiological and other studies regarding the relationship between second hand smoke and heart disease and estimated that passive smoking was responsible for 35,000 to 40,000 deaths per year in the United States in the early 1980s1.

Non-smokers living with smokers have about a 25 per cent increase in risk of death from heart attack and are also more likely to suffer a stroke, and some research suggests that risks to non-smokers may be even greater than this estimate. One recent study in the British Medical Journal found that exposure to second hand smoke increases the risk of heart disease among non-smokers by as much as 60 percent!2.

Passive smoking is especially risky for children and babies and can cause low birth weight babies, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), bronchitis, pneumonia, and middle ear infections.

Some controversy has attended efforts to estimate the specific risk of lung cancer related to passive smoking. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1993 issued a report estimating that 3,000 lung cancer related deaths in the US were caused by passive smoking every year. Tobacco industry lobbyists, such as the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, and industry-funded researchers, such as S. Fred Singer, aggressively attacked the EPA study as "junk science".

In 2002, a group of 29 experts from 12 countries convened by the Monographs Programme of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization reviewed all significant published evidence related to tobacco smoking and cancer. It concluded its evaluation of the carcinogenic risks associated with involuntary smoking, with second-hand smoke also being classified as carcinogenic to humans3.

An earlier WHO epidemiology study also found "weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS". The fact that the evidence was described as "weak" has been interpreted by the tobacco industry and its supporters as evidence that the ETS-lung cancer link has been "disproven".

More precisely, the "weakness" of the evidence stems from the fact that the risk of ETS for individuals is small relative to the very high risk of actually smoking, making it more difficult to quantify through epidemiology. In addition to epidemiology, moreover, several other types of scientific evidence (including animal experiments, chemical constituent analysis of ETS, and human metabolic studies) support the WHO and EPA conclusions.

Most experts believe that moderate, occasional exposure to second hand smoke presents a low cancer risk to non-smokers, but the risk is more likely to be significant if non-smokers work in an environment where cigarette smoke is prevalent. For this reason, many countries (such as Ireland) and jurisdictions (like New York State) now prohibit smoking in public buildings. Many office buildings contain specially ventilated smoking areas; some are required by law to provide them.

References:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/267/1/94
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/bmj.38146.427188.55v1
http://monographs.iarc.fr/htdocs/monographs/vol83/02-involuntary.html
Article History:
Title: Effects of Second Hand Cigarette Smoke
Year: 2005
Authors: Len Johnson. Derived from Wikipedia article: "Tobacco Smoking"
Publisher: Quit-Smoking-Stop.com
License: Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the GNU Free Documentation License

Source: http://www.quit-smoking-stop.com/effects-of-second-hand-smoke.html

CDC also has some good information on the effects of smoking:
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/
truespeed
In the first year of a smoking ban in Scotland there was a 17% fall in admissions for heart attacks.

Source

The benefits to health can't really be argued,not allowing smoking in public places seems fair to me,and the fact that smokers can't smoke in public places,means that they will smoke less,meaning health benefits to them and those around them who in the past have had to breathe in their smoke.

Less people at the hospitals from smoking related illness's,means money saved that can be spent elsewhere in the health services.
Hogwarts
ocalhoun wrote:
JBotAlan wrote:
I should have the freedom to come home from the bowling alley without smelling like an ashtray. That is disgusting, and encroaches on my freedom.

That should be up to the manager of the bowling alley, not the government.
It would usually come down to which group of customers is more important (numerous), the smokers who won't go if they can't smoke there, or the people who won't go there unless there is no smoking.

And what if you're in a position you need to be in, i.e. cannot avoid the smoker? I mean, I personally wouldn't mind if smoking was entirely banned in Australia (currently it's only banned in public places). Having had to wait on a regular basis at a public bus stop in the past, of which generally there were several people actively smoking in the vicinity, I have to ask why I should be forcefully subjected to their noxious gasses. They might as well be urinating all over the place. Indecency aside, they're forcing discomfort upon everybody else in the vicinity. You're neither presented with the option to walk away, nor is it possible to confront everybody in the vicinity and tell them to stop smoking.

So, is their right to smoke honestly greater than my right to exist in a healthy, non-disgusting atmosphere? Why is my right to exist in a healthy, non-disgusting atmosphere neglected here? Even if you're saying that "they should have the freedom to smoke in a public place", why shouldn't I have the freedom to exist in a public place without being repulsed by by some random person's cigarette smoke?
Ankhanu
That's what it really comes down to, Hogwarts. Smokers have enjoyed the right to impose their bad choices upon those who have chosen to not smoke for decades... centuries, now the trend is for the tables to turn... to restrict smoking to private or fully open areas such that their choice doesn't infringe upon the rights of non-smokers. Smokers can smoke... but what gives them the right to foul the air for those who have chosen not to actively poison themselves. Smoking in public basically sends a strong message to those around you, "I'm selfish" and, "your rights/interests are not as important as nicotine". Kinda disgusting really.

As I mentioned in a prior post, smoking in public buildings was banned here. It's been banned for 5-6 years now, and it's wonderful to be able to be out in public without my rights to (moderately) clean air being stomped all over. I love not having to worry about the chemicals in smoke affecting my daughter's health (I've had asthmatic friends with smoking parents... it's amazing how parents can knowingly continue actions that actively harm their children)... There were tonnes of concerns when the law was being put forth concerning the economic prosperity of various institutions, like restaurants, bars and the like, fears of losing a demographic of their customer base... but guess what, smokers still like to go out and have fun and business has not declined... it may have even increased through greater patronage by people like me who avoided entering the smokey establishments.
Ankhanu
truespeed wrote:
... the fact that smokers can't smoke in public places,means that they will smoke less...


My personal observations indicate that bans on smoking in public places does NOT curb an individual's smoking rate; they smoke just as much, just have to excuse themselves from things more often to get their fix.
BigGeek
Ankhanu wrote:
truespeed wrote:
... the fact that smokers can't smoke in public places,means that they will smoke less...


My personal observations indicate that bans on smoking in public places does NOT curb an individual's smoking rate; they smoke just as much, just have to excuse themselves from things more often to get their fix.


I agree with this so much, plus all you folks wanting a ban on smoking in public places are obviously non-smokers. Many of the non-smokers and former smokers I've met are fanatical about it, and want to force everyone into making the choice not to smoke, just like they have.

Me, I didn't start smoking until I was 42 years old. I had started on night shift, and started with just one or two a night with a stiff cup oc coffee to get through the really tired times when your body is rebeling against staying up all night. Thing is it went up from there. Until I was smoking a half a pack a night. After 8 years and having been such a healthy person all my adult life, I was bent on quiting, but it was so damn hard. I've read that they have more success getting people off of heroin than cigarettes.

I finally managed to quite 2 months ago and have been smoke free since, hopefully I can keep it that way, I had to get off the night shift to make it happen. Thing is 3 weeks ago my best freind and night shift companion for the last 10 years died in his sleep of a heart attack, he was 58 years old, and it was directly attributed to smoking 2 packs (40 cigerettes) a day for most of his adult life. This event sealed my desire to stay off them forever.

Thing is, when my smoking friends were in a place where they couldn't smoke for long periods of time, when they were able to smoke they would chain smoke to make up for the lost time that they couldn't smoke! It sure didn't curb their habit any.

Plus, my last comment, is, you shouldn't be so judgemental of those that smoke, it is awful, being addicted, knowing that it hurts your lungs, causes your heart to pound, gives you headachs, and makes your stomach wretch when it is empty, but your body craves them anyway, and no matter how much you may not want to smoke, your body does.....it's called an addiction! And if you have ever experienced it, you might be a hell of a lot less judgemental of those that are.

Trying to force them off of it, is useless! Now I understand not wanting it around you, and as a smoker I always respected non-smokers requests to refrain. But I was never a heavy smoker with a really bad habit, knowing those that are, they would complain about how difficult it was for them to refrain....it may not be that they are being arrogant about it, they just might be hopelessly addicted to it Shocked
deanhills
BigGeek wrote:
Thing is, when my smoking friends were in a place where they couldn't smoke for long periods of time, when they were able to smoke they would chain smoke to make up for the lost time that they couldn't smoke! It sure didn't curb their habit any.
This is an interesting comment, makes sense if someone is really severely addicted, either to the habit of smoking, or the nicotine itself. I found that in my circle of friends, as time progressed with banning it everywhere and people becoming more conscious of how hazardous it is for not only their own health, but for those around them, that some of them gave up smoking, or would go to great lengths to ensure that their partners or friends do not get exposed to their smoking. There was also a kind of stigma that got attached to smokers, as being really very unhealthy.

Hogwarths put it very well about waiting for public transportation and then having to endure lots of smoke by smokers. I find that very irritating too. I remember again while I was in England, and it was raining, and there was smoking around the shelters, I chose to keep my distance in the rain.
standready
As a non-smoker, I am happy the government has stepped in. I like being able to breathe without inhaling second hand smoke.
ocalhoun
standready wrote:
As a non-smoker, I am happy the government has stepped in. I like being able to breathe without inhaling second hand smoke.

Another, very wrong thing...

Just because you don't do something, doesn't mean you should disregard those who do. Political views should be based on principle, not on being selfish.

Just like how I don't own a gun, but I would be outraged if guns were banned. I don't smoke, but I respect the rights of smokers. I'm not gay, but I respect the rights of gays.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
standready wrote:
As a non-smoker, I am happy the government has stepped in. I like being able to breathe without inhaling second hand smoke.

Another, very wrong thing...

Just because you don't do something, doesn't mean you should disregard those who do. Political views should be based on principle, not on being selfish.

Just like how I don't own a gun, but I would be outraged if guns were banned. I don't smoke, but I respect the rights of smokers. I'm not gay, but I respect the rights of gays.
That has to be the ideal Ocalhoun. I seem to remember before smoking got banned, that people were advised not to smoke as that was bad for their health, also that second hand smoke was bad for the health of others. Did this help at all? I don't think so. Only when it became law, did people stop smoking in public places and the message finally got through, it really is bad for your health, as well as the health of others to smoke.
nigam
for me, it doesn't mean that i am being selfish but rather i am concerned with my health and as well as the others' health...The goverment must do something to imply such law to banned smoking on public areas..they must have a non smoking zone...and if there is a smoking zone area, it should be very very far from the public....
speeDemon
in india:

medically yes...
economically no..

In a 1 km radius of my home, there are about 5 shops selling cigarettes and earning a living out of it.. ofcourse they sell other stuff, but bubble-gum and artificial sweetners aren't the real deal. To them, the stash of cash is in the cigarettes...

so, we're talking about 5 guys going unemployed..? nope. the whole population that helps in the production of 595400 tonnes/annum of cigz and its transportation are going to go unemployed, just in one country. In all around.. 50,00,000 tonnes of cigz are produced in around 6-8 countries per year...

so, basically.. we may be talking about 5 crore people going unemployed... (well maybe I'm exaggerating)

But still, its enough to create a whole lot of non-sense all around the world.
and at a time of recession, think about it twice...
deanhills
speeDemon wrote:
in india:

medically yes...
economically no..

In a 1 km radius of my home, there are about 5 shops selling cigarettes and earning a living out of it.. ofcourse they sell other stuff, but bubble-gum and artificial sweetners aren't the real deal. To them, the stash of cash is in the cigarettes...

so, we're talking about 5 guys going unemployed..? nope. the whole population that helps in the production of 595400 tonnes/annum of cigz and its transportation are going to go unemployed, just in one country. In all around.. 50,00,000 tonnes of cigz are produced in around 6-8 countries per year...

so, basically.. we may be talking about 5 crore people going unemployed... (well maybe I'm exaggerating)

But still, its enough to create a whole lot of non-sense all around the world.
and at a time of recession, think about it twice...
Yeah well .... this is probably what people mean when they say that people just seem to be unable to learn their lessons. As long as they can employ those 5 people, it is OK for many more to die of cancer or heart disease from cigarette smoke! Not to mention the health care costs. In essence it is then OK to "kill" people to keep others employed? Mind you, it probably keeps the health care industry quite busy and the tobacco industry does contribute to cancer institutes. You're right, a whole lot of non-sense all around the world.
Nameless
ocalhoun wrote:
Just like how I don't own a gun, but I would be outraged if guns were banned. I don't smoke, but I respect the rights of smokers. I'm not gay, but I respect the rights of gays.

Freedom to own a gun is not the same as freedom to shoot somebody with it, as people have a right to go about their daily life remaining alive.
Freedom to use cigarettes is not the same as freedom to cloud public places in smoke, as people have a right to go about their daily life remaining healthy.
Freedom to be gay is not the same as freedom to homosexually rape someone, as people have a right to go about their daily life remaining unmolested.

The consequences in the case of smoking are subtler, but the principle is the same.
Denvis
No, I don't think it's fair to the smokers, then again it isn't fair to themselves that they're smoking in the first place. There should be zones in which smoking is not permitted (which there already are) and that should be fine. Maybe adding more of those zones would be a good idea.
speeDemon
deanhills wrote:
speeDemon wrote:
in india:

medically yes...
economically no..

In a 1 km radius of my home, there are about 5 shops selling cigarettes and earning a living out of it.. ofcourse they sell other stuff, but bubble-gum and artificial sweetners aren't the real deal. To them, the stash of cash is in the cigarettes...

so, we're talking about 5 guys going unemployed..? nope. the whole population that helps in the production of 595400 tonnes/annum of cigz and its transportation are going to go unemployed, just in one country. In all around.. 50,00,000 tonnes of cigz are produced in around 6-8 countries per year...

so, basically.. we may be talking about 5 crore people going unemployed... (well maybe I'm exaggerating)

But still, its enough to create a whole lot of non-sense all around the world.
and at a time of recession, think about it twice...
Yeah well .... this is probably what people mean when they say that people just seem to be unable to learn their lessons. As long as they can employ those 5 people, it is OK for many more to die of cancer or heart disease from cigarette smoke! Not to mention the health care costs. In essence it is then OK to "kill" people to keep others employed? Mind you, it probably keeps the health care industry quite busy and the tobacco industry does contribute to cancer institutes. You're right, a whole lot of non-sense all around the world.


3.2 million people die annually worldwide from diabetes related causes, so why shouldn't we put a ban on sweets too? they kill too Twisted Evil
Dean_The_Great
I totally think they should, and have designated smoking areas just like everywhere else. Private property to be excepted, obviously. It'll be a sad day when you can't smoke on your own balcony.
joostvane
Already banned here. You can't smoke at places where you can eat, you must go outside. It's also gonna be banned in other public places, very soon.

Btw; I totally agree. It should already have been done years ago.
ocalhoun
Nameless wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Just like how I don't own a gun, but I would be outraged if guns were banned. I don't smoke, but I respect the rights of smokers. I'm not gay, but I respect the rights of gays.

Freedom to own a gun is not the same as freedom to shoot somebody with it, as people have a right to go about their daily life remaining alive.
Freedom to use cigarettes is not the same as freedom to cloud public places in smoke, as people have a right to go about their daily life remaining healthy.
Freedom to be gay is not the same as freedom to homosexually rape someone, as people have a right to go about their daily life remaining unmolested.

The consequences in the case of smoking are subtler, but the principle is the same.

Rolling Eyes

My point is that these things should be decided on principle, not on a selfish sentiment like, "I don't smoke, so let's ban smoking."
chatrack
I agree with the idea which is already proved good in our state as a good practice.

Our state has implemented it, and every one (except adicted) welcome it.

"Smoking in public place" is harmfull to the person as well as others.
So it should be banned by law.
Triple_7
Government needs to butt out Rolling Eyes Sick and tired of them trying to regulate every little thing, and not caring how many rights of the people are taken away by doing so. Here they have already taxed the living crap out of a pack of cigarettes saying it would detour younger smokers...has it...NO. But that's just it...extra tax on cigarettes, not chewing tobacco etc...which is supposedly just as bad. What gives the government the right to tax ONE particular product out of millions of others because its deemed "bad for your health". There's plenty of things...sugar, fast food, pop, etc....they are all deemed bad for your health as well but I don't see a special tax being put on those items Rolling Eyes For cryin out loud...when I started smoking 4 years ago a pack of Marlboro's cost $3.25 a pack...today...$5.38 where I usually buy them...I've seen them up to $6.25 and higher in some spots. That increase...had nothing to do with inflation...pure tax. Greedy government wants more money and so they target 70% of our local population by increasing the cigarette tax...they don't care about the health of people like they preach....they only care about the tax revenue. Mad

The way I see it...if a business owner allows smoking in their building then that's his right, nonsmokers don't like it...there's plenty of other places they can go. Out of the 20+ food places in my little town only 4 of them you can have a smoke in, 1 of those is split in half with a full floor to ceiling wall...smoking only in the bar side. That leaves tons of places for nonsmokers to go...and that's quite an improvement...I'm only 21 but I remember the days...not so long ago either...every fast food place including McDonald's had a smoking section...and there was no walls to separate them.

There was a county to my east that banned smoking even in bars...you know what happened. Those places that had allowed it started to loose 50%-90% of their customers...they all went out of the county to places were you could smoke. To me that's not fair to those businesses in an economy that's already in the dumps....shut some of them down. There's a few that built special patios to allow smoking but for many places it was to expensive to go to that extreme.

I'm just sick of the people who don't smoke constantly complaining about those of us who do. Saying we are disgusting, and dirty....you know what...I'm sure you have some habits others would find just as disgusting but you don't here anyone complaining about those now do you.

Honestly...I don't know about other places...but around here there is VERY few places that allow smoking inside the building. And its not because some government ban...its just courtesy. The only places here are the 3 bars, one food joint, and one boot shop. So if your a non-smoker and won't be around it...you have tons of other places to choose from. So don't try to take away the rights of the rest of us. Bars are going to be smoky...hell have the people I know only smoke when they are at the bar...its just part of the atmosphere...don't like it then don't come in...banishing 95% of the crowd to the outdoors just so 5% can have their "Clean air" is really bad for business Rolling Eyes

As for the health concerns...Don't believe everything. Yes...smoking is bad, but not the only cause of health problems...its just the easiest to blame. There's smokers that live to be a 100+. I lived with a friends family in Taiwan for 3 weeks back in 2006. The entire time I was there her grandfather sat outside in a chair, chain smoking about 3 packs a day. He's now 97 years old...been chain smoking for over 50 years...and hasn't been to the doctor once, nor has any health issues....And there is other cases just like that anywhere you go....so don't sit here and blame smoking for every little health issue that comes along...because its not always the cause Mad

My 2 cents. To people who think government should control every little thing because you don't like it.... Boo hoo! ....can't find my mooning smiley Sad
deanhills
Triple_7 wrote:
There's plenty of things...sugar, fast food, pop, etc....they are all deemed bad for your health as well but I don't see a special tax being put on those items Rolling Eyes
That is not a bad idea at all. Imagine taxes on chocolates, and then a cautionary note of all the things it can cause. Twinkies are even worse, they contain saturated fats and additives that can make you addicted to them, as well as cause obesity. They should be treated like cigarettes too. Not to mention alcohol, right on top of the list.
Triple_7 wrote:
The way I see it...if a business owner allows smoking in their building then that's his right, nonsmokers don't like it...there's plenty of other places they can go. Out of the 20+ food places in my little town only 4 of them you can have a smoke in, 1 of those is split in half with a full floor to ceiling wall...smoking only in the bar side. That leaves tons of places for nonsmokers to go...and that's quite an improvement...I'm only 21 but I remember the days...not so long ago either...every fast food place including McDonald's had a smoking section...and there was no walls to separate them.
You will be surprised how many buildings actually prefer non-smoking as there are many plusses. Walls stay their right colour, there are no cigarette butts littering the place, nor the stench of smoke hanging around, and worst of all, it is a very serious fire hazard. Also, you may also be surprised that there are more non-smokers than smokers, and smokers are getting less, so maybe you are in a crowd that thinks it is cool to smoke, but only for so long. Sort of common sense it is bad for you. And I can't agree with you that taxing them and making them more expensive are not having an affect on the numbers of smokers.

Triple_7 wrote:
There was a county to my east that banned smoking even in bars...you know what happened. Those places that had allowed it started to loose 50%-90% of their customers...they all went out of the county to places were you could smoke. To me that's not fair to those businesses in an economy that's already in the dumps....shut some of them down. There's a few that built special patios to allow smoking but for many places it was to expensive to go to that extreme.
You're right, it must have had a negative affect initially, but what about when they were clamping down on drinking and driving and quite a number of people rather stay at home, than drinking in pubs, as they would then be unable to drive home. Sort of a good sign of society trying to take better care of themselves.

Triple_7 wrote:
I'm just sick of the people who don't smoke constantly complaining about those of us who do. Saying we are disgusting, and dirty....you know what...I'm sure you have some habits others would find just as disgusting but you don't here anyone complaining about those now do you.
I really do not like the smoke on my clothes and in my hair at the end of an evening with smokers. I have not had that happening to me in a long while, but yes, I have to agree it is pretty disgusting. My worries however are more along the lines of inhaling second-hand smoke, and also your health, as when you do not take care of your health, and get cancer or heart disease, which are PROVEN diseases coming from smoking, then that puts a burden on the health care system, and as you know, they already have serious problems with trying to take care of people.

Triple_7 wrote:
As for the health concerns...Don't believe everything. Yes...smoking is bad, but not the only cause of health problems...its just the easiest to blame. There's smokers that live to be a 100+. I lived with a friends family in Taiwan for 3 weeks back in 2006. The entire time I was there her grandfather sat outside in a chair, chain smoking about 3 packs a day. He's now 97 years old...been chain smoking for over 50 years...and hasn't been to the doctor once, nor has any health issues....And there is other cases just like that anywhere you go....so don't sit here and blame smoking for every little health issue that comes along...because its not always the cause Mad
That has to be the exception, not the rule. There is very solid scientific proof of chronic diseases coming from smoking. Yes, you are right, there are other lifestyle factors that are guilty too, as I mentioned above, but maybe they should also be treated in the same way that smoking is. Both of my parents developed serious chronic diseases because of smoking their 60 cigarettes a day over a very long period of time in their lives. They started in their teens, and when they developed signs such as heart cramps, they stopped in their fifties, but by the time they stopped it was too late. Both developed heart disease. My grandfather had lung cancer, my aunt had Emphysema. I really hope that you won't develop any of these diseases one day. Becoming old is not fun at all, and then to have chronic diseases on top of it all, makes it suck real bad. Just imagine that cup of tar that you draw into your lungs over a period of a year, how it clogs up everything, impedes your breathing, how it affects your respiratory system. Imagine how black the insides of your lungs have to be by now! Maybe you should see a movie of what it looks like over a period of time! That has to be willful self-destruction! Evil or Very Mad

My 2-cents. Shocked Smile
Nameless
Triple_7 wrote:
I'm just sick of the people who don't smoke constantly complaining about those of us who do. Saying we are disgusting, and dirty....you know what...I'm sure you have some habits others would find just as disgusting but you don't here anyone complaining about those now do you.

As an additional counterpoint: Triple_7 is right, there are many other habits aside from smoking that many people find disgusting, from picking your nose to (reusing an example) homosexual sex. In all cases, you know that doing so in public* is going to cause conflicts with those who disprove, so complaints are inevitable and basically your fault - as there is still (and shouldn't be) anything stopping you doing the same in private instead, avoiding all problems. YOU are choosing to aggravate and force your habits on others where a simple, peaceful alternative exists, so the onus is on smokers to justify the allowance.

(*FWIW, I'm undecided over private businesses. In principle, they should be allowed to choose whether workers or patrons could smoke etc., but there are practical considerations for them not to - that's another argument, though.)
Ankhanu
Ya know, the whole debate on whether government should regulate or not is really similar to the old debate on whether or not wearing a seat belt in a car should be law... I mean, now it just seems like common sense, but when they were being instituted there was a lot of resistance stemming around "my right"... only difference here is that your choice to continue with personally harmful activities extends to affect others in your immediate vicinity.

I can see opposition to regulation and the belief that personal liberties are at stake... but at the same time people are creatures of habit, and won't change unless forced to do so, even if the result is for their benefit.
deanhills
Ankhanu wrote:
Ya know, the whole debate on whether government should regulate or not is really similar to the old debate on whether or not wearing a seat belt in a car should be law... I mean, now it just seems like common sense, but when they were being instituted there was a lot of resistance stemming around "my right"... only difference here is that your choice to continue with personally harmful activities extends to affect others in your immediate vicinity.

I can see opposition to regulation and the belief that personal liberties are at stake... but at the same time people are creatures of habit, and won't change unless forced to do so, even if the result is for their benefit.
Great to have a sober point of view, as that makes great sense. I was thinking a lighter version of it last night. Looks as though someone is on the verge of bringing out a movie about how food is really killing us. Apparently those born after 2000, have a much greater chance of developing diabetes than we ever had, etc. I was then wondering along your lines over how very shortly we will probably have legislation to ban quite a number of things resulting in food that is bad for us. Simply because more people are getting sick, and obviously more sick people will be straining the healthcare system even further. Like chickens that are pumped full of hormones and antibiotics, and foods that are obviously not good for us.
ocalhoun
Ankhanu wrote:
... but at the same time people are creatures of habit, and won't change unless forced to do so, even if the result is for their benefit.

And they shouldn't be forced, if it is at all avoidable. They should be able to decide for themselves what result is for their best benefit, not have the government tell them what's best for them.

The ONLY valid argument for a smoking ban is the health of second-hand smoke victims.
Inside enclosed buildings that are publicly owned and some people might be forced to go to: banning it makes sense.
BUT, I don't think the health risk of being briefly exposed to smoke in an open, well ventilated or outdoor area justifies an extreme inconvenience to smokers. Requiring them to go outside to greatly protect the health of non-smokers inside makes sense. Requiring them to search for, and perhaps not find, some place where they're allowed to smoke does not make sense.

In summary, my view on the subject:
Ban within private businesses and residences: Up to the owner of the establishment or house, and nobody else.
Ban in private outdoor areas: Up to the owner of the area.
Ban in public outdoor areas: Smoke dissipates fast enough to pose a minimal hazard to non-smokers; no ban (except in places extremely vulnerable to fire hazards).
Ban inside public buildings: Acceptable, to protect the health of others who might be exposed to concentrated smoke.
bigt
ocalhoun wrote:
No, no, no, NO!

The government's role should stop at informing people that it is bad for them. Any more than that is needless restriction of freedom.
Perhaps, in the interest of potential second-hand smoke victims, you could enact a law that says smokers must stop smoking in a public place when asked, but it should not be banned entirely- even in situations where nobody cares.


I also say No. I like the idea of being able to smoke in business until asked to stop by another patron. Smoking has been banned in bars, but I think that choice should be up to the business owner. And don't even get me started on not being able to smoke in one's car on company land; that's just silly. I've seen these employees that have to drive 5 min outside their employer's property to pull over and smoke. I think the car pollution is hurting more people than the second-hand smoke ever could.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Ankhanu wrote:
... but at the same time people are creatures of habit, and won't change unless forced to do so, even if the result is for their benefit.

And they shouldn't be forced, if it is at all avoidable. They should be able to decide for themselves what result is for their best benefit, not have the government tell them what's best for them.
Assuming they are responsible human beings of course. And from the findings of scientific research it would seem that smoking is a very irresponsible and destructive act. One can probably even go as far as "suicidal".

I saw a "Boston Legal" TV show recently, and who knows, this may become real one of these days. The woman was working for a large conglomerate, and doing exceptionally well, winning lots of prizes for getting business in, so she must have been in sales. Anyway the Big Chief of the company decided to make a ruling that those who smoke have to stop smoking completely and that after X months their blood would be tested for nicotine and if positive would be fired on the spot. She could not stop, then got fired, and went to court to fight the right of her boss to fire her for this "cause". Think you would have liked Alan Shore's arguments, which were more or less like yours. But she lost the fight.

The reason the boss imposed this ruling was purely financial, to get a better deal for health coverage of his staff and save lots of money. Probably far-fetched, but I wonder whether this may become a reality for the future.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Ankhanu wrote:
... but at the same time people are creatures of habit, and won't change unless forced to do so, even if the result is for their benefit.

And they shouldn't be forced, if it is at all avoidable. They should be able to decide for themselves what result is for their best benefit, not have the government tell them what's best for them.
Assuming they are responsible human beings of course. And from the findings of scientific research it would seem that smoking is a very irresponsible and destructive act. One can probably even go as far as "suicidal".

... Well, I also think people should be allowed to commit suicide if they want to.
natilovesmike
I do think that the government should impose this law about non-smoking in public places. It's not for the safety of the smoker...but for the safety of the non-smoker sitting right next to him/her! I don't smoke and never have and I have to say that I enjoy so much more going out to bars and restaurants knowing that the air will be clean of cigarette smoke.

I really don't care what your choice is, I just don't want your smoke in my face.
Nameless
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Assuming they are responsible human beings of course. And from the findings of scientific research it would seem that smoking is a very irresponsible and destructive act. One can probably even go as far as "suicidal".

... Well, I also think people should be allowed to commit suicide if they want to.

... And only after they've arranged and paid for the disposal of their body and goods, made their intent clear beyond reasonable doubt so as not to waste police hours, and preferably have no disagreeing relatives or friends to be highly psychologically damaged by their action.

But that's getting off topic. I doubt there's anyone who regularly smokes that doesn't logically know that's it's a Bad Thing, but they've built up a dependency (physical or otherwise) that outweighs their logical reasoning. So if you forced these people to smoke only on private property after they'd become accustomed to smoking throughout the day, you'd end up with a lot of personal confrontations that MIGHT spark a epiphany or at least a practical reduction but ... probably they'd just get pissed and then adapt to their addiction. As for the rebel / nonconformist archetypes, they'd just get pissed and fined. Any NEW smokers I think would end up smoking less overall because they have less opportunities and thus won't reach the same level of dependency unless they were really going out of their way (aka revel archetype or a psyche messed up badly for other reasons).
Triple_7
Quote:
I doubt there's anyone who regularly smokes that doesn't logically know that's it's a Bad Thing, but they've built up a dependency (physical or otherwise) that outweighs their logical reasoning. So if you forced these people to smoke only on private property after they'd become accustomed to smoking throughout the day, you'd end up with a lot of personal confrontations that MIGHT spark a epiphany or at least a practical reduction but ... probably they'd just get pissed and then adapt to their addiction. As for the rebel / nonconformist archetypes, they'd just get pissed and fined. Any NEW smokers I think would end up smoking less overall because they have less opportunities and thus won't reach the same level of dependency unless they were really going out of their way (aka revel archetype or a psyche messed up badly for other reasons).


I'm going to try and be polite here...this is how your statement comes off to me...You just basically called every smoker a brainless idiot that can't think for themselves. Telling us we can't smoke somewhere automatically means we will go into a raging fit....that somewhere close to what you were actually trying to say Neutral Kind of the way it sounds Rolling Eyes

Quote:
In summary, my view on the subject:
Ban within private businesses and residences: Up to the owner of the establishment or house, and nobody else.
Ban in private outdoor areas: Up to the owner of the area.
Ban in public outdoor areas: Smoke dissipates fast enough to pose a minimal hazard to non-smokers; no ban (except in places extremely vulnerable to fire hazards).
Ban inside public buildings: Acceptable, to protect the health of others who might be exposed to concentrated smoke.


That seems perfectly reasonable type of regulation...but not really needed.

Private business such as a local restaurant or bar...up to the owner. Same with private outdoors.

Public outdoor areas...agree, no ban...but I would see it perfectly fit to ban in areas such as a playground or school where young children are present....I go to the park all the time but don't smoke there...not because its banned...just courtesy to those around and the kids. I'm a smoker too, but it bugs the hell out of me to see a mom or dad with a cigarette and chasing their kids around the playground equipment while 20 other kids are playing there as well.

Public buildings...I classify those as the unavoidable...everyone must go to at some point places...like grocery stores, state/government offices, etc. Not a problem since its already a standard thing...never seen someone at the local grocery or at the courthouse lighting up indoors.
------------------------------------------
I mainly smoke because I find it relaxing, not because I think I'm cool. A pack usually lasts me all week, unless its been stressful and then a pack might only last a couples days. Only exception is when I'm at the bar, tend to catch myself smoking a half pack or better in a few hours. Just something about sitting around and having a good time and a few beers makes that pack of smokes disappear rather quickly. There's some days I don't even light a single one...and don't even crave one. Really the only time I have a true urge is during a bad day.

I've only lost my temper once over a smoke. I had been on a 14.5 hour trans-Pacific flight from Taiwan to Los Angeles in a very cramped/uncomfortable economy seat, spent 2 hours getting reamed by crappy mooded customs officials to legally re-enter my own country. Knowing I had another 2 flights and 20 hours before I got home I just wanted a break. Had to switch terminals, which at LAX requires going outdoors. I didn't see any no smoking signs anywhere, found me a quiet little bench well away from any doors and other people, sat down, lit one up. The most relaxed I had been since boarding the plane in Taipei. Not halfway through my first cigarette a security guard came up and said I would have to put it out. When put it out and kindly asked if there was a place I could go he was rude and told me there was no smoking anywhere, which I knew wasn't true. Besides that...wheres the signs. Needless to say I wasn't so relaxed anymore...I just wanted a few minutes to myself and have a smoke before I went back into the hell known as LAX. I got a little irate over it...and amazed I didn't end up getting arrested. But just about every airport has a smoking section outside...so if you don't put up any signs to direct people to them, or any kind of "No Smoking Here" signs...then don't get rude with someone when they light up. Not like I was bothering anyone, the closest person before he showed up was some 30 feet away and the smoke was going strait up anyways.

Just a fair warning...if you ever see someone exit an international terminal and light one up, don't bother them...unless you have a death wish. Long haul flights suck, and airports are stressful enough, let alone getting hassled while going through customs. That is one situation where I can see a smoker going into a rage after being told to put it out...because I've been there. Twisted Evil

I know its a bad habit, and I know what it can do, its MY CHOICE and I don't like being told what to do by someone who thinks they need to police the world and keep everyone safe from themselves. This country is already becoming a nanny state...lets not keep adding to that. Rolling Eyes Government already has to much control... Mad
Nameless
Triple_7 wrote:
Quote:
I doubt there's anyone who regularly smokes that doesn't logically know that's it's a Bad Thing, but they've built up a dependency (physical or otherwise) that outweighs their logical reasoning. So if you forced these people to smoke only on private property after they'd become accustomed to smoking throughout the day, you'd end up with a lot of personal confrontations that MIGHT spark a epiphany or at least a practical reduction but ... probably they'd just get pissed and then adapt to their addiction. As for the rebel / nonconformist archetypes, they'd just get pissed and fined. Any NEW smokers I think would end up smoking less overall because they have less opportunities and thus won't reach the same level of dependency unless they were really going out of their way (aka revel archetype or a psyche messed up badly for other reasons).


I'm going to try and be polite here...this is how your statement comes off to me...You just basically called every smoker a brainless idiot that can't think for themselves. Telling us we can't smoke somewhere automatically means we will go into a raging fit....that somewhere close to what you were actually trying to say Neutral Kind of the way it sounds Rolling Eyes


Au contraire, intelligence isn't the issue. It's a subconscious dependency that keeps most people smoking. For example, you mention needing a cigarette to de-stress. AFAIK there's nothing magical about cigarettes that removes stress, and other people use different methods or acts to achieve the same affect (myself, I'm known to reach for Picross DS and I'm sure you've heard of old slowly counting to 10 trick). If somebody was particularly stressed and unable to perform that action they've come to depend on, there's an mental struggle (often ending in anxiety or displeasure, as your own anecdote demonstrates) that has nothing to do with conscious intelligence or even smoking in particular.

If you disallow smoking in more areas, then people are likely to develop a more available (and probably healthier) stress reliever instead of starting to smoke and creating that undesirable dependency in the first place. Actually reducing or changing a dependency - especially for something physically addictive as nicotine - can be very hard, so in the case of those who do smoke I'd imagine they'd tend to suffer some unavoidable short term problems (cravings or miner irritation, realistically) before adapting and smoking the same amount elsewhere.

Triple_7 wrote:
but I would see it perfectly fit to ban in areas such as a playground or school where young children are present...

[sarcasm]Oh, but it's totally okay to be uncourteous and unhealthy towards adults.[/sarcasm]
guissmo
It's very annoying when you get puffed at by some insensitive smoker walking around. I say ban smoking in public places. Go smoke in private areas so that you wont be able to harm anyone else.
deanhills
Nameless wrote:
Triple_7 wrote:
Quote:
I doubt there's anyone who regularly smokes that doesn't logically know that's it's a Bad Thing, but they've built up a dependency (physical or otherwise) that outweighs their logical reasoning. So if you forced these people to smoke only on private property after they'd become accustomed to smoking throughout the day, you'd end up with a lot of personal confrontations that MIGHT spark a epiphany or at least a practical reduction but ... probably they'd just get pissed and then adapt to their addiction. As for the rebel / nonconformist archetypes, they'd just get pissed and fined. Any NEW smokers I think would end up smoking less overall because they have less opportunities and thus won't reach the same level of dependency unless they were really going out of their way (aka revel archetype or a psyche messed up badly for other reasons).


I'm going to try and be polite here...this is how your statement comes off to me...You just basically called every smoker a brainless idiot that can't think for themselves. Telling us we can't smoke somewhere automatically means we will go into a raging fit....that somewhere close to what you were actually trying to say Neutral Kind of the way it sounds Rolling Eyes


Au contraire, intelligence isn't the issue.
For me intelligence has to be an issue. If it has been proven that smoking of cigarettes is playing a great role in chronic diseases, and society is now demanding Government to deal with availability of healthcare insurance for everyone, then obviously it would be grossly unfair to expect Government to provide healthcare for everyone, when this person is knowingly using a substance that will require very expensive healthcare one day and obviously take away funds from the healthcare insurance kitty that should be available for people who really deserve it. Not to mention the second hand smokers, whose choice is not to smoke, getting sick and needing expensive healthcare as well. Probably there should be regulations for smokers to pay extra taxes to compensate for this. The tobacco industry should also pay extra taxes that go to healthcare, both preventive (helping smokers who want to stop smoking) and for chronic diseases.
ProfessorY91
ocalhoun wrote:

Perhaps, in the interest of potential second-hand smoke victims, you could enact a law that says smokers must stop smoking in a public place when asked, but it should not be banned entirely- even in situations where nobody cares.


Agreed. However, I do believe we should tax these people to death as they are definitely a risk for our healthcare system - perhaps we could just call them a waste of government resources.

Edit: Well stated deanhills. Give it to them straight, we're not going to pay for your sorry asses when you have lung cancer and decide you want a few more years.
ocalhoun
ProfessorY91 wrote:
they are definitely a risk for our healthcare system - perhaps we could just call them a waste of government resources.

Yet another reason not to have a government health care system...
Crazy_Canuck
I think businesses should be allowed to establish and advertize themselves as smoking-allowed environments. People who choose to smoke can go there. Others will just avoid that establishment.

I defintely feel the ban on smoking in open spaces such as parks is going too far.
Donutey
I just think about people smoking around their children, especially in the car.

People shouldn't be able to smoke in closed environments, or near exterior doors.

In Illinois there is no smoking in commercial establishments (home or car is ok...), and you have to be at least 15 feet from an exterior door so you don't bother people coming in or out of a building.
deanhills
Crazy_Canuck wrote:
I think businesses should be allowed to establish and advertize themselves as smoking-allowed environments. People who choose to smoke can go there. Others will just avoid that establishment.

I defintely feel the ban on smoking in open spaces such as parks is going too far.
Maybe they should focus on "open spaces" and out of the way of people who do not smoke? The worst part for me is when smokers congregate, you get 10 or more of them smoking together to the equivalent of a smoking den, and there is no alternative way to walk, except to walk through their smoking space. That often happens at bus shelters when it is raining. I think they should ban smoking in bus shelters as well.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
I think they should ban smoking in bus shelters as well.

Quite possibly... Especially if they are mostly enclosed, and especially if they are municipally provided.
Donutey wrote:

In Illinois there is no smoking in commercial establishments (home or car is ok...), and you have to be at least 15 feet from an exterior door so you don't bother people coming in or out of a building.

Really, I don't think that walking past a few people smoking outdoors for a distance of just 15 feet will harm your health in any measurable, noticeable, or significant way.
That's all it is: the more 'acceptable' group using the government to bother the less acceptable group to avoid being bothered themselves.
Nameless
ocalhoun wrote:
That's all it is: the more 'acceptable' group using the government to bother the less acceptable group to avoid being bothered themselves.

Key point here, of course, is that the smokers are bothering the nonsmokers first.
ocalhoun
Nameless wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
That's all it is: the more 'acceptable' group using the government to bother the less acceptable group to avoid being bothered themselves.

Key point here, of course, is that the smokers are bothering the nonsmokers first.

"But Mom he hit me first!" Rolling Eyes
Nameless
ocalhoun wrote:
Nameless wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
That's all it is: the more 'acceptable' group using the government to bother the less acceptable group to avoid being bothered themselves.

Key point here, of course, is that the smokers are bothering the nonsmokers first.

"But Mom he hit me first!" Rolling Eyes

Oh, come on. Now you're not even trying.

"Eww, gross Joe, stop picking your nose."
"Nuh-uh. It's my nose."
"But it's grossing me out! Stop it!"
"Oh yeah? Make me!"
"MOOOOOOM! Joe won't stop picking his nose and now he's getting a nose bleed and boogers all over my toys and it's really disgusting!"
"Now now, Joe. You know it's bad for you to pick your nose. But if you really have to, please do it in your room where it won't bother Sally."
"Uuuh! It's her fault for looking! I have a right to pick my nose here! This is a free house! Why do you always take her side? She's such a wuss for dobbing!"
"Young man, if you don't take your finger out of your nose right this minute I'll send you to bed without dinner!"
"I HATE YOU!"

[/Anvilicious!]
deanhills
Nameless wrote:


"Eww, gross Joe, stop picking your nose."
"Nuh-uh. It's my nose."
"But it's grossing me out! Stop it!"
"Oh yeah? Make me!"
"MOOOOOOM! Joe won't stop picking his nose and now he's getting a nose bleed and boogers all over my toys and it's really disgusting!"
"Now now, Joe. You know it's bad for you to pick your nose. But if you really have to, please do it in your room where it won't bother Sally."
"Uuuh! It's her fault for looking! I have a right to pick my nose here! This is a free house! Why do you always take her side? She's such a wuss for dobbing!"
"Young man, if you don't take your finger out of your nose right this minute I'll send you to bed without dinner!"
"I HATE YOU!"

[/Anvilicious!]
Laughing Laughing Laughing I enjoyed this! Smile

This is the "disgusting" part for me, where I have had a nice scrubbing session in the shower, feel clean and fresh, clothes fresh, and so you get to walk through this smoker's bubble and when you surface on the other end, and you hold your hand against your face, you can smell smoke off you, your hair smells like stale smoke, your clothes smell like smoke? All of a sudden you really feel dirty and itchy .... that's gross ... Twisted Evil! I'd prefer to have a choice in this ...
DoctorBeaver
"Ban smoking because it will make us all healthier"

So, you want the introduction of a law making attending a gym once a week compulsory? Ban all vehicle journeys of less than, say, 1 mile so that people are forced to walk? Make it illegal to consume more than x grams of fat per week?


"It costs the NHS billions of pounds every year"
According to the UK government's own figures, they collect more in tax revenues from the sale of tobacco products than it costs the NHS to provide care for those suffering from tobacco-related conditions.

from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7654153.stm
Quote:
Treating smokers costs the NHS in England £2.7bn a year, compared with £1.7bn a decade ago, a report claims.

Anti-smoking group Ash says the cost would have risen to over £3bn had action to curb smoking not seen numbers fall from 12 million to nine million.


Tax revenue from smoking in 2006/7 was £10billion. Quite a hefty profit, eh?

To the person who hates the disgusting atmosphere when someone is smoking at a bus stop - wear a face mask whenever you go out. That would prevent your having to breathe all that disgusting carbon monoxide from vehicle emissions, which is probably doing you a lot more harm. Check the incidence of childhood asthma for those living near busy roads.

"Smoking is long-term suicide". I assume whenever you are outdoors you ensure that not a single square inch of your body is exposed to the sun. Using your own logic, catching melanoma through willful exposure to sunlight amounts to suicide. And don't eat red meat because that would increase your risk of bowel cancer.

I hope none of you light candles at home. Paraffin wax (from which the vast majority of candles are made) gives off harmful emissions when heated.

And here's something for you all to think about. Should a farmer be allowed to smoke in his own fields? After all, some of them have public footpaths running through them.

Please, people. I appreciate that jumping on the no-smoking bandwagon is very trendy, but at least give some thought to what you say.

Before anyone asks, yes I am a smoker. I am in favour of restrictions on smoking but not a total ban. If I have non-smoking visitors at home I ask if they mind if I smoke & even then I sit by an open window whenever possible (English weather sometimes prevents open windows).
deanhills
DoctorBeaver wrote:
"It costs the NHS billions of pounds every year"
According to the UK government's own figures, they collect more in tax revenues from the sale of tobacco products than it costs the NHS to provide care for those suffering from tobacco-related conditions.

from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7654153.stm
Quote:
Treating smokers costs the NHS in England £2.7bn a year, compared with £1.7bn a decade ago, a report claims.

Anti-smoking group Ash says the cost would have risen to over £3bn had action to curb smoking not seen numbers fall from 12 million to nine million.


Tax revenue from smoking in 2006/7 was £10billion. Quite a hefty profit, eh?

Sounds quite impressive, wonder how they work the stats to measure the costs of treating specifically tobacco related illnesses. Some illnesses could originate from a number of reasons, including but not specifically tobacco. I'm sure the stats must have been tested, but wonder how 100% accurate it could be. Not only with those stats that have been included, but the ones that have been excluded as they were difficult to measure. For example how do you measure the cost of a young family who have lost their father due to lung cancer or heart disease? They are stripped from a lot of opportunities they might have had in their lives, that are no longer there, not to mention the trauma of losing someone as close as that early in life. Mental health care costs, substance abuse, etc. could also be a consequence when children are unable to cope with loss of a family member due to cancer. This is just one example. I'm sure if one start to think about it, that one would easily end up with a much larger bill of cost than the one above.

DoctorBeaver wrote:
To the person who hates the disgusting atmosphere when someone is smoking at a bus stop - wear a face mask whenever you go out. That would prevent your having to breathe all that disgusting carbon monoxide from vehicle emissions, which is probably doing you a lot more harm. Check the incidence of childhood asthma for those living near busy roads.
What is that saying about another wrong, not making an existing wrong right. Obviously both smoking as well as pollution in the air are harmful to health. Depending on the concentration of the smoke as well as the immune system of the people who are smoking or inhaling second-hand smoke, this may result in fatal consequences.

DoctorBeaver wrote:
"Smoking is long-term suicide". I assume whenever you are outdoors you ensure that not a single square inch of your body is exposed to the sun. Using your own logic, catching melanoma through willful exposure to sunlight amounts to suicide. And don't eat red meat because that would increase your risk of bowel cancer. I hope none of you light candles at home. Paraffin wax (from which the vast majority of candles are made) gives off harmful emissions when heated..
Ditto above, none of these "wrongs" make smoking right, they are all harmful to health.


DoctorBeaver wrote:
And here's something for you all to think about. Should a farmer be allowed to smoke in his own fields? After all, some of them have public footpaths running through them.
Perhaps this is not a very logical argument. There would be lots of alternative paths that could be taken to stay out of the way. If it is in the outdoors, I can't see how harmful the smoke could be on a second-hand basis, than when there is a congregation of smokers in close proximity and one has no choice but to pass through them, i.e. they are congregating outside in front of the door for example, or in a bus shelter, which is where one would have to be if you would want to board a bus.

DoctorBeaver wrote:
"Please, people. I appreciate that jumping on the no-smoking bandwagon is very trendy, but at least give some thought to what you say.
Hardly trendy. Health focussed would perhaps be a better description. Realizing the effects of smoking and second hand smoke on health, also the negative consequences for health costs. Being sick from cancer, emphezema etc, is really not fun. One of the worst there can be. Just imagine inhaling a cup of black liquid tar into your lungs over a period of a year, how black they look and the effect on your respiratory system, and your heart and resulting from that your arteries. I would definitely not make light of that if I were you. Shocked
Nameless
DoctorBeaver wrote:
"Ban smoking because it will make us all healthier"

So, you want the introduction of a law making attending a gym once a week compulsory? Ban all vehicle journeys of less than, say, 1 mile so that people are forced to walk? Make it illegal to consume more than x grams of fat per week?

The obvious difference here being that smoking a) is actively and entirely unhealthy (vs things like chocolate which can be healthy in small amounts, still being healthy with minimal exercise if you don't eat much ...) and b) easily enforceable (vs anybody driving short distances just claiming they were going further etc.)

Also, strawmanning and trying to distract from the issue at hand (smoking in public) will get you nowhere.

DoctorBeaver wrote:
To the person who hates the disgusting atmosphere when someone is smoking at a bus stop - wear a face mask whenever you go out.

Awesome. So when somebody is swearing in front of your children, just give them earplugs. And when you see ugly streakers, just put on a blindfold. The onus should not be on the innocent bystander to avoid negative behavior from other people, otherwise people could do pretty much everything up to rape because well, you didn't go out of your way to look ugly. The example is extreme, but the principle remains the same: if you are offending a large number of people - especially when you could easily carry out the same act in private without inconvenience or offending anyone - YOU need to justify and prevent that, not the random passerby.

That's a point a lot of people in this thread seem to be missing.

DoctorBeaver wrote:
"Smoking is long-term suicide". I assume whenever you are outdoors you ensure that not a single square inch of your body is exposed to the sun. Using your own logic, catching melanoma through willful exposure to sunlight amounts to suicide.

Sunlight in small doses is good for you. Smoking in small doses is still bad for you. Oh, and what logic were you saying we were using again?

DoctorBeaver wrote:
Please, people. I appreciate that jumping on the no-smoking bandwagon is very trendy, but at least give some thought to what you say.

Way to try and discredit valid arguments by assuming that people are merely jumping on them without thought. I can see that you, personally, are trying very hard to address the core issues of this debate and are certainly not instead trying warp and discredit the nonsmokers themselves in place of the actual arguments being made.
ocalhoun
Nameless wrote:


DoctorBeaver wrote:
"Smoking is long-term suicide". I assume whenever you are outdoors you ensure that not a single square inch of your body is exposed to the sun. Using your own logic, catching melanoma through willful exposure to sunlight amounts to suicide.

Sunlight in small doses is good for you. Smoking in small doses is still bad for you. Oh, and what logic were you saying we were using again?

If someone wants to kill themselves -- be it slowly or quickly --- it's none of your business.
Sure people might miss the suicidal person... But will you force that person to accept a fate (subjectively) worse than death just for the pleasure of his or her company?
Nameless
^ Yeah, that's not the point I was refuting (and it's irrelevant to smoking in public specifically), rather that DoctorBeaver's logic and assumptions (or attributions thereof) were flawed throughout his post.
DoctorBeaver
Nameless wrote:
^ Yeah, that's not the point I was refuting (and it's irrelevant to smoking in public specifically), rather that DoctorBeaver's logic and assumptions (or attributions thereof) were flawed throughout his post.


Quite possibly, but I was using the same logic as previous posters merely to show the invalidity of their statements.

I know there are serious health consequences associated with smoking (and I don't wish to make light of the fact), but my flippant remark about face masks was intended to highlight the fact that cigarette smoke isn't the only harmful substance you inhale when out in the street. In fact, I would think it constitutes a very small proportion.
Nameless
DoctorBeaver, what you were doing was misrepresenting the arguments of the previous posters, thus creating a Straw Man to beat down instead of the actual reasons against public smoking.

Also. Implying that you might as well smoke in public because there are worse pollutants is bad logic; car exhaust may be hazardous, but it's also irrelevant to what we're actually discussing. A small improvement in our air and comfort is still an improvement - you are trying to distract from the fact you have no real basis not to simply smoke in private instead.
deanhills
DoctorBeaver wrote:
cigarette smoke isn't the only harmful substance you inhale when out in the street. In fact, I would think it constitutes a very small proportion.
Right, but it is on top of the list of doing the most harm. I did some searches, and found it interesting how close obesity is as a leading cause of death, after tobacco. I can imagine graphs like these will probably get authorities to legislate harmful foods for people.


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Preventable_causes_of_death.png

We are all responsible for not smoking or not eating in excess, but if people are being bombarded by marketing schemes of the tobacco industry, that get people addicted to smoking, makes it look fashionable and great, and similarly with obesity, people being bombarded by food advertisements that make us eat food that has harmful substances and enslaves people by making them feel good, perhaps those who manufacture these harmful substances should be targeted to a greater extent. For example foods that taste great, such as Twinkies, if one lists the toxins in it, to make it taste good, and make it addictive, are about similar to tobacco smoking in its causes as well as addiction. Maybe one needs to tackle the source of it, and ban it completely. A good start already is making it compulsory for the food industry to list the ingredients in products like Twinkies. But perhaps they need to go further, like with tobacco, and list in big bold letters that twinkies can contribute to obesity, and obesity related diseases.
DoctorBeaver
Nameless wrote:
DoctorBeaver, what you were doing was misrepresenting the arguments of the previous posters, thus creating a Straw Man to beat down instead of the actual reasons against public smoking.

Also. Implying that you might as well smoke in public because there are worse pollutants is bad logic; car exhaust may be hazardous, but it's also irrelevant to what we're actually discussing. A small improvement in our air and comfort is still an improvement - you are trying to distract from the fact you have no real basis not to simply smoke in private instead.


I didn't misrepresent anything. In fact, it is you who is so-doing. I did not imply that smoking in public is OK as there are worse pollutants. My point was that it is not only smoking in public that is injurious to public health and, actually, is nowhere near being the major pollutant.

The only straw man is the one constructed by people who want a total smoking ban but cannot come up with a valid argument for it & resort to words such as "disgusting" in an attempt to add weight their position. They merely regurgitate arguments put forward by others - arguments that, more often than not, do not stand up to close scrutiny - without giving the situation any thought.

People in favour of the smoking ban frequently resort to hyperbole that portrays second-hand smoking as the number 1 public health issue when it clearly is not. Do you hear those same people clamouring for a reduction in vehicle emissions in the same manner? Do you hear them crying out for more nuclear power stations so that we can do away with coal/oil-powered generators that pump who-knows-how-many millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere each year? (and before anyone raises the issue of renewable energy sources, every set of figures produced show that not to be a valid alternative; it can only supply a small proportion of the energy needed)

I stated previously, and I shall re-iterate for your benefit, I am in favour of restrictions on smoking in public but I think that a total ban is wrong. I fail to see the problem with giving the owners of clubs/pubs etc. the choice of whether to allow smoking. Members of the public will then have the choice of frequenting smoking or non-smoking establishments as they so wish. I have not yet heard a single convincing argument against that position.

Deanhills - that graph is very interesting but is a bit of a red herring. The figure it gives is for smoking per se, not second-hand smoking. I was raising the point that when out in the street the carbon monoxide from vehicle emissions that you breathe is probably doing you more harm than any second-hand cigarette smoke you may be unfortunate enough to inhale.

Quote:
But perhaps they need to go further, like with tobacco, and list in big bold letters that twinkies can contribute to obesity, and obesity related diseases.


I agree.
darkeagle
Ashtray wrote:
In my country (Argentina) smoking is banned from closed enviroments. Nevertheless, smokers can do so outside.


In Turkey too...
Ankhanu
I know this has been dealt with, as most of the arguments presented were essentially strawman arguments (though seemingly intended otherwise), but I'd like to address this one:

DoctorBeaver wrote:
"Smoking is long-term suicide". I assume whenever you are outdoors you ensure that not a single square inch of your body is exposed to the sun. Using your own logic, catching melanoma through willful exposure to sunlight amounts to suicide. And don't eat red meat because that would increase your risk of bowel cancer.


As someone mentioned, exposure to sunlight is healthy (in moderation)... in fact, the lack of exposure to sunlight is insidiously unhealthy. Lack of exposure to sunlight results in Vitamin D deficiency, which causes all kinds of degenerative bone and muscle problems; osteoporosis, rickets, osteomalcia, and has been linked to a number of chronic diseases, including cancer, TB, MS, cognitive problems, and more... and it's pretty subtle about it too until it's too late. The likelihood of melanoma is pretty slim from moderate exposure to sunlight... of course watch the UV index and take appropriate precautions... but completely covering up is long term suicide.

Skin colour plays an important role in this as well, highly melanic races require more UV exposure than pale skin toned races to gain the same VitD benefits... of course the converse is also true that those with pale skin cannot tolerate as much exposure and are more prone to sin damage and melanoma.

___________________________________________________________________________________

As far as smoking BANS outright, I'm not exactly supportive of an all out ban. The sorts of smoking bans in effect here in Nova Scotia, Canada work pretty well for me; no smoking in public buildings (this includes businesses), smoking on/in your private property is fine, and no smoking within 20' of doorways.

The only real reason to ban smoking outright is due to health care costs... and this is only really relevant in nations with socialized health care systems (such as Canada). With these systems everyone pays the price for the diseases that have to be treated due to an entirely preventable cause. It wouldn't be so bad if, for example, smokers had to pay out of pocket for their preventable diseases, rather than taxing the system for their choices. This might put their choices into better perspective, and it might illustrate just how important a habit is for an individual...

It's kind of like imposing a cost in shops for the use of plastic bags, rather than using a reusable bag. We recently started charging 5cents per bag in the store I work in. Where people would insist on a bag for the smallest, most easily carried items (ie. a single pack of 2 small fuses), the very small cost of a bag makes people reevaluate whether they really need this item they've come to feel entitled to. As a result, there are a lot fewer plastic bags leaving our store, and those who do take one are making a conscious choice to do so, rather than just feeling entitled.
ocalhoun
Ankhanu wrote:


The only real reason to ban smoking outright is due to health care costs... and this is only really relevant in nations with socialized health care systems (such as Canada).

Even then, you should ban smokers from the health care system, not ban smoking from health care system members.

Then, you just give them a choice; you can smoke OR you can have free health care... choose.
ankitdatashn
ocalhoun wrote:
Nameless wrote:


DoctorBeaver wrote:
"Smoking is long-term suicide". I assume whenever you are outdoors you ensure that not a single square inch of your body is exposed to the sun. Using your own logic, catching melanoma through willful exposure to sunlight amounts to suicide.

Sunlight in small doses is good for you. Smoking in small doses is still bad for you. Oh, and what logic were you saying we were using again?

If someone wants to kill themselves -- be it slowly or quickly --- it's none of your business.
Sure people might miss the suicidal person... But will you force that person to accept a fate (subjectively) worse than death just for the pleasure of his or her company?


It does not totally depends on the person who is smoking, as the studies have shown that the people who smoke also pose a health risk to the people who are in the close proximity to the smoker, so in a way he the smoker is not only commiting a long term suicide but a long term murder also!!

Isnt it making sense to ban smoking!
Ankhanu
ocalhoun wrote:
Ankhanu wrote:


The only real reason to ban smoking outright is due to health care costs... and this is only really relevant in nations with socialized health care systems (such as Canada).

Even then, you should ban smokers from the health care system, not ban smoking from health care system members.

Then, you just give them a choice; you can smoke OR you can have free health care... choose.


There is that... but they should have the same access to treatment for medical issues not related to smoking. Of course, any kind of policy like this introduces a lot of cost, liability issues and the like... determining what is and isn't smoking related (particularly when a disease can be caused by other things as well as smoking), whether a doctor is right for charging in what circumstances, etc. It's not realistically feasible.

Plus the same issues arise as mentioned earlier with other activities that are harmful; where does one draw the line, and how slippery a slope are we building.
deanhills
Ankhanu wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Ankhanu wrote:


The only real reason to ban smoking outright is due to health care costs... and this is only really relevant in nations with socialized health care systems (such as Canada).

Even then, you should ban smokers from the health care system, not ban smoking from health care system members.

Then, you just give them a choice; you can smoke OR you can have free health care... choose.


There is that... but they should have the same access to treatment for medical issues not related to smoking. Of course, any kind of policy like this introduces a lot of cost, liability issues and the like... determining what is and isn't smoking related (particularly when a disease can be caused by other things as well as smoking), whether a doctor is right for charging in what circumstances, etc. It's not realistically feasible.

Plus the same issues arise as mentioned earlier with other activities that are harmful; where does one draw the line, and how slippery a slope are we building.
I wonder whether they would ever be able to prove in situations like these, that smoking was responsible for the disease that needs to be treated. Can imagine there would be plenty of court cases resulting from this. Some cases could be clear, as maybe they can show the state of the lungs, but when it gets to heart disease, and the person for example is also obese, it would be hard to prove which factor was more directly responsible for the disease. I can imagine if they would go this route, that soon obesity would also be a factor in treatment, and if they continue along this line, wonder what would be left that could be excluded for treatment.
ocalhoun
Ankhanu wrote:

Plus the same issues arise as mentioned earlier with other activities that are harmful; where does one draw the line, and how slippery a slope are we building.

Banning smoking for health care cost reasons takes you down the exact same slope.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Ankhanu wrote:

Plus the same issues arise as mentioned earlier with other activities that are harmful; where does one draw the line, and how slippery a slope are we building.

Banning smoking for health care cost reasons takes you down the exact same slope.
OK, I'm going to be a real devil's advocate here Ocalhoun. If you should be against legislation for health issues, how could you be for putting limits on teaching of religion at schools? Of the two I would say cigarettes are much more harmful to health, and have been scientifically proven to cause serious chronic diseases and death. If one feels strongly that there should be no legislation for smoking, then education should be obviously "free" as well. There should be no censorship of teaching, within common sense reason and with primary focus on the curriulum.

Arguing even against myself, perhaps the US is getting over-legislated and really enriching the legal profession at its own expense. I wonder whether they should be taxing legal firms who make money out of the health cases, so that that could be put towards health care in the form of preventive health care through education, helping with smoke cessation etc.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Ankhanu wrote:

Plus the same issues arise as mentioned earlier with other activities that are harmful; where does one draw the line, and how slippery a slope are we building.

Banning smoking for health care cost reasons takes you down the exact same slope.
OK, I'm going to be a real devil's advocate here Ocalhoun. If you should be against legislation for health issues, how could you be for putting limits on teaching of religion at schools? Of the two I would say cigarettes are much more harmful to health, and have been scientifically proven to cause serious chronic diseases and death. If one feels strongly that there should be no legislation for smoking, then education should be obviously "free" as well. There should be no censorship of teaching, within common sense reason and with primary focus on the curriulum.

There is a very simple distinction between the two:
People choose to smoke or not smoke.
Children have no choice but to go to school, and most don't have the option of private or home-school.

There's also the little issue of the constitution.
The constitution separates religion and government, but makes no provision for banning things like smoking.
piyushbhardwaj
yes government should impose ban on smoking in public.
smoking in public will lead to passive smoking .
therefore because of few irresponsible people ,many people suffers
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
The constitution separates religion and government, but makes no provision for banning things like smoking.
Right, but the founding fathers did not say anything about prayers at school. I can imagine school at that time did start with opening with prayers every day? Similar to court sessions that all start with:
Quote:
'God save the United States and this honorable court

I guess next logical step will have to be another Act and rule and regulation to remove it from the Courts too? But then when they do, it is a few centuries too late to use the separation between state and religion argument for banning it from the courts. Think
aakash_88
life style of a person should solely rest in his own hands but it should in no way harm someone else's freedom to live so smoking at public places should be prohibhited... as passive smoking leads to so many feared deseases....like asthma,bronchoulcer etc.
ankitdatashn
aakash_88 wrote:
life style of a person should solely rest in his own hands but it should in no way harm someone else's freedom to live so smoking at public places should be prohibhited... as passive smoking leads to so many feared deseases....like asthma,bronchoulcer etc.


yes agreed, I completelt accord with your view, as we might be allowed to take our own life but we cannot have any right of life of other person.
deanhills
ankitdatashn wrote:
as we might be allowed to take our own life but we cannot have any right of life of other person.
I'm not so sure about this statement. Usually we are part of a family, and if you should decide to take your own life, it would be the equivalent of harming them as much as you would be harming yourself. Imagine the trauma too, if there were to be children whose parent would commit suicide, for whatever noble reason there may be. Something about it just does not seem that right, unless it is a joint decision of a kind, like Alzheimers or cancer that has developed much too far for hope.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
ankitdatashn wrote:
as we might be allowed to take our own life but we cannot have any right of life of other person.
I'm not so sure about this statement. Usually we are part of a family, and if you should decide to take your own life, it would be the equivalent of harming them as much as you would be harming yourself. Imagine the trauma too, if there were to be children whose parent would commit suicide, for whatever noble reason there may be. Something about it just does not seem that right, unless it is a joint decision of a kind, like Alzheimers or cancer that has developed much too far for hope.

That may be so, but I have a problem with forcing people to endure a fate (in their eyes) worse than death, just for the benefit of their family and friends.

Attempting to dissuade someone from suicide is a fine goal, but forcibly preventing them is wrong.
jmlworld
ocalhoun wrote:
Attempting to dissuade someone from suicide is a fine goal, but forcibly preventing them is wrong.


Well said Ocalhoun. No one can take forced laws to stop something. For the governments, they use FORCE step in which they see will prevent certain actions/stuff to happen, they believe a quite old norm:

Quote:
"The only real power comes out of a long rifle" -- Joseph Stalin


Personally, I would choose the advised law over the forced one.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
That may be so, but I have a problem with forcing people to endure a fate (in their eyes) worse than death, just for the benefit of their family and friends.

Attempting to dissuade someone from suicide is a fine goal, but forcibly preventing them is wrong.
What if it had been just a matter of a temporary perception problem? They may have had it completely wrong? If they had let their families or friends know how they saw their fate, family could have an insight that may have changed that perception completely? I have sympathy for someone who obviously has to feel completely desperate to do that kind of harm to theirselves, but perhaps their perception at that level of anxiety, may not have been completely real or "conscious", and they did need some help.

Where I do not have a problem with suicide, is the assisted kind, where there is obviously no hope left, it is a rational decision, it was sorted out and discussed. That is different.

I just don't think suicide is normal behaviour for a human being who is healthy in body, but just temporarily deranged in mind. Every time someone commits suicide it worries me too that it sends out signals to the next person who has suicidal thoughts, but never quite got there. Especially teenagers.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
That may be so, but I have a problem with forcing people to endure a fate (in their eyes) worse than death, just for the benefit of their family and friends.

Attempting to dissuade someone from suicide is a fine goal, but forcibly preventing them is wrong.
What if it had been just a matter of a temporary perception problem? They may have had it completely wrong? If they had let their families or friends know how they saw their fate, family could have an insight that may have changed that perception completely? I have sympathy for someone who obviously has to feel completely desperate to do that kind of harm to theirselves, but perhaps their perception at that level of anxiety, may not have been completely real or "conscious", and they did need some help.

Where I do not have a problem with suicide, is the assisted kind, where there is obviously no hope left, it is a rational decision, it was sorted out and discussed. That is different.

I just don't think suicide is normal behaviour for a human being who is healthy in body, but just temporarily deranged in mind. Every time someone commits suicide it worries me too that it sends out signals to the next person who has suicidal thoughts, but never quite got there. Especially teenagers.

But who are we to decide if this is just a temporary depression, or if it is one of your 'acceptable' cases?
Seems to me that only the person considering it would be qualified to make that decision.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Seems to me that only the person considering it would be qualified to make that decision.
If that person is of sound mind at that time, perhaps. But if it is a teenager, or someone who temporarily feels like their back is against the wall with no "out", perhaps this could be ascribed as "temporary insanity" that could have been rectified if caught in time. I still believe that there is some responsibility for others. Not interference, but sometimes there is a need for saving people from themselves. Difficult to describe scientifically. Just has to be done if we can be on the scene at the right time.
ShareVok
It's terrible how you getting kickassed as smoker on this days. In Europe If you wanna smoke you must go out of an Restaurant, only in bars you can smoke. I would say it doesn't look good, if 5 smokers stand outside of an Restaurant and blowing the smoke in the air. It would seems like the kicked you out of the Restaurant and thats realy insulting.

I would like to know how the Tabac-company would think about this, maybe the could make the cigarettes price cheaper.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Seems to me that only the person considering it would be qualified to make that decision.
If that were true, I can't imagine why there should be a rationale for organizations like "Suicide Anonymous". Sometimes people are just very desperate to talk to someone who they don't know, and who is non-judgmental, someone they could feel safe and comfortable with, so that they can get away from the loneliness and despair, and perhaps horrors of their living situation, if there are horrors involved. I don't think I could ever agree on this one. There are two types of suicide. One is emotional, and I am almost certain that most of the cases are emotional, and the other one is rational. And in most cases, I'm certain we would be able to tell the difference, unless the person who is emotional, is emotionally distant and bluffing.
spring567
It's not good for smoking. so govnment shoud ban smoking in public.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Seems to me that only the person considering it would be qualified to make that decision.
If that were true, I can't imagine why there should be a rationale for organizations like "Suicide Anonymous". Sometimes people are just very desperate to talk to someone who they don't know, and who is non-judgmental, someone they could feel safe and comfortable with, so that they can get away from the loneliness and despair, and perhaps horrors of their living situation, if there are horrors involved. I don't think I could ever agree on this one. There are two types of suicide. One is emotional, and I am almost certain that most of the cases are emotional, and the other one is rational. And in most cases, I'm certain we would be able to tell the difference, unless the person who is emotional, is emotionally distant and bluffing.

Yes, dissuading them is fine. That is the rationale for organizations like 'suicide anonymous'.
blackheart
Let's keep it on topic kids.

ocalhoun wrote:
standready wrote:
As a non-smoker, I am happy the government has stepped in. I like being able to breathe without inhaling second hand smoke.

Another, very wrong thing...

Just because you don't do something, doesn't mean you should disregard those who do. Political views should be based on principle, not on being selfish.

Just like how I don't own a gun, but I would be outraged if guns were banned. I don't smoke, but I respect the rights of smokers. I'm not gay, but I respect the rights of gays.
'

Guns and homosexuality are not comparable to smoking. People with guns don't run around the street shooting them - disturbing people with the noise and frightening/harming people. Homosexuals don't approach random members of the same sex and oblige them to "join in". (there are whack jobs, but I'm talking about 99.9% of the population).

Smoking, however, does obligate anyone in the immediate vicinity to breath in smoke. And there is no reasonable method of other members of the public avoiding breathing in that smoke if they must be in the same area as you.


ocalhoun wrote:
No, no, no, NO!

The government's role should stop at informing people that it is bad for them. Any more than that is needless restriction of freedom.
Perhaps, in the interest of potential second-hand smoke victims, you could enact a law that says smokers must stop smoking in a public place when asked, but it should not be banned entirely- even in situations where nobody cares.



Currently, in Australia, people are banned from smoking in enclosed public spaces. Not just in obvious areas (restaurants, workplaces, pubs, other indoor areas) but outdoor enclosed spaces such as covered areas of train stations, bus stops.

I don't think people should be banned from smoking in public outright (what are they supposed to do, drive home every time they have a craving?), but I'm happy with current regulations as it does reduce the second hand smoke being passed onto other members of the public. And limits the discomfort of non smokers, as one can only smoke where there's no roof to trap the smoke for any period of time.


ShareVok wrote:

I would like to know how the Tabac-company would think about this, maybe the could make the cigarettes price cheaper.


I don't know how it works where you're from. But in Australia the reason cigarettes are expensive is that the government imposes heavey taxes on them. It's a deliberate move, as the theory is the more expensive they are the less people will be able to afford to smoke... and as we have public healthcare, the less the government has to fork out at a later date for the care/treatment of people who damage their own lungs.

Beyond discomfort to non smoking members of the public, I'd imagine no-smoking laws in public places are also to enourage people to quit.


Ankhanu wrote:
I absolutely LOVED when our government imposed restrictions on smoking in public places... it made going out to bars, restaurants, malls, universities, etc. MUCH more pleasant. It's great being able to go see some live music and get home at the end of the night not reeking of stale cigarettes. It's fantastic being able to go out to eat and not have to compete with smoke to taste your food. It hasn't reduced the ability of smokers to go out and have fun in public; they just have to go outside to smoke once in a while... and really, it just makes the outside a social spot too.

I visited my family in the States a bit ago and was reacquainted with public smoking and it was, well, wholly unpleasant. Almost seems barbaric.


This.
deanhills
Welcome back Blackheart. I was quite a newbie at the time when you last posted, but good to have your presence around again. Smile
blackheart wrote:
Currently, in Australia, people are banned from smoking in enclosed public spaces. Not just in obvious areas (restaurants, workplaces, pubs, other indoor areas) but outdoor enclosed spaces such as covered areas of train stations, bus stops.

I don't think people should be banned from smoking in public outright (what are they supposed to do, drive home every time they have a craving?), but I'm happy with current regulations as it does reduce the second hand smoke being passed onto other members of the public. And limits the discomfort of non smokers, as one can only smoke where there's no roof to trap the smoke for any period of time.
Totally agreed. Looks as though other countries in the world still need to catch up with "outdoor enclosed spaces". I did not realize that Australia had made progress as far as this. And yes, I imagine now with healthcare for chronic diseases becoming so very expensive that countries would soon work on ways to recoup their expenses by taxing tobacco companies even more, or to put restrictions on healthcare coverage.
m-productions
This is hard to say, Yes and No have their ups and downs.


Lets say YES: This would make a few issues rise. 1) the tabacoo industry brings MASSIVE amounts of money in the form of taxes to the government, if this was banded, we would lose a VAST amount of money as a whole. This also would start to remove the "freedom" in which should allow people to do what they want.... be this part brings us to ...

Lets say NO: Now we have one big issue here, yes they can do what they want, but what about the people who dont want to smoke, the people that are smart enough not to? Second hand smoking is just as if not more deadly. Yes you can limit it to not doing it in public? but what about little kids, they have NO choice at all, there life is being ruined cause of incompetent parents. For example one of my friends has a 9 year old sister, she has horrible asme (spelling) and her parents STILL smoke in the house... whats with that?


so both have their ups and downs.
dv8r
dipesh wrote:
with the style quotient attached to smoking, is the government imposed ban on smoking in public places going to make a difference in the present times?
Today's youth may try to always get what they want,but it is up to the government to regulate what they get access to. if the government wants people to cut down on smoking,then instead of restricting the places,it should bring in measures that drastically cut down the cigarette production & import. if one doesn't get a cigarette easily then no style , no harm to others through passive smoking & clean air for everybody to breathe. just because of some masses shouldn't suffer.


I am far more worried about my prescription medications, than smoking.
It is getting rediculous with the ban this, ban that.

Know what else is dangerous for some?
walking and chewing gum.
BAN IT.
pscompanies
The government should not ban smoking in public per se, but definitely in crowded public places such as bus stops, and also preferably near schools and colleges.
klownsrus
dipesh wrote:
with the style quotient attached to smoking, is the government imposed ban on smoking in public places going to make a difference in the present times?
Today's youth may try to always get what they want,but it is up to the government to regulate what they get access to. if the government wants people to cut down on smoking,then instead of restricting the places,it should bring in measures that drastically cut down the cigarette production & import. if one doesn't get a cigarette easily then no style , no harm to others through passive smoking & clean air for everybody to breathe. just because of some masses shouldn't suffer.


I believe that smoking is the peoples choice and they have their rights, so the government would be corrupting our rights. Sure i can see why they woulod ban smoking in certain places like hospital but everyone should be able to go outside and be able to have a cigarette.

Why should the government ban smoking in public when the cigarette companys are seeling in public places??
pll
Here in Quebec, we can't see ads about smoking (and we can't even see the cigarettes packs when we're going to buy some, they hide it).

Smoking is banned in every public places (you need to go outside or go in a special room to be able to smoke).

I like it !
I think that was really a good idea to ban it. Cool
andysart380
we just banned it indoors in New Hampshire but nothing yet on outside
Ankhanu
pll wrote:
Here in Quebec, we can't see ads about smoking (and we can't even see the cigarettes packs when we're going to buy some, they hide it).


It's the same here in Nova Scotia. Cigarettes, well, tobacco in general, has to be placed behind a closed door of some sort without windows. It seems a little extreme, but smokers know they're there and just have to ask (like they did before) to get what they want.
jabce85
I hate people who smoke, but the government has no right to do this...
Jinx
I think the government needs to butt out of our business. They already try to control too much of our lives - helmet laws, seatbelt laws, warning labels on just about everything - I mean seriously, anyone who can't figure out that they shouldn't use their hair dryer while they are still in the shower deserves their Darwin Award. Next thing you know they will be outlawing running with scissors, sharp sticks, and Red Ryder BB Guns (I mean, hey, you could put someone's eye out with that).

We expect the government to do everything for us, and we're starting to develop the idea that if there isn't a law against it it must be ok. What happened to plain old courtesy and common sense? If you are near a crowd of non-smokers, and you want to light up, it's only polite to move away from them. Don't huddle up near the door and smoke, it's rude.

We used to police ourselves, we used to care about other people. Once upon a time scowls and dirty looks were all it took to make a person feel ashamed of a social faux paus. Now it takes laws?

We don't need a nanny state - we just need to grow the hell up and develop a sense of responsibility. (I use 'we' not just to indicate our seemingly adolescent society, but each and every one of us individually - reference M. Jackson's Man in the Mirror for further instructions).

Social taboos are generally stronger than laws anyway, or at least they used to be.
deanhills
Jinx wrote:
We don't need a nanny state - we just need to grow the hell up and develop a sense of responsibility.
How do you intend to do that? Obviously these are great words coming from a very responsible person, but reality says people in general are pretty much focussed on short term gratification, no matter the long-term damage it causes. How do you intend to take care of the smokers when they develop heart disease and lung cancer, and of course society has to pay for it, Obama is presently working on health insurance for them as well. That part is of course going to get legislated and be very expensive. So should society only be focussed on legislating bail-out schemes, or would it not be much better to invest heavily in discouraging people from hurting themselves with smoking and other substance abuses?
Ankhanu
Jinx wrote:
... warning labels on just about everything - I mean seriously, anyone who can't figure out that they shouldn't use their hair dryer while they are still in the shower deserves their Darwin Award. Next thing you know they will be outlawing running with scissors, sharp sticks, and Red Ryder BB Guns (I mean, hey, you could put someone's eye out with that).


Those are actually examples of private sector restrictions. All these ridiculous warnings and such are due to law suits against manufacturers/providers due to people misusing their products or not approaching life with a little common sense. Some bad judgment calls in the legal system have set a precedent where any idiot can win tonnes of money because they weren't told something that should be generally understood with half a second of thought... what do you mean my coffee is hot? I'm taking you to court for not warning me... the steam coming off the surface simply wasn't enough of a warning.

Liability can be a bitch.

Jinx wrote:
We expect the government to do everything for us, and we're starting to develop the idea that if there isn't a law against it it must be ok. What happened to plain old courtesy and common sense? If you are near a crowd of non-smokers, and you want to light up, it's only polite to move away from them. Don't huddle up near the door and smoke, it's rude.

We used to police ourselves, we used to care about other people. Once upon a time scowls and dirty looks were all it took to make a person feel ashamed of a social faux paus. Now it takes laws?

We don't need a nanny state - we just need to grow the hell up and develop a sense of responsibility. (I use 'we' not just to indicate our seemingly adolescent society, but each and every one of us individually - reference M. Jackson's Man in the Mirror for further instructions).

Social taboos are generally stronger than laws anyway, or at least they used to be.


Looking back on history, removing any kind of romantic notions of the "good ol' days" reveals that we've never been good at policing ourselves and people are no different today than they were back then. People are dicks to one another... always have been. We're also not smart... we're just smart enough to be dangerous to ourselves and one another.

I definitely agree that we (in both senses you mention) need to take responsibility for our own actions... but very few are willing to do so. How do we bring this sort of thing about? I can't think of any examples of this ever really happening, in anything other than perhaps subsistence living where you need the help of those around you just to continue living; therefore helping others and treating them well helps keep you from dying Razz

In the meantime, perhaps some laws that say "hey, you! Stop being stupid!" aren't such a terrible thing.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
but reality says people in general are pretty much focussed on short term gratification, no matter the long-term damage it causes. How do you intend to take care of the smokers when they develop heart disease and lung cancer, and of course society has to pay for it,

You could make them pay for their own medical expenses... then they'd be forced to take personal responsibility for their own health.

A problem with these government charity programs is that they transform personal responsibility into government responsibility.
Diablosblizz
I'm sure I'm not the first to say this but here it goes anyways:

There will never be a smoking ban. Government officials smoke as well, and so of course it wouldn't work. There's no ending smoking, it's complete bullshit. I've seen a few good people turn to smoking cause it makes them look "cool?".. how the hell does it make you look cool.

Famous quote by none other than myself: PEOPLE ARE RETARDED. End of story. I'm retarded, your retarded.
raaeft1
Chandigarh I India imposed ban on smoking at public places. But the law is being flouted with impunity. One can see people smoking away to glory at public places. And the local police is not doing anything. Interestingly, a case was registered against a noted film star for smoking in public as the cops wanted publicity. But no action is taken against the general public who smoke in public places.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
but reality says people in general are pretty much focussed on short term gratification, no matter the long-term damage it causes. How do you intend to take care of the smokers when they develop heart disease and lung cancer, and of course society has to pay for it,

You could make them pay for their own medical expenses... then they'd be forced to take personal responsibility for their own health.

A problem with these government charity programs is that they transform personal responsibility into government responsibility.
Excellent point. No better way to make people more responsible than having them pay for their own expenses. Even medical insurance can stand in the way of people taking better care of themselves. Although I do agree that there are people that will always need to be taken cared off in society, who may have been born in a needy capacity. But I agree in general the system should allow those who can take care of themselves, take better care of themselves, instead of weakening them by taking care of them. Society should only take care of extreme cases.

Diablosblizz wrote:
I'm sure I'm not the first to say this but here it goes anyways:

There will never be a smoking ban. Government officials smoke as well, and so of course it wouldn't work. There's no ending smoking, it's complete bullshit. I've seen a few good people turn to smoking cause it makes them look "cool?".. how the hell does it make you look cool.

Famous quote by none other than myself: PEOPLE ARE RETARDED. End of story. I'm retarded, your retarded.
You are right, humanity is definitely far from perfect. There is something in us that so much likes to abuse ourselves and others around us. All we have to look at is our movies with so much violence in them, and then of course people smoke in movies too.
QrafTee
ocalhoun wrote:
No, no, no, NO!

The government's role should stop at informing people that it is bad for them. Any more than that is needless restriction of freedom.
Perhaps, in the interest of potential second-hand smoke victims, you could enact a law that says smokers must stop smoking in a public place when asked, but it should not be banned entirely- even in situations where nobody cares.
How about smokers kill themselves in an enclosed area and I keep my asthma-afflicted lungs clean?
ocalhoun
QrafTee wrote:
How about smokers kill themselves in an enclosed area and I keep my asthma-afflicted lungs clean?

There are more smokers than asthma victims... It would be less of a loss of life to kill all the asthma sufferers.

Neither suggestion is anywhere near moral... Learn to live with each other.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Neither suggestion is anywhere near moral... Learn to live with each other.
In this case I have to disagree. At the time when smoke is inhaled by the asthma sufferer it is almost too late to "learn to live" with the other party who is smoking. Asthma sufferers should be able to count on "smoke free" environments. All public areas should be smoke-free. Smokers are the ones who are tainting the air, if they do so, it should be in their own areas, although more preferable no smoking at all. They are in medical terms abusing themselves.

Equally harmful of course are also emissions from motor vehicles and industrial areas, so asthma sufferers probably have to remove themselves from common sense harmful areas.
QrafTee
ocalhoun wrote:
QrafTee wrote:
How about smokers kill themselves in an enclosed area and I keep my asthma-afflicted lungs clean?
There are more smokers than asthma victims... It would be less of a loss of life to kill all the asthma sufferers.

Neither suggestion is anywhere near moral... Learn to live with each other.
So because smokers screwed up my lungs in the beginning I should continue to "suffer' and my life should be loss to it because... Because what? Because smokers choose to kill themselves and harm those around them? Ban smoking and they won't die while I keep my lungs clean--see, no one dies.
goutha
I think that smoking is an individual liberty.

Banning smokers from public spaces is not really a "democratic" solution. Instead, I think that we should have specific places where smokers can smoke freely, but not anywhere else.
Nameless
goutha wrote:
Banning smokers from public spaces is not really a "democratic" solution. Instead, I think that we should have specific places where smokers can smoke freely, but not anywhere else.

This is a good point. If only smokers had some kind of area or perhaps specific property that they owned and were free to smoke in ... Wait.

Also if smokers were in the minority then banning smoking from public places would be democratic, because majority rule is the theoretically entire point of democracy. You know.
Donutey
In public and in enclosed spaced it should be banned. It makes me feel really sorry for the baby in a car with the windows rolled up when the mother/father is smoking.
Greatking
YES! AND YES AGAIN. it should be banned totally. its not healty.
ocalhoun
Greatking wrote:
it should be banned totally. its not healty.

Hm, what else is not healthy?

Drinking, sodas, junk food, not working out every day, spending large amounts of time on TV/computer/video games, getting insufficient sleep, et cetera...

Shall we ban all of those other things while we're at it?
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Greatking wrote:
it should be banned totally. its not healty.

Hm, what else is not healthy?

Drinking, sodas, junk food, not working out every day, spending large amounts of time on TV/computer/video games, getting insufficient sleep, et cetera...

Shall we ban all of those other things while we're at it?
Well, if Obama is really sincere that he wants to get the health costs down, you've just touched on the heart of it. Just imagine the savings, and I guess those people who are so much enriched by people's health problems, and the junk food and soda pop producers and junk TV and game designers and producers will have their profits go down in a straight line. Smile
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Just imagine the savings, and I guess those people who are so much enriched by people's health problems, and the junk food and soda pop producers and junk TV and game designers and producers will have their profits go down in a straight line. Smile

Also watch personal freedom, personal independence, and personal responsibility 'go down in a straight line' as well...

Remember what I said about a 'care taker' government?
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Just imagine the savings, and I guess those people who are so much enriched by people's health problems, and the junk food and soda pop producers and junk TV and game designers and producers will have their profits go down in a straight line. Smile

Also watch personal freedom, personal independence, and personal responsibility 'go down in a straight line' as well...

Remember what I said about a 'care taker' government?
Right, but it would appear that people would like the Government to take care of them (viz the support for the current health care bill), and to get the Government to protect them from those who are abusing themselves. Even people who can take care of themselves, prefer the Government to take care of those who can't take care of themselves. Somewhere among all of that there has to be a common sense middle ground? Question
QrafTee
goutha wrote:
I think that smoking is an individual liberty.

Banning smokers from public spaces is not really a "democratic" solution. Instead, I think that we should have specific places where smokers can smoke freely, but not anywhere else.
Having weapons and killing people is also an individual liberty.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Somewhere among all of that there has to be a common sense middle ground? Question

What, like private charity helping people who need it?
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Somewhere among all of that there has to be a common sense middle ground? Question

What, like private charity helping people who need it?
I'm all for as little Government as possible. However, there is a percentage of the population that cannot look after itself. In the old days for example, parents were taken care off by their children, but times have rapidly changed. How do you suggest society takes care of those who cannot take care of themselves without getting Government to do so or to legislate the conditions under which it can be provided?
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
How do you suggest society takes care of those who cannot take care of themselves without getting Government to do so or to legislate the conditions under which it can be provided?

1: Government stops taking care of them.
2: If private charity cannot do so adequately with voluntarily given funds, use the tax money saved from step 1, and let each tax payer choose which approved charity to donate his/her money to.
Nameless
ocalhoun wrote:
Greatking wrote:
it should be banned totally. its not healty.

Hm, what else is not healthy?

Drinking, sodas, junk food, not working out every day, spending large amounts of time on TV/computer/video games, getting insufficient sleep, et cetera...

Shall we ban all of those other things while we're at it?


*Healthy in moderation, practicality of bans, affects on others, etc, yawn.*
ocalhoun
Nameless wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Greatking wrote:
it should be banned totally. its not healty.

Hm, what else is not healthy?

Drinking, sodas, junk food, not working out every day, spending large amounts of time on TV/computer/video games, getting insufficient sleep, et cetera...

Shall we ban all of those other things while we're at it?


*Healthy in moderation, practicality of bans, affects on others, etc, yawn.*

And perhaps cigarettes are healthy in moderation as well? Or at least not all that harmful.

My point is, you'll need a much better reason for banning it than health risks.
mattyj
ocalhoun wrote:
Nameless wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Greatking wrote:
it should be banned totally. its not healty.

Hm, what else is not healthy?

Drinking, sodas, junk food, not working out every day, spending large amounts of time on TV/computer/video games, getting insufficient sleep, et cetera...

Shall we ban all of those other things while we're at it?


*Healthy in moderation, practicality of bans, affects on others, etc, yawn.*

And perhaps cigarettes are healthy in moderation as well? Or at least not all that harmful.

My point is, you'll need a much better reason for banning it than health risks.


Its been proven without doubt to cause cancer, what other reason does there need to be exactly?

If smokers want to kill themselves let them do it in their own houses, why should i have to put up with the disgusting crap in a public place?

Why should my health be affected because smokers are allowed to smoke in public?
deanhills
mattyj wrote:
Its been proven without doubt to cause cancer, what other reason does there need to be exactly?
Not only cancer, but also heart disease:
Quote:
Do you have any idea which smoking-related disease is the number one cause of death among smokers? If you're thinking it's lung cancer or COPD/emphysema, you're wrong. While both of these smoking-related diseases do claim a lot of lives, it is heart disease that holds the top slot in the list of diseases that kill smokers.

Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States today, and the leading cause of death among smokers. And, on a global level, researchers report that there were 1,690,000 premature deaths from cardiovascular disease among smokers in the year 2000. In contrast, there were approximately 850,000 lung cancer deaths during the same year, and 118,000 COPD deaths from smoking in 2001, worldwide.

Smoking is hard on the heart, but the fact is, tobacco use plays a role in a multitude of diseases that ultimately lead to disability and/or death. Cigarette smoke contains over 4,000 chemical compounds; 200 of which are known to be poisonous, and upwards of 60 have been identified as carcinogens. Viewed in that light, it's no wonder that the effects of smoking are so widespread and destructive.

Source: http://quitsmoking.about.com/od/tobaccorelateddiseases/a/smokingrisks.htm
davstar
Yes, smoking should be illegal/banned. It not only has a negative impact on the person's health, but it effects those around them. I think smoking is disgusting and I hate when I walk past a smoker and I have to breathe it in.

There's no need to smoke when others are around you.....what ever happened to "treat people how you would want to be treated." When I play my music loud near the bus stops, people complain, but when smokers do their thing, no one says anything.

The quicker smoking is banned, the better it is going to be for me and my future children (if i have any)!
ocalhoun
mattyj wrote:

Its been proven without doubt to cause cancer, what other reason does there need to be exactly?

Yes, it causes cancer... so does sunlight. There's a huge list of things that cause cancer, shall we ban them all?
Quote:

Why should my health be affected because smokers are allowed to smoke in public?

Though the effects on your health of just occasional brief contact with smoke are probably very minimal, this is a legitimate concern.
Trying to ban it for the health of those who choose to smoke, however, is not legitimate; it is unwanted authoritarian meddling.

(And before anyone suspects me of ulterior motives, let me reiterate that I don't smoke and never have.)
mattyj
ocalhoun wrote:
mattyj wrote:

Its been proven without doubt to cause cancer, what other reason does there need to be exactly?

Yes, it causes cancer... so does sunlight. There's a huge list of things that cause cancer, shall we ban them all?
Quote:

Why should my health be affected because smokers are allowed to smoke in public?

Though the effects on your health of just occasional brief contact with smoke are probably very minimal, this is a legitimate concern.
Trying to ban it for the health of those who choose to smoke, however, is not legitimate; it is unwanted authoritarian meddling.

(And before anyone suspects me of ulterior motives, let me reiterate that I don't smoke and never have.)


I never said to ban it, i said to ban it in public, which is a reasonable thing to do...like you said if people choose to smoke that's their prerogative, but why should the health of non smokers be put at risk because of their choice to kill themselves with cigarette smoke?
QrafTee
ocalhoun wrote:
mattyj wrote:

Its been proven without doubt to cause cancer, what other reason does there need to be exactly?

Yes, it causes cancer... so does sunlight. There's a huge list of things that cause cancer, shall we ban them all?
Quote:

Why should my health be affected because smokers are allowed to smoke in public?

Though the effects on your health of just occasional brief contact with smoke are probably very minimal, this is a legitimate concern.
Trying to ban it for the health of those who choose to smoke, however, is not legitimate; it is unwanted authoritarian meddling.

(And before anyone suspects me of ulterior motives, let me reiterate that I don't smoke and never have.)
Yes, but sunlight also provides us Vitamin D, helps plants grow which provides us more nutrients, and it's something we cannot avoid outright (and shouldn't). Can you make the same argument for smoking?
deanhills
QrafTee wrote:
Yes, but sunlight also provides us Vitamin D, helps plants grow which provides us more nutrients, and it's something we cannot avoid outright (and shouldn't). Can you make the same argument for smoking?
Agreed. Furthermore, the ban is not on individual smoking but smoking in public, as smoking in public can be hazardous for the health of others. Tanning is an individual choice that is hazardous for the person who does the tanning. Although one could argue that by doing it in excess and developing skin cancer as a result that it would be putting a load on the medical services, but not in the same way as smoking is doing. Smoking stands out head and shoulder as a leading cause of heart disease and cancer.
ocalhoun
mattyj wrote:


I never said to ban it, i said to ban it in public, which is a reasonable thing to do...l

davstar did; that's who I was mainly arguing with.
Nameless
ocalhoun wrote:
mattyj wrote:

Its been proven without doubt to cause cancer, what other reason does there need to be exactly?

Yes, it causes cancer... so does sunlight. There's a huge list of things that cause cancer, shall we ban them all?

... Argh someone remind me what the name of this logical fallacy is, I swear it's on the tip of my tongue. Confused
deanhills
Nameless wrote:

... Argh someone remind me what the name of this logical fallacy is, I swear it's on the tip of my tongue. Confused
I love your way with words, particularly "logical fallacy". Now that does sound pretty fatal to me, but probably is a good description of having "smoking", a campaign for cleaner environment and preventive health care, all under the same "public interest" regulatory roof.
MechatheSlag
Personally I'd say yes, but that's without taking my fellow smokers into consideration.

No, it'd be overdoing it, but society is already putting an end to smoking anyway.
deanhills
MechatheSlag wrote:
but society is already putting an end to smoking anyway.
I see large numbers of young people smoking, young people being from school. Cigarettes are still being sold in large numbers. I don't see the end of it. If you check up on airports with "smoking rooms", they are full of smokers. However, I'm not asking that smoking be banned completely, just that people be stopped from smoking in public areas where they can do harm to other people. Some smokers are very considerate and would do it automatically. But quite a large number don't care and would light up anywhere without giving it a thought.
Ankhanu
deanhills wrote:
Some smokers are very considerate and would do it automatically. But quite a large number don't care and would light up anywhere without giving it a thought.


Quite true. I've known some very considerate smokers, though they are a minority.

Another interesting facet of smoking that I've noticed is the propensity of smokers to litter and think nothing of it... specifically with their butts, but also packages/wrappers. It's pretty disgusting walking in an area where smokers tend to congregate, as the ground is just covered in little bits of paper, cotton and various amounts of dried, shredded leaves. It's quite disheartening.
deanhills
Ankhanu wrote:
Another interesting facet of smoking that I've noticed is the propensity of smokers to litter and think nothing of it... specifically with their butts, but also packages/wrappers. It's pretty disgusting walking in an area where smokers tend to congregate, as the ground is just covered in little bits of paper, cotton and various amounts of dried, shredded leaves. It's quite disheartening.
It has irritated and confused me too. Almost like cigarette butts being flicked on grass lawns, or crushed under feet on a side walk, are not considered garbage. Worst part is littering sandy beaches with cigarette butts and wrappers.
Ankhanu
It amazes me how many environmentalist types that I have met who smoke also toss their butts... and abhor all other forms of litter. It's incredible.
ProfessorY91
I will reiterate a previous post (just because I think this thread has been necro'ed). Yes, the damn government (no matter which government we're talking about) should impose a ban on smoking IN PUBLIC. The right to breathe free air is not something we should trifle with - imagine going up to someone and strangling them; there's a ban on that, isn't there? By smoking next to someone, you are essentially doing the same thing albeit a bit slower and likely involving a lot more suffering. Why shouldn't there be a ban on smoking in public? Secondhand smoke can kill.

As for doing stuff in private, why should government even be involved in that case? There's no law against committing suicide, mostly because it would be impossible to enforce - not to mention its none of anyone's business. Smoking can, once again, be equated to death - committing an extremely long and drawn out suicide.

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

I say, follow it.
deanhills
ProfessorY91 wrote:
There's no law against committing suicide, mostly because it would be impossible to enforce - not to mention its none of anyone's business. Smoking can, once again, be equated to death - committing an extremely long and drawn out suicide.
I totally agree with the latter in that it can be a much drawn out agonizing process of "suicide". Suicide of course cannot be a crime, but attempted suicide could be in some of the States:
Quote:
In the U.S. suicide has never been treated as a crime nor punished by property forfeiture or ignominious burial. (Some states listed it on the books as a felony but imposed no penalty.) Curiously, as of 1963, six states still considered attempted suicide a crime--North and South Dakota, Washington, New Jersey, Nevada, and Oklahoma. Of course they didn't take matters as seriously as the Roman emperor Hadrian, who in 117 AD declared attempted suicide by soldiers a form of desertion and made it--no joke this time--a capital offense.
Source: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2501/is-suicide-against-the-law The article was well worth reading.
ocalhoun
ProfessorY91 wrote:

As for doing stuff in private, why should government even be involved in that case? There's no law against committing suicide, mostly because it would be impossible to enforce - not to mention its none of anyone's business. Smoking can, once again, be equated to death - committing an extremely long and drawn out suicide.

Not right now, but there have been such laws in the very recent past.

(How are we to view seat-belt laws, then?)
crossroads
I have to say I hate smokers, I hate the smell of them, the look of them, and everything about them. When I go to a place like a restaurant I do not want to sit in a room full of smoke. Smoking will ruin your taste buds, your liver, your lungs, ect. I dont understand why people even want to start smoking at all. I know that the "cool kids" are doing it when you are younger but Ive never seen it as "cool" to smoke. I know that when Im in an area with smokers I tend to get a bad head ache from the smell. The fact that you can tell people that smoke from just the smell of the person when they walk into a room or something is sad to me. I would be so embarrassed to smell like that. I guess you could say that I am the type of person who always makes sure to keep very well care of my self. I shower daily if not twice a day some times, I brush my teeth twice a day and try to eat a decent balanced meal. When I think of some one smoking and all the issues it does to your body I just dont understand why people would choose to do it.

Now I know that it is an "addictive" thing, that right there is a red flag to me. Why would a company need an addictive ingredient in there product? Maybe because they know if there isnt one in it no one would continue to buy them... Who would buy a pack of cigarette that are Im pretty sure almost $6.00 a pack around here at this current time if they didnt NEED them. Just think of how much cleaner this world would even be without cigarettes... All of those cigarette butts thrown onto the ground, out of the car window, in buildings even.
QrafTee
crossroads wrote:
I have to say I hate smokers, I hate the smell of them, the look of them, and everything about them. When I go to a place like a restaurant I do not want to sit in a room full of smoke. Smoking will ruin your taste buds, your liver, your lungs, ect. I dont understand why people even want to start smoking at all. I know that the "cool kids" are doing it when you are younger but Ive never seen it as "cool" to smoke. I know that when Im in an area with smokers I tend to get a bad head ache from the smell. The fact that you can tell people that smoke from just the smell of the person when they walk into a room or something is sad to me. I would be so embarrassed to smell like that. I guess you could say that I am the type of person who always makes sure to keep very well care of my self. I shower daily if not twice a day some times, I brush my teeth twice a day and try to eat a decent balanced meal. When I think of some one smoking and all the issues it does to your body I just dont understand why people would choose to do it.

Now I know that it is an "addictive" thing, that right there is a red flag to me. Why would a company need an addictive ingredient in there product? Maybe because they know if there isnt one in it no one would continue to buy them... Who would buy a pack of cigarette that are Im pretty sure almost $6.00 a pack around here at this current time if they didnt NEED them. Just think of how much cleaner this world would even be without cigarettes... All of those cigarette butts thrown onto the ground, out of the car window, in buildings even.
It's a business and it's all about the money.
Nameless
ocalhoun wrote:
ProfessorY91 wrote:

As for doing stuff in private, why should government even be involved in that case? There's no law against committing suicide, mostly because it would be impossible to enforce - not to mention its none of anyone's business. Smoking can, once again, be equated to death - committing an extremely long and drawn out suicide.

Not right now, but there have been such laws in the very recent past.

(How are we to view seat-belt laws, then?)


As enforced safety measures against accidental injury and to save money in the health care system on the basis that too many people are arrogant enough to assume they'll never need them. Which is rather different to a person a deliberately inflicting death upon themselves via a wide range of means, and in turn different to someone slowly suffering injuries as an unwanted but apparently accepted consequence to their smoking habit while also inflicting lesser harm and discomfort without any perceived benefits to other people around them at the time.
deanhills
Nameless wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
ProfessorY91 wrote:

As for doing stuff in private, why should government even be involved in that case? There's no law against committing suicide, mostly because it would be impossible to enforce - not to mention its none of anyone's business. Smoking can, once again, be equated to death - committing an extremely long and drawn out suicide.

Not right now, but there have been such laws in the very recent past.

(How are we to view seat-belt laws, then?)


As enforced safety measures against accidental injury and to save money in the health care system on the basis that too many people are arrogant enough to assume they'll never need them. Which is rather different to a person a deliberately inflicting death upon themselves via a wide range of means, and in turn different to someone slowly suffering injuries as an unwanted but apparently accepted consequence to their smoking habit while also inflicting lesser harm and discomfort without any perceived benefits to other people around them at the time.
I see both essentially as the same. Initially seat belts were voluntary, however people were not using them, and it was found that those who did wear seatbelts were more protected against accidents. When one drives, one has to accept that statistically there is a chance that you may get into an accident and be seriously or fatally injured. Laws for both are in the interest of safety and security of the public. In the case of seatbelt legislation it is not only in the interest of those who are driving, but also the passengers.
rayz0r
where I lice, Australia, they are slowly imposing laws refusing to allow smoking in many places. It started off with the car when a child under 16 is in it, then bars, parks, restaurants and pubs.

This should encourage the smokers to stop on their own accord, as they are slowly having pressure put on them
ocalhoun
rayz0r wrote:

This should encourage the smokers to stop on their own accord, as they are slowly having pressure put on them

I think perhaps you are unfamiliar with the definition of 'of their own accord'...
If you do something because of government pressure, it's not of your own accord. It's of the government's accord.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
rayz0r wrote:

This should encourage the smokers to stop on their own accord, as they are slowly having pressure put on them

I think perhaps you are unfamiliar with the definition of 'of their own accord'...
If you do something because of government pressure, it's not of your own accord. It's of the government's accord.
I agree with rayz0r. When there is so much legislation around that puts the message across that smoking is bad for your health, people will involuntarily go the non-smoking route. Something will penetrate to their subconscious to the extent that they will think it is a dumb thing to do.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
involuntarily

Somehow, I just have a big problem with that one little word...

Maybe I'm just crazy.
Jinx
Not crazy Ocalhoun - perfectly sane and Libertarian.
Personally, I think the Federal government has no right getting involved in this issue, nor in seat belts, abortion rights, marriage laws, health care, welfare, or any of the other invasive 'Nanny State' s#!& they do.

Those sorts of issues should be handled on a city by city basis by local town councils - on a small enough level that the citizens can come in and have their say and make sure their communities are being run the way they want them to be - not dictated by distant politicians under pressure from lobbyists!

But then, I'm just one of those wackos who believes that the Federal government should be limited by the Constitution that they seem to be ignoring, which is another rant altogether.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
involuntarily

Somehow, I just have a big problem with that one little word...

Maybe I'm just crazy.
Involuntarily was meant along the lines of when legislation is applied and enforced consistently and as widely as it is such as the Ozzies have done, that over a period of time it can influence people to smoke less. There comes a stage when legislation is done as much as it is with smoking in Australia that some people start to think it is idiotic to smoke. Smoking is not the "in" thing, it is dangerous for someone's health. In this case I do think it is a good thing as it has been proven many times over how dangerous smoking is to health, and how it contributes to a heavy load on the medical system in terms of taking care of chronic heart disease and related diseases.

I'm also not for unnecessary legislation, but in this case Governments have been nice in recommending for decades that smoking is bad for people's health, however that did not make a difference to people as possibly they thought that if someone asks something nice, that it couldn't possibly be that serious, don't worry about it. Not only is it bad for the smokers, but it is especially bad for the other people in society who do not smoke, or have to pay heavy taxes to make medical care available.

Ditto drinking and driving. For me that has a similar affect that smoking has. Government initially recommended it is bad to drink and drive, and then legislated it with penalties because people might have thought the recommendation means it is not really such a big deal, after all, when they are drunk they are still good drivers! Creating legislation also serves the purpose of promoting how bad it is to drink and drive and when I was referring to "involuntarily" that is what I meant. After a while people who drive just don't drink after work, or if they do, they make special arrangements for someone sober to take them home. It has become an almost spontaneous response.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
It has become an almost spontaneous response.

Now that's interesting...

1- Recommend against it
2- Make it strictly illegal
3- When people obey the law it is a 'spontaneous response'


For smoking, a complete ban should not be the goal.
If you want people to stop, raise the taxes on it, and use that revenue to advertise against it.

Second-hand smoke is a problem, so just ban its use within poorly-ventilated public areas.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
It has become an almost spontaneous response.

Now that's interesting...

1- Recommend against it
2- Make it strictly illegal
3- When people obey the law it is a 'spontaneous response'


For smoking, a complete ban should not be the goal.
If you want people to stop, raise the taxes on it, and use that revenue to advertise against it.

Second-hand smoke is a problem, so just ban its use within poorly-ventilated public areas.
You're still not understanding what I'm trying to say. I'm not asking for a ban of smoking, although that does sound like a good idea although a bit rediculous. I'm trying to make a point, possibly unsuccessfully and my apologies for that, that when a law is as widely implemented as the anti-smoking ban in social places in Australia, yes, people obey as they have no choice in this, but with that there is an element of pursuasion that smoking is bad for one's health. In addition to obeying the law, some people (not everyone) may be smoking less or stop smoking as a consequence of the legislation.
Ankhanu
Jinx wrote:
Not crazy Ocalhoun - perfectly sane and Libertarian.
Personally, I think the Federal government has no right getting involved in this issue, nor in seat belts, abortion rights, marriage laws, health care, welfare, or any of the other invasive 'Nanny State' s#!& they do.

Those sorts of issues should be handled on a city by city basis by local town councils - on a small enough level that the citizens can come in and have their say and make sure their communities are being run the way they want them to be - not dictated by distant politicians under pressure from lobbyists!

But then, I'm just one of those wackos who believes that the Federal government should be limited by the Constitution that they seem to be ignoring, which is another rant altogether.


I guess it's kosher for you that our non-smoking laws are determined at the provincial (state) and municipal levels then Smile
deanhills
Jinx wrote:
Those sorts of issues should be handled on a city by city basis by local town councils - on a small enough level that the citizens can come in and have their say and make sure their communities are being run the way they want them to be - not dictated by distant politicians under pressure from lobbyists!.
Are there many people like you who feel the same about this, as this is sooo right, especially with the Health Care Bill, and I believe the Banking system too. Banks should be serving the community first. Right now they have become too BIG and decisions are also coming from distant cities in faraway States rather right where the people are. Are there any people campaigning for this on a regional level? Or are they just complaining about it and hoping someone else will take up the initiative?

I totally agree that the smoking legislation should come from the bottom up. The Federal Government only making legislation about really BIG issues such as going to war, budget etc. All other aspects including education, medical care, etc. should be dealt with on regional and State level.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:

I totally agree that the smoking legislation should come from the bottom up. The Federal Government only making legislation about really BIG issues such as going to war, budget etc. All other aspects including education, medical care, etc. should be dealt with on regional and State level.

Why not take it even further, and have each public building decide for itself to ban smoking or not?
TurtleShell
You know, if you can't walk down the sidewalk carrying a beer, then you shouldn't be able to walk down the sidewalk smoking a cigarette and nearly light passerby on fire. This has happened to me before--that is, I've almost been the one lit on fire--and I find it offensive that smokers aren't more careful with their cigarettes. Plus, I'd like to be able to drink beer while walking down the street and I can't. It's all unfair and I don't feel bad for the smokers.
BRzdOwN
I think that people should over all not smoke. Smoking in public is which kills other people, because of the smoke that people in hale which can affect the way they breath and how they will end up in life. Second had smoke is very bad to anyone no matter the age. Now just to sum this up, I would never start smoking if i were you!!
ocalhoun
BRzdOwN wrote:
I think that people should over all not smoke. Smoking in public is which kills other people, because of the smoke that people in hale which can affect the way they breath and how they will end up in life. Second had smoke is very bad to anyone no matter the age. Now just to sum this up, I would never start smoking if i were you!!

That's fine for an individual opinion, but if you apply it to a group that includes people who disagree, it becomes totalitarian.
Skinetic
Hell yea. No more addicts roaming the streets smoking god knows what choking anyone near him/her.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
BRzdOwN wrote:
I think that people should over all not smoke. Smoking in public is which kills other people, because of the smoke that people in hale which can affect the way they breath and how they will end up in life. Second had smoke is very bad to anyone no matter the age. Now just to sum this up, I would never start smoking if i were you!!

That's fine for an individual opinion, but if you apply it to a group that includes people who disagree, it becomes totalitarian.
So if there are people in a Group who believe murder is OK, then it would be totalitarian not to allow them to murder someone? Or if at school you have a group of students, the majority of whom get lots of enjoyment and make it into a fun sport to bully others, it would be totalitarian not to allow them to go ahead with the bullying? If it is proven that people who inhale cigarette smoke are vulnerable to chronic diseases, there has to be an element of common sense that says that even if only 5% agree that the building they are working in should be smoke-free, that that has to be their right in the interest of public health and safety. Apart from physical damage, cigarettes also cause fires by those who are sloppy smokers and can be a potential fire hazard.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
BRzdOwN wrote:
I think that people should over all not smoke. Smoking in public is which kills other people, because of the smoke that people in hale which can affect the way they breath and how they will end up in life. Second had smoke is very bad to anyone no matter the age. Now just to sum this up, I would never start smoking if i were you!!

That's fine for an individual opinion, but if you apply it to a group that includes people who disagree, it becomes totalitarian.
So if there are people in a Group who believe murder is OK, then it would be totalitarian not to allow them to murder someone? Or if at school you have a group of students, the majority of whom get lots of enjoyment and make it into a fun sport to bully others, it would be totalitarian not to allow them to go ahead with the bullying? If it is proven that people who inhale cigarette smoke are vulnerable to chronic diseases, there has to be an element of common sense that says that even if only 5% agree that the building they are working in should be smoke-free, that that has to be their right in the interest of public health and safety. Apart from physical damage, cigarettes also cause fires by those who are sloppy smokers and can be a potential fire hazard.

Of course there must be some laws, or you have anarchy, which soon leads to some very bad places...

My point is just that personal views (should) have no place in determining government policy.
Nameless
ocalhoun wrote:
My point is just that personal views (should) have no place in determining government policy.


That even secondhand smoke is unhealthy isn't a personal view, it's a fact.

Also, define 'personal view', or more specifically, what else exactly law is supposed to be based on. Everything up and including murder could be disagreed with from a personal view (eg. "S/he deserved it.").

And for that matter, the government SHOULD take people's personal views into consideration when determining government policy because the reason people elect them at all is because their view closest match the voter's!
ocalhoun
Nameless wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
My point is just that personal views (should) have no place in determining government policy.


That even secondhand smoke is unhealthy isn't a personal view, it's a fact.

That's the only fact that should have any bearing though.

I'm just trying to fight the 'smoking is disgusting; let's ban it' mentality.
sonam
Last time I am traveling lot around Europe and sow many bad side of banning smoking from some public places. For example, in Germany lot of people smoking by walking around or siting outside (now in winter) in caffe below of heaters. The same is in lot of other countries.

OK, I am wotting "Yes" for banning from some public places (stops, hotels, restorans, etc., but I am preety sure it is not good to stop smoking in caffee where is not serving food. Why?

I haven´t children, but I am thinking about childrens of my friends. If they are walking around and see people are smoking they will think: "This is cool, maybe I can try." I don´t like to see men or women how smoking on the street. This is really ugly. The smoking is less visible in some caffee because childeren haven´t rights to go in. If someone make statistic I think the 85% of caffee visitors are smokers and in that case this is really good place for smokers suicide. Very Happy

Sonam
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
I'm just trying to fight the 'smoking is disgusting;
but it definitely is in addition to being harmful to health. I can't imagine legislators would ban it because it is disgusting though, as that would never pass the "in the public safety" interest test. It took decades for people to get where they are now with trying to get people to stop smoking. And a real battle when you see all those fantastic tobacco company ads that make smoking look really cool.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
I can't imagine legislators would ban it because it is disgusting though,


I can imagine legislators doing all kinds of things for reasons other than the best public interest.
... Which is also kind of disgusting.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I can't imagine legislators would ban it because it is disgusting though,


I can imagine legislators doing all kinds of things for reasons other than the best public interest.
... Which is also kind of disgusting.
Laughing Laughing Laughing Just to think that they are getting enormous salaries, probably lots of benefits, including healthcare .... etc. etc. ... you may have a point there.
snowboardalliance
ocalhoun wrote:
Perhaps, in the interest of potential second-hand smoke victims, you could enact a law that says smokers must stop smoking in a public place when asked, but it should not be banned entirely- even in situations where nobody cares.


Perhaps...in a perfect world where people are polite and friendly to everyone.

Most people won't bother asking especially if they are in a minority (say a group of smokers and a few people don't like it). Plus, people are, in general, ****** and won't care. And who will enforce it?

On campus here we have a rule of no smoking 25 ft in front of doors, but no one cares and there are no police out there measuring how close people are.


I don't usually support government bans and restrictions on behavior, but I think this is a case that warrants a ban.

It's a question of public health. If people still want to smoke for some reason, they can do it at home, and maybe this will encourage them to actually quit.
Insanity
Even so, if there is a known law against it and it's written out on a sign, it should serve at least as a deterrent to the more law-abiding citizens. Of course there are going to be people who are naturally jerks and won't adhere to it, but you can't really do anything about them unless there are more police enforcing it.
Afaceinthematrix
I have seen many people here talk of public places like restaurants, cafes, and hotels. The government seems to agree that those places are public also... What I don't understand is why in the hell does the government (or anyone) seem to think that those places are even remotely public? Sure, they're used (and essentially funded) by the public (in the form of customers), but they aren't actually public. Why the hell should the government be able to tell me that I cannot allow smoking in the restaurant that I own? That's bullshit to the last degree (and California has laws like that). If I owned a restaurant, I probably wouldn't allow smoking. But if I wanted to, there should be no law against it because it's my restaurant! And if you don't like it, take your business elsewhere because I'm obviously trying to appeal to a different crowed.

So no. You should be allowed to smoke in restaurants, movie theaters, cafes, hotels, bars, etc. as long as it's allowed in the privately owned building. However I would agree that smoking should be banned in completely public buildings like libraries and schools. However, California seems to think that they should be able to ban smoking in privately owned buildings that just happen to be used by the general public... That's infringing on the rights of the property owners...
allisa
I had seen that here in India smoking is banned on public places and. Flin makers are order to avoid smoking items in films.
Nameless
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Why the hell should the government be able to tell me that I cannot allow smoking in the restaurant that I own? That's bullshit to the last degree

Why the hell should the government be able to tell me that I cannot allow stabbing in the restaurant that I own? That's bullshit to the first degree ... murder!

/Exaggerating the issue.
//Please do not be considering to the serious.
Afaceinthematrix
Nameless wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Why the hell should the government be able to tell me that I cannot allow smoking in the restaurant that I own? That's bullshit to the last degree

Why the hell should the government be able to tell me that I cannot allow stabbing in the restaurant that I own? That's bullshit to the first degree ... murder!

/Exaggerating the issue.
//Please do not be considering to the serious.


LoL. I almost took that serious until you mentioned that you were simply exaggerating the issue. I am sure that you see the flaw in that argument. But in case someone else doesn't see the flaw, I'll answer it right here.

The government can tell you that stabbing is not allowed in the restaurant that you own because stabbing is not allowed anywhere. The government shouldn't be allowed to tell you that smoking is not allowed in a restaurant you own because smoking is generally a legal activity.

If I had a sign in my restaurant saying, "No stabbing" then stabbing would not be allowed... But it wouldn't not be allowed because of my sign, it would not be allowed because it's already illegal. That sign would be meaningless (although I guess it may serve as a reminder that it's illegal). However, a no smoking sign will make smoking illegal in the restaurant because of the sign. Currently there aren't (well actually there are in many places but there definitely shouldn't be because there's no reason for it) any laws against smoking.

So that answers that question. But given that you said not to take you serious, I am sure that you already knew why that argument was invalid.
ankitdatashn
Ankhanu wrote:
truespeed wrote:
... the fact that smokers can't smoke in public places,means that they will smoke less...


My personal observations indicate that bans on smoking in public places does NOT curb an individual's smoking rate; they smoke just as much, just have to excuse themselves from things more often to get their fix.


Still its better as the people who do not smoke will have free air to breath. Coz many people have asthama etc. So they will be saved from the potential harm! Smile
Bondings
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Nameless wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Why the hell should the government be able to tell me that I cannot allow smoking in the restaurant that I own? That's bullshit to the last degree

Why the hell should the government be able to tell me that I cannot allow stabbing in the restaurant that I own? That's bullshit to the first degree ... murder!

/Exaggerating the issue.
//Please do not be considering to the serious.


LoL. I almost took that serious until you mentioned that you were simply exaggerating the issue. I am sure that you see the flaw in that argument. But in case someone else doesn't see the flaw, I'll answer it right here.

The government can tell you that stabbing is not allowed in the restaurant that you own because stabbing is not allowed anywhere. The government shouldn't be allowed to tell you that smoking is not allowed in a restaurant you own because smoking is generally a legal activity.

I don't agree. I would rather compare it to throwing a knife. Throwing a knife is usually completely legal, but gets illegal if you target/hit someone else. It's the same with a lot of other things that are legal, until other people are involved that did not give their prior agreement.
goutha
ankitdatashn wrote:
Ankhanu wrote:
truespeed wrote:
... the fact that smokers can't smoke in public places,means that they will smoke less...


My personal observations indicate that bans on smoking in public places does NOT curb an individual's smoking rate; they smoke just as much, just have to excuse themselves from things more often to get their fix.


Still its better as the people who do not smoke will have free air to breath. Coz many people have asthama etc. So they will be saved from the potential harm! Smile


Well. I'm not really ok with you. Peolpe have the freedom to smoke. But this freedom stops when it thretens other people's freedom. Then, I'm ok for smoke in "reserved" public space.
Afaceinthematrix
Bondings wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Nameless wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Why the hell should the government be able to tell me that I cannot allow smoking in the restaurant that I own? That's bullshit to the last degree

Why the hell should the government be able to tell me that I cannot allow stabbing in the restaurant that I own? That's bullshit to the first degree ... murder!

/Exaggerating the issue.
//Please do not be considering to the serious.


LoL. I almost took that serious until you mentioned that you were simply exaggerating the issue. I am sure that you see the flaw in that argument. But in case someone else doesn't see the flaw, I'll answer it right here.

The government can tell you that stabbing is not allowed in the restaurant that you own because stabbing is not allowed anywhere. The government shouldn't be allowed to tell you that smoking is not allowed in a restaurant you own because smoking is generally a legal activity.

I don't agree. I would rather compare it to throwing a knife. Throwing a knife is usually completely legal, but gets illegal if you target/hit someone else. It's the same with a lot of other things that are legal, until other people are involved that did not give their prior agreement.


No. Throwing knives at unconsensual victims is illegal. If you want to stand there with an apple on your head and let me see if I can throw a knife and hit an apple then you're under perfect liberty to try and do so. More power to you. If you want to come into my smoker's bar then that's completely up to you. If you do not want to come in, then go to another bar - they're a dime a dozen.

I fail to see any logical reason why the government should be able to ban smoking in bars, hotels, restaurants, or anything that is owned by a private party. I agree that smoking should be banned in libraries, schools, courtroom, etc. But those are purely public places unlike a privately owned bar.
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
I fail to see any logical reason why the government should be able to ban smoking in bars, hotels, restaurants, or anything that is owned by a private party. I agree that smoking should be banned in libraries, schools, courtroom, etc. But those are purely public places unlike a privately owned bar.
How private can the bar really be when the public visits it? For me it can only really be "privately owned" along the lines of your description when admission is by invitation only and there is no fee involved. It would be the equivalent of a private home, where the owner decides that it is OK to smoke. As soon as it is a business, where the owner has to have a license to operate it, it becomes subject to Government regulation and "public". It may be privately owned, but the business is considered to be serving the public and a rule like this would be in the interest health and safety of the public.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
it becomes subject to Government regulation and "public".

That's the part I don't like. The more the government stays out of people's lives, the better.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
it becomes subject to Government regulation and "public".

The more the government stays out of people's lives, the better.
Agreed, but smoking for me is an exception. If smokers were generally very unselfish and concerned about the health of others so that they would do their smoking privately, then that would be different. This legislation did not come overnight. There has been decades of education to the public how bad smoking is for health and safety, including the load it places on the health care system in terms of resulting in later life chronic diseases. Yet people only really started to pay attention when the Government started to legislate against it. Ditto speeding and drinking and driving. It took a very long time and lots of education about how bad it is, before it got legislated.
Ankhanu
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
I have seen many people here talk of public places like restaurants, cafes, and hotels. The government seems to agree that those places are public also... What I don't understand is why in the hell does the government (or anyone) seem to think that those places are even remotely public? Sure, they're used (and essentially funded) by the public (in the form of customers), but they aren't actually public. Why the hell should the government be able to tell me that I cannot allow smoking in the restaurant that I own? That's bullshit to the last degree (and California has laws like that). If I owned a restaurant, I probably wouldn't allow smoking. But if I wanted to, there should be no law against it because it's my restaurant! And if you don't like it, take your business elsewhere because I'm obviously trying to appeal to a different crowed.

So no. You should be allowed to smoke in restaurants, movie theaters, cafes, hotels, bars, etc. as long as it's allowed in the privately owned building. However I would agree that smoking should be banned in completely public buildings like libraries and schools. However, California seems to think that they should be able to ban smoking in privately owned buildings that just happen to be used by the general public... That's infringing on the rights of the property owners...


This has been covered previously in the thread, but I'll reiterate the rationale anyway Smile
While these are, in reality, private businesses, they are also places of employment, and activities like smoking within their confined spaces are a health liability to employees, as well as the public in general that are supporting the business. Yeah, technically people can work "anywhere" or choose to not work in a smoking environment, but reality rarely quite works where people can pick and choose their employment situations. Smoking in these public private places is an infringement on the health of both patrons and staff... hence law can come into place.

Really it's no different than other health code laws governing the standards by which private businesses (particularly those in the food industry) operate.

ankitdatashn wrote:
Ankhanu wrote:
truespeed wrote:
... the fact that smokers can't smoke in public places,means that they will smoke less...


My personal observations indicate that bans on smoking in public places does NOT curb an individual's smoking rate; they smoke just as much, just have to excuse themselves from things more often to get their fix.


Still its better as the people who do not smoke will have free air to breath. Coz many people have asthama etc. So they will be saved from the potential harm! Smile


Yup, I agree with you... I was just pointing out my observations on human behaviour Smile Tell them they can't do something, they want to do it even more.
Afaceinthematrix
deanhills wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
I fail to see any logical reason why the government should be able to ban smoking in bars, hotels, restaurants, or anything that is owned by a private party. I agree that smoking should be banned in libraries, schools, courtroom, etc. But those are purely public places unlike a privately owned bar.
How private can the bar really be when the public visits it? For me it can only really be "privately owned" along the lines of your description when admission is by invitation only and there is no fee involved. It would be the equivalent of a private home, where the owner decides that it is OK to smoke. As soon as it is a business, where the owner has to have a license to operate it, it becomes subject to Government regulation and "public". It may be privately owned, but the business is considered to be serving the public and a rule like this would be in the interest health and safety of the public.



Absolutely not. My tax dollars don't pay for the bars. Therefore, they are private. My tax dollars don't pay for restaurants or clubs either. Therefore, they are private. There are lots of bars nearby and I can pick and choose which one to drink my beer at. The one I go to doesn't allow smoking, which is good for me. If it did, then I would probably choose another to go to (although once I'm drunk, secondhand smoke really doesn't bother me anymore).

Quote:
This has been covered previously in the thread, but I'll reiterate the rationale anyway :)
While these are, in reality, private businesses, they are also places of employment, and activities like smoking within their confined spaces are a health liability to employees, as well as the public in general that are supporting the business. Yeah, technically people can work "anywhere" or choose to not work in a smoking environment, but reality rarely quite works where people can pick and choose their employment situations. Smoking in these public private places is an infringement on the health of both patrons and staff... hence law can come into place.

Really it's no different than other health code laws governing the standards by which private businesses (particularly those in the food industry) operate.


That's still a flawed argument considering you can always find a different place to work. I know that you said reality doesn't work that way, but your argument is still flawed. Consider this:

I go to a lot of heavy metal concerts. At every show that I go to, there's always security guards standing right in front of the stage next to the speakers. Constant exposure to loud music every night will most likely damage their hearing in the long run. So what should the government do? Should they create laws that add volume control to concerts so that the hearing of the employees that work at the venue can be protected? If they're concerned about their hearing, they will have to find another job or else the government will have to step in and add volume control to concerts (which would outrage the heavy metal community).

The bottom line is that smoking is a legal activity and the government should have no right to tell me that I'm not allowed to permit it in my own damn building. Customers can choose to go elsewhere if they don't like it (which is one reason why I wouldn't allow it as a business owner. Non smokers who are bothered by secondhand smoke outnumber smokers). My employees can search for another job.
erlendhg
In my country, Norway, it has now been several years since the government came with the new law that prohibited smoking in public places like bars, cafés etc.

Actually, the effect we see is quite clear. Even though one might not think so, less people are smoking now. But then, more people turn over to other tobacco products, like snus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snus
The positive thing about it, is that the risk of getting cancer (lung cancer) is reduced, since less people smoke, and snus isn't inhaled.
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Absolutely not. My tax dollars don't pay for the bars. Therefore, they are private. My tax dollars don't pay for restaurants or clubs either. Therefore, they are private. There are lots of bars nearby and I can pick and choose which one to drink my beer at. The one I go to doesn't allow smoking, which is good for me. If it did, then I would probably choose another to go to (although once I'm drunk, secondhand smoke really doesn't bother me anymore).
This has nothing to do with tax dollars. This is about licensing a business whether you like it or not. If one operates a business whether privately or publicly owned, it still requires a license to operate as the safety and security focus of the regulations are on the people that are employed by the business and the people that the business is doing business with on its premises. If the business does not conform with local Government regulations, such as not smoking, it will lose its license and won't be able to operate as a business. Whether privately or publicly owned is irrelevant.
Ankhanu
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Quote:
This has been covered previously in the thread, but I'll reiterate the rationale anyway Smile
While these are, in reality, private businesses, they are also places of employment, and activities like smoking within their confined spaces are a health liability to employees, as well as the public in general that are supporting the business. Yeah, technically people can work "anywhere" or choose to not work in a smoking environment, but reality rarely quite works where people can pick and choose their employment situations. Smoking in these public private places is an infringement on the health of both patrons and staff... hence law can come into place.

Really it's no different than other health code laws governing the standards by which private businesses (particularly those in the food industry) operate.


That's still a flawed argument considering you can always find a different place to work. I know that you said reality doesn't work that way, but your argument is still flawed. Consider this:

I go to a lot of heavy metal concerts. At every show that I go to, there's always security guards standing right in front of the stage next to the speakers. Constant exposure to loud music every night will most likely damage their hearing in the long run. So what should the government do? Should they create laws that add volume control to concerts so that the hearing of the employees that work at the venue can be protected? If they're concerned about their hearing, they will have to find another job or else the government will have to step in and add volume control to concerts (which would outrage the heavy metal community).

The bottom line is that smoking is a legal activity and the government should have no right to tell me that I'm not allowed to permit it in my own damn building. Customers can choose to go elsewhere if they don't like it (which is one reason why I wouldn't allow it as a business owner. Non smokers who are bothered by secondhand smoke outnumber smokers). My employees can search for another job.


This is a flawed retort Wink
Being a musician myself I know that there are measures one can reasonably take to protect the health of their ears when working in high dB environments. For about $200 you can be fitted for earplugs specifically designed for your ear canal that will protect your hearing in very loud situations for long, repeated exposures. You can get much cheaper protection if you go for something that will muffle out more frequencies, something that's not designed specifically for you or even wear standard industrial ear protection (even wadded tissue will provide a fair bit of protection). Anyone who is around high dB environments repeatedly or for any length of time should take precautions to protect themselves, to not do so is foolish. High volume situations and toxic air aren't quite on the same playing field. Also, believe it or not, in many places there are governmental noise constraint laws, or have OHS requirements that ear protection be worn on the job. There have been many examples of winning lawsuits of old employees with hearing loss suing their employers for their losses... much like there have been lawsuits of employees working in smoke-filled environments suing for health problems that result from their work conditions.

Bottom line is, private businesses operate within the public sphere and therefore come under legal constraints. You're absolutely right that in your own damn building (your home, other private building in which the public is not invited for commerce) you can choose to have a smoke filled or smoke free environment, but once you invite the general public in you change the dynamic of interaction and your responsibility for the well being of those people you invite in. Some nations or states take this idea of being responsible for others more seriously than others, just as some people take it more seriously than others... and it really does say a lot about those states and people's ethical values.

Also, the reality is that in many places finding new employment elsewhere isn't a realistic option for many who are stuck working in toxic work environments. They may not have the skill sets required to work in another type of position, and in many places unemployment rates are quite high, meaning that if they left their current job, it's entirely likely that they WON'T find something else. Though I suppose homelessness and starvation are less inconvenient for many than the imposition of having to smoke outdoors.
deanhills
Ankhanu wrote:
For about $200 you can be fitted for earplugs specifically designed for your ear canal that will protect your hearing in very loud situations for long, repeated exposures.
I was unaware of this kind of protection and am very much interested. Where does one get fitted with them?

Agreed with everything you say with regard to private businesses operating in the public sphere. The anti-smoking legislation would be for the benefit of the people who work for and are customers of the business. Whether the business is privately or publicly owned would be irrelevant.
Afaceinthematrix
Ankhanu wrote:
This is a flawed retort ;)
Being a musician myself I know that there are measures one can reasonably take to protect the health of their ears when working in high dB environments. For about $200 you can be fitted for earplugs specifically designed for your ear canal that will protect your hearing in very loud situations for long, repeated exposures. You can get much cheaper protection if you go for something that will muffle out more frequencies, something that's not designed specifically for you or even wear standard industrial ear protection (even wadded tissue will provide a fair bit of protection). Anyone who is around high dB environments repeatedly or for any length of time should take precautions to protect themselves, to not do so is foolish. High volume situations and toxic air aren't quite on the same playing field. Also, believe it or not, in many places there are governmental noise constraint laws, or have OHS requirements that ear protection be worn on the job. There have been many examples of winning lawsuits of old employees with hearing loss suing their employers for their losses... much like there have been lawsuits of employees working in smoke-filled environments suing for health problems that result from their work conditions.

Bottom line is, private businesses operate within the public sphere and therefore come under legal constraints. You're absolutely right that in your own damn building (your home, other private building in which the public is not invited for commerce) you can choose to have a smoke filled or smoke free environment, but once you invite the general public in you change the dynamic of interaction and your responsibility for the well being of those people you invite in. Some nations or states take this idea of being responsible for others more seriously than others, just as some people take it more seriously than others... and it really does say a lot about those states and people's ethical values.

Also, the reality is that in many places finding new employment elsewhere isn't a realistic option for many who are stuck working in toxic work environments. They may not have the skill sets required to work in another type of position, and in many places unemployment rates are quite high, meaning that if they left their current job, it's entirely likely that they WON'T find something else. Though I suppose homelessness and starvation are less inconvenient for many than the imposition of having to smoke outdoors.


Just like you can get earplugs, you can also get oxygen masks. So really, if you're that concerned about it, you can protect yourself against it. So that's really the same exact argument.

Besides, non-smokers bothered by second-hand smoke far outnumbers smokers. So most businesses would want to ban smoking anyways because it will appeal to more customers. The main places that would allow it would be bars.

At that point, if you worked at one of those places, you should be able to get another job if it seriously bothers you that much. If you can waitress and serve cocktails at one bar you can do the same at another bar - or any restaurant.

You mentioned the workers not being qualified for anything else. Businesses that would operate with the public in this sense are low qualified jobs and these workers can work at movie theaters, restaurants, etc. Most of these places will continue to not allow smoking because a movie theater that starts to allow smoking will probably see a net loss of customers that have switched over to the other theater in town...
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Just like you can get earplugs, you can also get oxygen masks.
Laughing Laughing Now that would make for good conversation in a pub! I guess they can improvise with electronic devices attached to the oxygen masks so people can talk to one another, and have straws for drinking! Little absurd though, wouldn't you think?

Afaceinthematrix wrote:
At that point, if you worked at one of those places, you should be able to get another job if it seriously bothers you that much. If you can waitress and serve cocktails at one bar you can do the same at another bar - or any restaurant.
This sounds a bit clinical and maybe heartless, usually people who work in the pub grow into the pub business as characters, and it could be bad business for them to leave, as well as difficult to find a similar position with that level of camaraderie. You have to know most pubs have distinct personalities of their own. Certain waitresses come and go maybe, but there are the ones that stay and make the business into something good.

I found something really interesting. People who smoke also prefer smoke-free zones. For example in quite a number of Hotels, some smokers prefer to stay in smoke-free rooms as there is nothing worse than smoke permeating every inch of the room, including the linens and curtains, gives the feeling of unclean. Nothing worse either than a smoke-filled pub where your eyes are smarting and afterwards you need to shower to get the stench out of your hair and clothes. Sort of real dumb for me in addition to health concerns, which are very obvious. Isn't there a way that the tobacco companies can redesign the cigarettes so that they can become smokeless so that smokers would only poison themselves?
Nameless
deanhills wrote:
Isn't there a way that the tobacco companies can redesign the cigarettes so that they can become smokeless so that smokers would only poison themselves?

I'm imagining a smoker walking through a crowded street wearing a gas mask, with their cigarette inside it. If the smoke never leaves the mask, does it breach any laws?
handfleisch
It goes too far when they ban it in outdoor stadiums. But in restaurants, work places, etc, I'm glad about the ban. People are still free to smoke at home and outside etc.

At the same time I think it's so strange that people reel in horror from a cigarette someone lights up near them, and then go out and get in their car and drive among hundreds of cars all blowing poisonous gases out around them. Pollution from cars is majorly killing us, giving us asthma and breathing problems and other diseases, but we just don't care because we all want the convenience of driving everywhere for any reason. Screw our health, the environment, the future, global warming-- I want to drive 10 minutes to the 7-11 to buy a bag of potato chips.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Just like you can get earplugs, you can also get oxygen masks.
Laughing Laughing Now that would make for good conversation in a pub! I guess they can improvise with electronic devices attached to the oxygen masks so people can talk to one another, and have straws for drinking! Little absurd though, wouldn't you think?

^.^ Already exists!

What, a way to drink through it, like this?


and a way to talk through it like this?
erlendhg
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Just like you can get earplugs, you can also get oxygen masks.
Laughing Laughing Now that would make for good conversation in a pub! I guess they can improvise with electronic devices attached to the oxygen masks so people can talk to one another, and have straws for drinking! Little absurd though, wouldn't you think?

^.^ Already exists!

What, a way to drink through it, like this?


and a way to talk through it like this?


Oh my, that is crazy.
I don't know whether I should laugh or not Razz
ocalhoun
erlendhg wrote:

Oh my, that is crazy.
I don't know whether I should laugh or not Razz

Crazy?
Soldiers in chemical warfare environments still have to keep hydrated and be able to give orders...
deanhills
Nameless wrote:
I'm imagining a smoker walking through a crowded street wearing a gas mask, with their cigarette inside it. If the smoke never leaves the mask, does it breach any laws?
Laughing Laughing Now that is a sight to behold, and choking in it too.

I've been walking the streets in Dubai these last two days as I am on a short holiday, and with all the exhaust fumes I've been inhaling, maybe the gas mask with the cigarette inside would be more healthy Question Although I must say I have been caught in pockets of congregating cigarette smokers as well, that did not feel much less lethal ... Twisted Evil
snowboardalliance
deanhills wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Absolutely not. My tax dollars don't pay for the bars. Therefore, they are private. My tax dollars don't pay for restaurants or clubs either. Therefore, they are private. There are lots of bars nearby and I can pick and choose which one to drink my beer at. The one I go to doesn't allow smoking, which is good for me. If it did, then I would probably choose another to go to (although once I'm drunk, secondhand smoke really doesn't bother me anymore).
This has nothing to do with tax dollars. This is about licensing a business whether you like it or not. If one operates a business whether privately or publicly owned, it still requires a license to operate as the safety and security focus of the regulations are on the people that are employed by the business and the people that the business is doing business with on its premises. If the business does not conform with local Government regulations, such as not smoking, it will lose its license and won't be able to operate as a business. Whether privately or publicly owned is irrelevant.


Well put. Look at things like liquor licenses in bars and restaurants. There are a lot of regulations regardless of private ownership for businesses. But I think this issue has been discussed to death

handfleisch wrote:
It goes too far when they ban it in outdoor stadiums.


You're referring to the stadiums where they have, you know seats and you are packed in and can't change where you sit? You wouldn't mind if the group in the row in front of you is smoking? Geez that would make me sick. And whatever you're watching there is going to be hours of exposure. Even outdoors you're in very close proximity
rayz0r
Smoking IS a public health issue. People DO get serious injuries from second hand smoking, and much more worse for the people who are smoking.

If these people are silly enough to throw their lives away, let them do it, just not in public where other people may not want to throw their own health and safety away.
Tuvitor
As a former smoker who finds the habit vile, repugnant, and a massive waste of cash, I say HELL NO. Prohibition in any form is garbage.

I think people who whine about how hazardous second hand smoke is, sure it's hazardous if you are constantly around it, 24/7 a day, same as it is hazardous if you smoke it. But just passing some chump on the corner taking puffs off a deathstick...

Well I'll be blunt. There are far too many whiners out there. Far too many babies who scowl at the politically incorrect, who cry when someone else wants to enjoy their little vices that hurt nobody but themselves, because they catch a whiff of an unpleasant odor. Just passing through a smoke cloud isn't going to kill you. Living with a smoker who puts away a pack a day or more might.

handfleisch wrote:

At the same time I think it's so strange that people reel in horror from a cigarette someone lights up near them, and then go out and get in their car and drive among hundreds of cars all blowing poisonous gases out around them. Pollution from cars is majorly killing us, giving us asthma and breathing problems and other diseases, but we just don't care because we all want the convenience of driving everywhere for any reason. Screw our health, the environment, the future, global warming-- I want to drive 10 minutes to the 7-11 to buy a bag of potato chips.


^^Quoted for Truth. Such hypocrisy.
Nameless
Tuvitor wrote:
Prohibition in any form is garbage.

So what you're basically saying is that stabbing should be allowed. People are whiny wimps, I mean, sure it might hurt you if the dagger was in you all the time but just a quick scratch from some emo on the corner threatening to kill himself... There are far too many babies crying over a little sting, when somebody else just wants to slowly bleed out their own life. Well, that trickle of blood it isn't going to kill you. Living with an drunkard psychopath who shines his rambo-themed knife collection every day might.

/I stopped taking this topic entirely seriously a while ago.
//Although it might be possible to salvage a valid counterargument from that mess of an analogy. I think.
ocalhoun
Nameless wrote:
People are whiny wimps,

A lot of people are whiny wimps... The product of an over-comfortable society, I suppose.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Nameless wrote:
People are whiny wimps,

A lot of people are whiny wimps... The product of an over-comfortable society, I suppose.
May also have to do with educating children to speak up for themselves, and that could easily have the appearance of whining. I think there is a very thin border between whining and speaking up. Again, something that is in the eye of the beholder. With regard to this thread, those who are speaking up with regard to the negative consequences of smoking in public could also easily be seen as "whining". I think this is a kind of whining that I am completely happy with especially if it is going to lead to changes in the form of legislation that will ban smoking in public places.
Nameless
ocalhoun wrote:
Nameless wrote:
People are whiny wimps,

A lot of people are whiny wimps... The product of an over-comfortable society, I suppose.

Counterpoint: A lot of people are selfish jerks, probably for the same reason. How much those trying to smoke in public and those trying to stop them fall into either category is largely subjective.
Insanity
Things people do that threaten the health of others should be prohibited. Anyone who continues to do so and call others wimps are simply being selfish and self-centered.
Nameless
Insanity wrote:
Things people do that threaten the health of others should be prohibited. Anyone who continues to do so and call others wimps are simply being selfish and self-centered.

Ah ha ha ha ha no.

A teenager walking down a footpath texting with their mobile phone threatens my health when they bump into me and I trip.

The level of threat and practicality of the action / its prohibition are the most important factors. This is why you have worse dangers like cars being allowed because of how useful and integral to society they are. In the case of smoking, the health risk to bystanders varies depending on the exact situation, but anything other than a flat ban (in a defined area) is nigh impossible to enforce. How plausible it is for eg. smokers to curtail their collective habit to private property or passersby to avoid the smoke themselves is up for debate. It's far from cut and dry.
ocalhoun
Insanity wrote:
Things people do that threaten the health of others should be prohibited.


Ah, and in such fashion, we've traded 'fortune favors the bold' for 'safety first'...

Right you may be, in this case at least, but that doesn't remove the name of 'whiny wimp'.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
'whiny wimp'.
I must say I have never been comfortable with name calling such as "whiny wimp". Nameless nailed it for me with his posting and I agree either category is completely subjective:
Nameless wrote:
Counterpoint: A lot of people are selfish jerks, probably for the same reason. How much those trying to smoke in public and those trying to stop them fall into either category is largely subjective.
Greatking
smoking should be banned. its not good for those smoking and those around the premises. research continuesly show that its not good. yet people continue to manufacture and sell. and people buy them. i believe if its banned and its out of the system then nobody will be tempted to get some to sell let alone smoke.
Afaceinthematrix
Greatking wrote:
i believe if its banned and its out of the system then nobody will be tempted to get some to sell let alone smoke.


Haha... You have to be joking, right? Yeah, marijuana is completely banned in many countries yet no one manufactures it, sells it, or smokes it, right? No one is even tempted to, right? Yeah, that's why I can go to many street corners in my city and see people smoking it right out in public.

Alcohol is another good example. Every time any country has tried a prohibition on alcohol failure has been met. Actually, good research shows that the absolute worse way to get people to quit using drugs (or prevent new people from starting) is to ban it! That's right... Something becomes illegal and more people want to use it.
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Greatking wrote:
i believe if its banned and its out of the system then nobody will be tempted to get some to sell let alone smoke.


Haha... You have to be joking, right? Yeah, marijuana is completely banned in many countries yet no one manufactures it, sells it, or smokes it, right? No one is even tempted to, right? Yeah, that's why I can go to many street corners in my city and see people smoking it right out in public.

Alcohol is another good example. Every time any country has tried a prohibition on alcohol failure has been met. Actually, good research shows that the absolute worse way to get people to quit using drugs (or prevent new people from starting) is to ban it! That's right... Something becomes illegal and more people want to use it.
This is a good point, however I don't like it when someone tries to nix something by virtue of something else being bad as well. I'm glad we are tackling smoking. Alcohol is also poisonous to the system and needs to be tackled too. I'm not sure which one is more poisonous, smoking or alcohol. I know however that in any chronic disease usually alcohol is also on the list of things to give up. Apparently marijuana has medical use in prescribed quantities. As far as I can see some of the States have already been catching up in their legislation to allow marijuana for chronic diseases purposes, but I imagine that is by prescription and in limited doses under doctor supervision.
Afaceinthematrix
deanhills wrote:
This is a good point, however I don't like it when someone tries to nix something by virtue of something else being bad as well. I'm glad we are tackling smoking. Alcohol is also poisonous to the system and needs to be tackled too. I'm not sure which one is more poisonous, smoking or alcohol. I know however that in any chronic disease usually alcohol is also on the list of things to give up. Apparently marijuana has medical use in prescribed quantities. As far as I can see some of the States have already been catching up in their legislation to allow marijuana for chronic diseases purposes, but I imagine that is by prescription and in limited doses under doctor supervision.


No, no, no. There is no reason to tackle smoking or alcohol. There is already plenty of education and advertisements out there that clearly say that they are both dangerous activities. As long as everyone knows about the consequences, then there is no reason to tackle it, try to ban it, etc. That is completely against personal liberty. As long as what you're doing is not hurting anyone else, then there is absolutely no reason why you shouldn't be able to do. Banning tobacco, marijuana, alcohol, cocaine, etc. is against personal freedom. You should have the right to shoot up heroine in your own home. As long as you aren't driving under the influence of drugs (or something similar), then there should be no law against it. As a matter of fact, like I said, the worse thing that a country can do in order to stop a drug is to ban it. Statistics show that a drug is banned and consumption of it actually goes up. So not only does it interfere with personal freedom, it also is ineffective (besides, the U.S. spends trillions on their bullshit war on drugs that is completely ineffective, causes more crime, etc... but that is a topic for another thread)...
Nameless
deanhills wrote:
I'm not sure which one is more poisonous, smoking or alcohol.

Alcohol is only poisonous in high quantities, just like cake and water!

Afaceinthematrix wrote:
As long as what you're doing is not hurting anyone else, then there is absolutely no reason why you shouldn't be able to do. Banning tobacco, marijuana, alcohol, cocaine, etc. is against personal freedom.

Sort of the whole point of this topic was whether to ban smoking in public where it is hurting other people.
(Also by freely hurting yourself in private you are in turn emotionally hurting other people, family members being the obvious example and the public services that have to clean your corpse up when you OD being the logical extreme. Anyway.)
ocalhoun
Nameless wrote:
emotionally hurting other people,

(That's where the 'whiny wimp' name originates...)
Afaceinthematrix
Nameless wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
As long as what you're doing is not hurting anyone else, then there is absolutely no reason why you shouldn't be able to do. Banning tobacco, marijuana, alcohol, cocaine, etc. is against personal freedom.

Sort of the whole point of this topic was whether to ban smoking in public where it is hurting other people.
(Also by freely hurting yourself in private you are in turn emotionally hurting other people, family members being the obvious example and the public services that have to clean your corpse up when you OD being the logical extreme. Anyway.)


I know. I was merely responding to Deanhill's post. I didn't go into nearly as much depth as I could have because it was off topic. However, I usually don't mind going slightly off topic if it's responding to a point that someone has made. I didn't go into very much depth because I did recognize that we were both off topic.

And emotionally hurting people just doesn't cut it because you can "emotionally hurt" people doing completely legal things. Shit, any irrational person (like most of my family) will be emotionally hurt by normal things. I emotionally hurt my parents as a teenager (to the point of my mom being in tears) when I told them that I was an atheist (them being extreme Christians). I emotionally hurt my parents the first time I came home drunk off my ass. I emotionally hurt my parents when they found out the lyrics of my Slayer tape. Hell, I even emotionally hurt my mom when I decided to grow long hair... She was emotionally hurt over something as stupid as me having long hair! Etc.

And as far as the public services having to clean up your corpse: if drugs were legalized, instead of spending trillions of dollars trying to fight them, the government could rake in billions of dollars taxing them (also effectively taking away the funding of many gangs and reducing crime rates) and those tax dollars would easily fund that public service, as well as free rehab programs for those who wish to get clean. I do not see any valid argument why the government should be able to interfere with personal lives and personal liberties... especially when you're doing them in your own home.

As far as doing them in public, I fully agree that they should be banned in public places like libraries, schools, and courtrooms because you're hurting other people. Of course, as I have said, restaurants, bars, etc. are privately owned places because they are privately funded (NOT by taxes) and it should be up to the owners over if they want to allow such activities to happen or not. Of course most places would ban smoking because the amount of non-smokers bothered by secondhand smoke outnumbers the amount of smokers looking for a smoking institution and so it would be appealing to a larger percentage of customers and would be the best business decision.
Nameless
ocalhoun wrote:
Nameless wrote:
emotionally hurting other people,

(That's where the 'whiny wimp' name originates...)

I somehow doubt you would make that comment if your loved parents slowly poisoned themselves to death over ten years while degenerating into coughed splutters about free choice and being hooked up to a machine to continue living in a state of strained, retched suffering.

/Not actually a thing which has happened to me, but humans are social creatures and indirect suffering can be Serious Business.
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
That is completely against personal liberty. As long as what you're doing is not hurting anyone else, then there is absolutely no reason why you shouldn't be able to do.
Come off it Matrix. It has been proven through thousands of studies throughout the world that smoking is hurting people. Would Governments really be that dumb to vote legislation for protecting the public if they did not have scientific evidence to back it up? What about my liberty to expect an environment where I do not have to inhale second hand smoke that has been proven to be harmful for my health? With regard to alcohol there is already legislation in place for limits on alcohol as alcohol impairs driving ability and there are stiff penalties in most countries of the world. I'm completely in favour of that, as how many people do we know in our personal lives who have been killed or have had members of their family killed by someone who was drinking and driving. Ironically when we are intoxicated we usually are on top of the world with regard to self esteem and totally confident that we can drive well. Not many people in the world are completely disciplined in their intake of alcohol. It is the same equivalent of people who smoke in excess of 5 or more cigarettes a day. Before they know it they are going through bottles of wine, etc. etc. and excess of course is bad for health. Thankfully of course, having drinks at home, is not harmful to the public, although it could potentially be harmful for the family. From the point of view that we are not fully present in life when we are intoxicated, and may also be abusive, depending on our chemical reaction to alcohol.
Nameless
Not that this is going to help my cause or even be particularly relevant to this case, but it bears saying ...

deanhills wrote:
Would Governments really be that dumb to vote legislation for protecting the public if they did not have scientific evidence to back it up?

YES. Yes they would.
ocalhoun
Nameless wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Nameless wrote:
emotionally hurting other people,

(That's where the 'whiny wimp' name originates...)

I somehow doubt you would make that comment if your loved parents slowly poisoned themselves to death over ten years while degenerating into coughed splutters about free choice and being hooked up to a machine to continue living in a state of strained, retched suffering.

Actually, a loved grandparent of mine did exactly that.
I got over it... I guess that's 'cause I'm not a whiny wimp.

If you choose to take the feelings of others into account, by all means do so, but you should not be legally required to not hurt the feelings of others.
As Afaceinthematrix said, it is very easy to hurt the feelings of certain people, and sometimes avoiding being the cause of 'emotional pain' could even trample your constitutional rights.

Banning smoking for the sake of the smoker is unjustifiable.
The ban I would support:
Banned in: enclosed spaces owned by the federal, state, or municipal governments and enclosed spaces where people have no choice about being in. (Such as 'public' transportation, and hospitals)
(And yes, workers at a smoking-allowed business can choose to work elsewhere. An OSHA requirement that smoking-allowed businesses notify job applicants of the hazards of smoke along with the other hazards of that job might be appropriate though.)
Afaceinthematrix
deanhills wrote:
Come off it Matrix. It has been proven through thousands of studies throughout the world that smoking is hurting people. Would Governments really be that dumb to vote legislation for protecting the public if they did not have scientific evidence to back it up? What about my liberty to expect an environment where I do not have to inhale second hand smoke that has been proven to be harmful for my health? With regard to alcohol there is already legislation in place for limits on alcohol as alcohol impairs driving ability and there are stiff penalties in most countries of the world. I'm completely in favour of that, as how many people do we know in our personal lives who have been killed or have had members of their family killed by someone who was drinking and driving. Ironically when we are intoxicated we usually are on top of the world with regard to self esteem and totally confident that we can drive well. Not many people in the world are completely disciplined in their intake of alcohol. It is the same equivalent of people who smoke in excess of 5 or more cigarettes a day. Before they know it they are going through bottles of wine, etc. etc. and excess of course is bad for health. Thankfully of course, having drinks at home, is not harmful to the public, although it could potentially be harmful for the family. From the point of view that we are not fully present in life when we are intoxicated, and may also be abusive, depending on our chemical reaction to alcohol.


This has nothing to do with smoking being bad for you. Everyone knows this. I am against the government banning it, though, because you should have the right to do whatever you want - as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. That's why drinking and driving should be illegal - but drinking should not be illegal. Smoking in public places (like libraries, courtrooms, schools, or any place funded by taxes) should be banned. But smoking in private places (like houses, privately owned bars, clubs, restaurants, etc.) should not be banned by the government (of course the owner of the business can ban it if they like).

I don't smoke. So if I'm not a bar that allows smoking, I can always leave and go to one that doesn't (even though I probably wouldn't because secondhand smoke doesn't tend to bother me much and in small quantities, it's not harmful. The real damage is done by being exposed to it constantly every day). It should be up to the bar owner, because it's his/her property) if smoking is allowed... not up to the government.
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
This has nothing to do with smoking being bad for you. Everyone knows this. I am against the government banning it, though, because you should have the right to do whatever you want - as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. That's why drinking and driving should be illegal - but drinking should not be illegal. Smoking in public places (like libraries, courtrooms, schools, or any place funded by taxes) should be banned. But smoking in private places (like houses, privately owned bars, clubs, restaurants, etc.) should not be banned by the government (of course the owner of the business can ban it if they like).
Aren't we arguing in circles here? Your main condition is "as long as it doesn't hurt someone else". You agree that everyone knows that smoking is bad for your health, also that it has been proven that second hand smoke is bad for everyone's health too, so therefore smoking does hurt everyone, including the people who are smoking themselves?

A restaurant, club or bar may be privately owned, but if the public is involved, and that business needs a licence from the local Government to operate, then all of those places would need to comply with Government legislation. In private houses where there is no business activity or license needed to operate a business it would be different. It would be a matter of choice.
Afaceinthematrix
deanhills wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
This has nothing to do with smoking being bad for you. Everyone knows this. I am against the government banning it, though, because you should have the right to do whatever you want - as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. That's why drinking and driving should be illegal - but drinking should not be illegal. Smoking in public places (like libraries, courtrooms, schools, or any place funded by taxes) should be banned. But smoking in private places (like houses, privately owned bars, clubs, restaurants, etc.) should not be banned by the government (of course the owner of the business can ban it if they like).
Aren't we arguing in circles here? Your main condition is "as long as it doesn't hurt someone else". You agree that everyone knows that smoking is bad for your health, also that it has been proven that second hand smoke is bad for everyone's health too, so therefore smoking does hurt everyone, including the people who are smoking themselves?

A restaurant, club or bar may be privately owned, but if the public is involved, and that business needs a licence from the local Government to operate, then all of those places would need to comply with Government legislation. In private houses where there is no business activity or license needed to operate a business it would be different. It would be a matter of choice.


But it's your choice to be there. You are choosing to be in the place that allows smoking. Period. End of story. However, if you are at a library, courtroom, school, etc. then your tax dollars are directly paying for the institution and so it's not fair to be driven out by smokers. You have an equal right to the place and so smoking should be banned. In privately owned places, you do not have that equal right. Your tax dollars are not paying for the place. Since it's paid for by the owner, it needs to be up to the owner if they want to allow smoking or not. If you go in there, then you are actively choosing to be there. If you don't like it - leave.
Nameless
... Which brings us back full circle to my knife analogy, whereby owning a private establishment does not entitle you - even if you warn people in advance - to override basic human rights ie. not being stabbed.

Cigarette smoke = slowly stabbing my lungs.

Anyway, your equal rights argument falls kind of flat when you think about who ultimately pays for private establishments ... hint: it's the customers. And you might as well say "If you don't like it - leave." to people who disagree with the country's laws, so the two scenarios aren't as removed as you think they are.
raaeft1
Government bans do not work. In Chandigarh, for example, the ban on smoking in public places has turned out to be a damp squib.People openly smoke in Government offices and in the market as they are not afraid. They know that there is hardly any enforcement and even if you are caught, you get away by paying a paltry fine.
ocalhoun
Nameless wrote:
... Which brings us back full circle to my knife analogy, whereby owning a private establishment does not entitle you - even if you warn people in advance - to override basic human rights ie. not being stabbed.

Cigarette smoke = slowly stabbing my lungs.

The difference is that they are stabbing your lungs so slowly that you can easily leave before you're harmed. You'll only be harmed if you choose to stay and let them stab you.
Quote:


Anyway, your equal rights argument falls kind of flat when you think about who ultimately pays for private establishments ... hint: it's the customers.

Businesses do have a responsibility for their customers... But that doesn't need to be government enforced.
If enough people leave, the business makes less money and possibly goes out of business. That's enforcement enough.

The customers can represent themselves en masse by 'voting with their money'. They don't need the government to represent them in this situation.

The quickest way for smoking to become enthusiastically banned in an establishment is for the owner(s) to realize that allowing smoking is causing them to loose money.
(If the establishment isn't loosing money due to smoking, there must be a lot of customers who don't mind smoking being allowed there, so in that case, banning it would be against the interests of the customers.)


The best government is the one that governs the least.
Nameless
ocalhoun wrote:
Nameless wrote:
... Which brings us back full circle to my knife analogy, whereby owning a private establishment does not entitle you - even if you warn people in advance - to override basic human rights ie. not being stabbed.

Cigarette smoke = slowly stabbing my lungs.

The difference is that they are stabbing your lungs so slowly that you can easily leave before you're harmed. You'll only be harmed if you choose to stay and let them stab you.

OBJECTION!

That's not a difference at all! You could easily leave the knife-fighting bar before harmed; just turn around and GTFO when you see knives before drawn, or don't enter at all when you notice the "Random stabbings totally allowed!" sign on the door. Yet while such a bar would be prosecuted in an instant, smokers causing physical harm in an enclosed environment are. The comparison stands, your honour.
Afaceinthematrix
Nameless wrote:
That's not a difference at all! You could easily leave the knife-fighting bar before harmed; just turn around and GTFO when you see knives before drawn, or don't enter at all when you notice the "Random stabbings totally allowed!" sign on the door. Yet while such a bar would be prosecuted in an instant, smokers causing physical harm in an enclosed environment are. The comparison stands, your honour.


The comparison does not stand because knife stabbing is an illegal activity - no matter what the circumstances are. I can invite you over into my personal house and still couldn't stab you. I can, however, invite you over to my personal house and could smoke you out until you decided to leave. That would be perfectly legal and people would be outraged if that became illegal and they weren't allowed to smoke in their homes. You cannot compare something legal with something illegal. You would have to find another legal activity to compare it to.

The bigger difference, also, is that knife stabbing is immediately deadly. Secondhand smoke is not. Secondhand smoke is really only dangerous to children and to people exposed constantly. Being around it occasionally will not affect you really. But that really isn't the point of this argument. The point isn't about how deadly or not deadly stabbing and secondhand smoking are. It's about something completely different...

So my position still stands: there is no justification for the government being able to tell me that I cannot condone a perfectly legal activity in my own damn building.
Nameless
Yeah the legality of stabbing is different to smoking, but that discrepancy - despite both being similarly harmful - was sort of what I was pointing out. Trying to justify the legality of something on the basis that it's legal elsewhere isn't a great argument; and situational legality is already considered entirely acceptable for other activities (eg. fat, ugly people having sex in private is okay but ...).

Stabbing isn't immediately deadly either. I've stabbed myself with a kitchen knife plenty of times (legally, even!) and needed no more attention than a band aid. A stab wound to eg. the leg could be bound, maybe stitched up in hospital and soon enough you're good to go again but damaged lungs don't heal so well. I'm sure you could do a comparison between slowly killing someone with cigarette smoke (apparently okay?) and slowly killing them with another poison (evil and illegal), but even if accurate it might come off as slightly ironic given the scenario we're debating. A pub full of drunks. Very Happy
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
But it's your choice to be there. You are choosing to be in the place that allows smoking. Period. End of story. However, if you are at a library, courtroom, school, etc. then your tax dollars are directly paying for the institution and so it's not fair to be driven out by smokers. You have an equal right to the place and so smoking should be banned. In privately owned places, you do not have that equal right. Your tax dollars are not paying for the place. Since it's paid for by the owner, it needs to be up to the owner if they want to allow smoking or not. If you go in there, then you are actively choosing to be there. If you don't like it - leave.
How can you separate the "public" from the "public"? If legislation is created to ban smoking in the "public", then the "public" will always be the "public", whether the establishment is privately owned or not.
azoundria
Here's an idea.

Let's deport all the crazy smoker people to Cuba. Then it wont be a problem. Smile

Then, they don't have to waste their money on fancy pills to help curve their addiction. Once they get over their addiction, they can come home. That will give them sufficient motivation.

In the meantime, we never have to worry about second hand smoke.
deanhills
azoundria wrote:
Here's an idea.

Let's deport all the crazy smoker people to Cuba. Then it wont be a problem. Smile

Then, they don't have to waste their money on fancy pills to help curve their addiction. Once they get over their addiction, they can come home. That will give them sufficient motivation.

In the meantime, we never have to worry about second hand smoke.
Hmmm .... so what about all the exhaust fumes from cars, maybe you need to export all the cars as well, for that matter all industrial activity from the United States? Poor Cuba, maybe you should rather aim for a larger country, maybe like Siberia .... ? Shocked
ocalhoun
azoundria wrote:
Here's an idea.

Let's deport all the crazy smoker people to Cuba. Then it wont be a problem. Smile

Then, they don't have to waste their money on fancy pills to help curve their addiction. Once they get over their addiction, they can come home. That will give them sufficient motivation.

In the meantime, we never have to worry about second hand smoke.

Yeah, let's just banish 40 million people...
And then we'll find another undesirable trait, and banish a few million more...
Soon enough, we'll have an ideal society: no humans left!
Afaceinthematrix
Nameless wrote:
Yeah the legality of stabbing is different to smoking, but that discrepancy - despite both being similarly harmful - was sort of what I was pointing out. Trying to justify the legality of something on the basis that it's legal elsewhere isn't a great argument;


No. It's a valid argument because it points out the logical fallacy in your argument. Your argument is equivalent to this: Person A says that boxing should be illegal because you're hurting someone else. Person B says, "Wait. This is my property. I own this gym. If I want to have a boxing ring I should have the right to have a boxing ring." Person A says, "So. Just because it's your property doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want. You can't have a dueling a range where people shoot at each other." Well yeah... Because shooting at each other is illegal no matter what. Boxing is a legal activity. You can't say that you cannot do a legal activity under some circumstances and then compare it with something that's illegal no matter what. They're not comparable.


Nameless wrote:
and situational legality is already considered entirely acceptable for other activities (eg. fat, ugly people having sex in private is okay but ...).


Exactly! You can hump in private. Therefore, you shouldn't be able to screw each other in libraries, courtrooms, schools (with the exception of dorm rooms), etc. But going at it in a hotel room is perfectly okay (that's the reason people get hotel rooms sometimes) because the hotel room is private i.e. owned by a private party - not funded by taxes. However, by your argument, the hotel is actually public because it's used by the public. So logically, if you cannot smoke in there then you cannot hump in there. Who wants to sleep on a bed that might have vaginal residue? Banning sex in hotels would, of course, be ridiculous (and it would cut into profits).

Nameless wrote:
Stabbing isn't immediately deadly either. I've stabbed myself with a kitchen knife plenty of times (legally, even!) and needed no more attention than a band aid. A stab wound to eg. the leg could be bound, maybe stitched up in hospital and soon enough you're good to go again but damaged lungs don't heal so well. I'm sure you could do a comparison between slowly killing someone with cigarette smoke (apparently okay?) and slowly killing them with another poison (evil and illegal), but even if accurate it might come off as slightly ironic given the scenario we're debating. A pub full of drunks. :D


Stabbing is still far more deadly than secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke doesn't really do any damage except to children and people exposed to it for long periods of time. Besides, as I've already pointed out, you can't even accurate compare knife stabbing to smoking anyways because one is legal and the other is not...

deanhills wrote:
How can you separate the "public" from the "public"? If legislation is created to ban smoking in the "public", then the "public" will always be the "public", whether the establishment is privately owned or not.


Haven't I already gone over this several times? Public = funded by taxes. Private = not funded by taxes. No one is forcing you to go into that privately owned bar/club/etc... Besides, if you want to go that route, then you'd have to ban smoking completely (completely wrong and the government overstepping their boundaries) because everywhere would be public. Most people agree that smoking in your house is perfectly legal... But guess what! Your house is visited by the public because YOU'RE the public... So are all your friends, family, relatives, or any house visitors. So should smoking be banned at home also?

azoundria wrote:
Here's an idea.

Let's deport all the crazy smoker people to Cuba. Then it wont be a problem. :)

Then, they don't have to waste their money on fancy pills to help curve their addiction. Once they get over their addiction, they can come home. That will give them sufficient motivation.

In the meantime, we never have to worry about second hand smoke.


That's incredibly sick and bigoted...
Nameless
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Nameless wrote:
Yeah the legality of stabbing is different to smoking, but that discrepancy - despite both being similarly harmful - was sort of what I was pointing out. Trying to justify the legality of something on the basis that it's legal elsewhere isn't a great argument;


No. It's a valid argument because it points out the logical fallacy in your argument. Your argument is equivalent to this: Person A says that boxing should be illegal because you're hurting someone else. Person B says, "Wait. This is my property. I own this gym. If I want to have a boxing ring I should have the right to have a boxing ring." Person A says, "So. Just because it's your property doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want. You can't have a dueling a range where people shoot at each other." Well yeah... Because shooting at each other is illegal no matter what. Boxing is a legal activity. You can't say that you cannot do a legal activity under some circumstances and then compare it with something that's illegal no matter what. They're not comparable.

Um, yeah, you just literally made the same legality justifies legality argument again so I'm just going to point upward. The boxing thing isn't an accurate comparison either, since last time I checked boxing had hoards of rules for safety and the boxers weren't going around punching the crowd like smokers metaphorically are.

Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Besides, as I've already pointed out, you can't even accurate compare knife stabbing to smoking anyways because one is legal and the other is not...

Seriously, could you possibly beg the question any more.
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Haven't I already gone over this several times? Public = funded by taxes. Private = not funded by taxes. No one is forcing you to go into that privately owned bar/club/etc...
I have also tried very hard to explain that from a Government point of view there is no difference whether the owner of an establishment is private or public. The public is still the public when there are smokers around whether the business premises happens to be privately or publicly owned. Why should there be a difference? Public is public and smoking is smoking. The object of the legislation is to protect the health of the public in areas where they habitually congregate. Whether those areas are privately or publicly owned is irrelevant.
the-guide
Smokers should smoke just at their owned privately places only!

In my country smoking ban widely accepted here and I'm one of them as well.

The original anti-smoking law banned smoking in all public places such as government buildings, hospitals, shopping malls, parks and hotel lobbies, as well as in air-conditioned restaurants. (The latter were permitted to set up smoking areas as long as these were separated in a way that prevented tobacco smoke from wafting through the non-smoking areas.)

However, the recent law amendment extended the smoking ban to all air-conditioned nightclubs, pubs, lounges and bars and even open-air restaurants and markets, whereas it is still permitted to designate separate smoking areas.

Moreover cigarette are not allowed to advertise and not allowed even to show or to display in the shop here.

Also, by the law, people who can buy a cigarette must be more than 18 years old, however in reality lots of smokers even young teenagers can buy a pack of cigarette easily since most shopkeepers just want is to sell it and get the money. So.. it's very easy for young people to buy (and also it's very cheap here).

It's very easy to be addicted! If you are a teenager reading this please DON'T START. It is very difficult to stop even if you want to. Many want to quit very much but they can't.

----
Afaceinthematrix
Nameless wrote:
Um, yeah, you just literally made the same legality justifies legality argument again so I'm just going to point upward. The boxing thing isn't an accurate comparison either, since last time I checked boxing had hoards of rules for safety and the boxers weren't going around punching the crowd like smokers metaphorically are.

Seriously, could you possibly beg the question any more.


No. No. With knife stabbing, two people can be having a knife duel and hurting each other. They're only going to hurt each other, no one else. It's the same thing with boxing. Two boxers will hurt each other. So by comparing smoking to knife stabbing, you must compare it to boxing. You honestly do not see the logical contradiction of comparing something legal to something illegal? You honestly do not see that contradiction? And you're going to accuse me of a logical fallacy? I have nothing more to say to you until you bring something better to the plate because I get tired of explaining this contradiction over and over...

deanhills wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Haven't I already gone over this several times? Public = funded by taxes. Private = not funded by taxes. No one is forcing you to go into that privately owned bar/club/etc...
I have also tried very hard to explain that from a Government point of view there is no difference whether the owner of an establishment is private or public. The public is still the public when there are smokers around whether the business premises happens to be privately or publicly owned. Why should there be a difference? Public is public and smoking is smoking. The object of the legislation is to protect the health of the public in areas where they habitually congregate. Whether those areas are privately or publicly owned is irrelevant.



There IS a difference because the public visits the private by CHOICE. If you're going to ban smoking restaurants, clubs, bars, etc, then you MUST, by the SAME logic, ban it in houses (even though they're private) because the public does go there (you ARE the public... so are you friends, family, neighbors, or any house guests)...
Nameless
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
You honestly do not see the logical contradiction of comparing something legal to something illegal? You honestly do not see that contradiction? And you're going to accuse me of a logical fallacy? I have nothing more to say to you until you bring something better to the plate because I get tired of explaining this contradiction over and over...

*sigh*

What we are debating in this topic is whether the government should ban smoking in public. This has extended a somewhat to what locations count as 'public', how dangerous second hand smoke is and other related issues, but the question fundamentally is: Should smoking in public be legal? The proposed legality is what we are debating.

What you have argued several times is that governments should not ban smoking in any locations which are privately owned, regardless of whether it's open to the public or not, on the basis that smoking is a legal.

As you can see, the argument you are asserting is what we are actually debating the justifications of. ("X should be Y because X is Y.") It's also not a helpful position because if we were to always justify laws by what the laws already were, there would never be any change; I do not believe anyone could reasonably assert our laws were perfect or the public's opinion would never change, but that's another topic. What's inarguable is that there have been both legal and illegal actions in the past which we would definitely disagree with now, demonstrating that mere legality is not an effective argument in any case. (For example, slavery was once legal too. If people had used your argument then, it still would be.)

To come at this a different way, imagine we were discussing which religion (or atheism) should be worshiped (or not) in your country. You discuss some ramifications of the choices, explain how the expectations of parents shape beliefs and argue why your belief is correct. A second person then scoffs, mostly ignores your deliberations and declares that Christianity should be worshiped because it IS your country's religion!

That's basically the same logical flaw you're making in your argument.
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
There IS a difference because the public visits the private by CHOICE. If you're going to ban smoking restaurants, clubs, bars, etc, then you MUST, by the SAME logic, ban it in houses (even though they're private) because the public does go there (you ARE the public... so are you friends, family, neighbors, or any house guests)...
Come off it Matrix. The Public visits libraries by choice as well. How can you limit the Government's ability to make legislation for the public to only publicly owned places? Are you then saying that if it was a publicly owned restaurant in a Federally owned building, that would be OK, whereas if it was a privately owned restaurant next door to that building, that that legislation should not apply to the public? What kind of hypocricy would that be? The legislation is there to protect the public from smoking that is harmful to health, in all public areas, whether they are privately or publicly owned does not make the smoking less harmful.
Afaceinthematrix
deanhills wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
There IS a difference because the public visits the private by CHOICE. If you're going to ban smoking restaurants, clubs, bars, etc, then you MUST, by the SAME logic, ban it in houses (even though they're private) because the public does go there (you ARE the public... so are you friends, family, neighbors, or any house guests)...
Come off it Matrix. The Public visits libraries by choice as well. How can you limit the Government's ability to make legislation for the public to only publicly owned places? Are you then saying that if it was a publicly owned restaurant in a Federally owned building, that would be OK, whereas if it was a privately owned restaurant next door to that building, that that legislation should not apply to the public? What kind of hypocricy would that be? The legislation is there to protect the public from smoking that is harmful to health, in all public areas, whether they are privately or publicly owned does not make the smoking less harmful.


Because the government doesn't own private places! Therefore, they don't choose if you can smoke in there! If I own a building then it is MY choice if you can smoke in there or not. The government should have no right to say, "Even though you own this building, we are going to tell you that you must ban certain legal activities like smoking." That's bullshit. It's my building. If I want there to be smoking in there then there should be smoking in there because smoking is perfectly legal! The only way the government could step in is if I was condoning illegal activities like knife stabbing (which is why the two activities are incomparable). If I do NOT own the building, then it is NOT my decision who smokes in there. Public places are owned by the public, therefore the government must do what is in the best interest of the public because they are essentially owned by every tax payer and you have to try and be fair.
Nameless
That. That.

THAT'S. *jab* THE. *jab* ENTIRE. *jab* POINT. *jab* OF THE GOVERNMENT. *jabjabjab* To make and adjust laws for the overall benefit of society that apply to everyone, everywhere. That is how democratic society works and evolves. How do you not grasp this base concept I don't even

AAAAEEEEIIIAAAARRGGHH!! FWOOOOSH.

...

*twitch*
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Because the government doesn't own private places!
But they can make laws to protect "the public" who visit those "private" places. All they have to do is write it and define it in the law. Which apparently they have.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Because the government doesn't own private places!
But they can make laws to protect "the public" who visit those "private" places. All they have to do is write it and define it in the law. Which apparently they have.

They can... But should they?
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Because the government doesn't own private places!
But they can make laws to protect "the public" who visit those "private" places. All they have to do is write it and define it in the law. Which apparently they have.

They can... But should they?
Maybe we should start a new thread about anti-smoking legislation, as that is of course a very good question. I discovered a very passionate debate about it at this Website (could have been written by Matrix Wink) http://www.jillnicholson.com/smoking.htm

Wikipedia has a list of smoking bans in the United States - very confusing as per the illustration and quote from Wikipedia below - seems to be Federal ones and then State ones and all of them seem to be different in various ways:


Quote:
As further detailed in this list, smoking laws vary widely throughout the United States. Some places in the United States do not generally regulate smoking at all, some ban smoking in certain areas and not others, and some ban smoking nearly everywhere, even in outdoor areas (no state bans smoking in all public outdoor areas, but some local jurisdictions do). According to the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation, as of October 2009 71% of the U.S. population lives under a ban on smoking in "workplaces, and/or restaurants, and/or bars, by either a state, commonwealth, or local law," though only 41.2% live under bans in all workplaces and restaurants and bars. Of the 60 most populated cities in the United States, a smoking ban (either state, county, or local) has been enacted covering all bars and restaurants in all except these 17: Arlington, Atlanta, Fort Worth, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Memphis, Miami, Las Vegas, Nashville, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, San Antonio, Tampa, Tulsa, Virginia Beach, and Wichita.
Related topics
do u smoke or take drugs ( even for testing)
Partial Smoking ban breaches human rights - UK
Whats your views on alcohol?
Man smokes cigarette, dies instantly
The Supreme court rules
Passive Smoking Kills
If you ruled your country.
Ban on Smoking
I don´t like smokers
Related topics
'Ban Koran' is the word
Wingnut Deputy Att. General fired for anti-protester comment
Thinking of an influence of smoking
smoking should banned entirely in Australia
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.