Should smoking be made illegal?

[banquo's_bumble_puppy]

Should smoking be made illegal? How could this be enforced?

[Melusine]

NO! You make smoking illegal, and the next bad habit will be illegal. Should drinking be illegal? It certainly has a deleterious effect on society when people abuse it. Should fatty, high calorie foods be illegal? Should wearing perfume be illegal? It is, apparently, in some town in Belgium I read on the news once. (I could be wrong on the country, could be Denmark or Holland).

I think the anti-smoking measure by way of prohibiting people smoking in public places is enough. Anything more and we are legislating our inability to live perfectly sterile lives. We have enough laws! Use persuasion, education and peer pressure if you must.

[Fram]

Should wearing perfume be illegal? It is, apparently, in some town in Belgium I read on the news once. (I could be wrong on the country, could be Denmark or Holland).

We have done some pretty strange things in Belgium, but I haven't heard of a city where perfume is illegal.
Although I would like it if some perfumes were banned (at least in elevators and other confined spaces) :razz:

[jumbo]

No. Im not a smoker but i do feel that you have a right to engage in activity that may harm yourself. What i also agree with though is that while you are harming yourself you should not be allowed to harm others. Thats why a ban on smoking in public places is something im for.

[Melusine]

We have done some pretty strange things in Belgium, but I haven't heard of a city where perfume is illegal.
Although I would like it if some perfumes were banned (at least in elevators and other confined spaces) :razz:
I will try to search for it. I know I didn't imagine it, because it's the kind of thing that sends me through the roof. I cleared out my recycle bin, though. It was about 2 years or so ago that it was in the news. It was some small town, and it was because people who are allergic put up a fuss. It's actually been discussed here my city when an issue came up about the library not allowing smelly people in. Homeless people would come into the library and the odor is often so noxious it's unbearable. A lot of people complain about others' strong perfumes, especially riding in the skyscraper elevators downtown or working in close cubicles with fellow employees. I wear perfume, but I don't bathe in it, but sometimes people load on these cheap floral perfumes that can make anyone's eyes water, so I hear ya.

[Moose]

I'm actually (mildly) allergic to some dyes and perfumes. Even in small amounts, and relatively short exposures, my eyes get itchy, my throat gets tight and my nose gets stuffed up. I have to choose my hygene and paper products carefully to keep from breaking out in fairly painful rashes at particularly sensitive locations, to put it as delicately as I can.

There's a hotel in Fredericton I had to stop using on business trips for that reason. Just as well, I found another hotel chain on the approved rates list that's better in nearly all respects.

Government sites in New Brunswick are all declared scent-free, which is more than a bit of a relief in my mind. I used to work in a location with a co-worker who really liked her perfume.

As to the OP, no. We're making good inroads at ending smoking forever, the numbers have never been better.

But a total ban now would be highly counter-productive. In any case, it was never about banning smoke outright. It was about restoring the personal choice of those who would like to choose to not smoke, but never could under any measure short of a public ban.

Maybe in the next generation it'll have become "cool" and wildly in fashion to quit, and we can finally be rid of Big Tobacco forever. We'll see.

[planethollywood]

i don't think banning smoking will work, the black market will florish instead.

But i would like to see certain chemicals banned from cigarettes though, like nicoteen, ammonia, benzein & tar. let people smoke their heads off, just banned the addictive components of it.

[Melusine]

i don't think banning smoking will work, the black market will florish instead.

Exactly. Look at Prohibition, an amendment added to our US Constitution, taking away a right, no less, and what good did that do, but increase crime and all sorts of issues. Obviously, illegal drugs are thriving, too. Making smoking illegal would just cause addicted people to be criminals, yet I can point to many bad habits, like drunk driving, spousal abuse, generally disruptive behavior, liver disease, etc, etc, caused by alcohol...but I want my wine. It's enough we have unfair "vice taxes."

I love your e=mc2 signature. How true.

[farmerjumperdon]

Where is the option for just flat out NO?

Regulations to protect others from the physical or financial damage are OK (such as no smoking in public, higher insurance rates, etc), but outlawing harmful behavior in the name of knowing what is "right" for people is trampling individual rights without sufficient gain for the group.

Besides, where would you stop?

<> Mandated diets for everyone.
<> A universal 5 MPH speed limit.
<> No extreme sports such as rodeo, skydiving, skiing; and no motorsports at all. What the heck, make all sports illegal - people get injured you know. Maybe keep bowling, shuffleboard, curling.
<> Definitely outlaw manned space travel.
<> Ban all religions that have ever been cause for war or violence.

Pretty soon we'd alll be living in padded rooms and eating tofu and yogurt.

[mickal555]

No

I think It should be banned in public places though...

I don't think any drug should be banned, "War on drugs" bleah.

[Relmuis]

Nothing should be illegal, except if it harms someone other than the participant or (voluntary) participants.

Injecting nicotine, or heroin, or testosterone, or whatever, should therefore be legal.

Smoking, however, produces smoke. Every non-smoker, therefore, should have the right to insist that people don't smoke in his or her vicinity.

By the same principle, I should have the right to insist that no unnatural amounts of radiation must be produced in my vicinity. Such as the radiation produced by mobile phones or by the antennae serving those phones.

[paulie jay]

In my opinion, yes, it should be illegal.

Chewing tobacco is illegal in Australia because there is a proven link between it and mouth cancer. Snuff is illegal for a similar reason.

Of course, an outright ban would be hard to enforce. Instead, if people want to willfully destroy their bodies in this fashion they should sign a contract in which they agree that they will never become a drain on the public purse once emphysema kicks in.


edited to add - Relmuis - what kind of radiation do you think you are getting from mobile phones?? It's just microwaves. They are lower in energy than visible light!

[Relmuis]

Yes, they are. So is the radiation which cooks things in microwave ovens.

But I am willing to add visible light and, for that matter, audible sound to the list of botherations which should not be inflicted upon unwilling subjects.

[paulie jay]

Well, I don't want to hijack this thread too far - but microwaves as used by mobile phones just don't have the energy to do you harm. Microwaves have less energy than visible light, or even infra red. You might as well say that using an electric blanket, or turning on a desk lamp is detrimental to your health. :)

[Argos]

Alcohol used to be forbidden in the US and the best thing that came from that was Al Capone. Drugs are forbidden in Brazil and 90% of the violence is caused by drug traffic.

My opinion: laissez faire, laissez passer. Lets prohibit prohibitions. I voted NO not because it is unfeasible, but because it is immoral.

[farmerjumperdon]

Alcohol used to be forbidden in the US and the best thing that came from that was Al Capone. Drugs are forbidden in Brazil and 90% of the violence is caused by drug traffic.

My opinion: laissez faire, laissez passer. Lets prohibit prohibitions. I voted NO not because it is unfeasible, but because it is immoral.

I agree with this sentiment, but wonder if that is a reasonable path to take given the course of history. I mean, can the damage done by the War on Drugs ever be undone to the point of giving personal responsibility back to the public?

Now that, as a cultural phenomenon, we as a species have become used to being taken care of, could we really care for ourselves, as a whole, without regulators instructing us in our every move?

I wonder if there is any data on the level of addiction and drug-related crimes (robbery, murder, etc.) prior to the War on Drugs? If the rate of addiction was about the same, then we have spent many billions of dollars to make it a crime to be an addict and as a byproduct have provided the impetus for all the related crime.

Why didn't we learn this lesson with Prohibition?

[Moose]

Pretty soon we'd alll be living in padded rooms and eating tofu and yogurt.

With all that bacteria? No way. Gotta ban it and complete the slippery slope. ;)

[Chuck]

Each human birth results in the eventual death of a human being. The casualty rate is 100%. It must be banned immediately.

[Gruesome]

Absolutely not. What's wrong with self-determination?

I think there ought to be a law against people saying "There ought to be a law..."

Otherwise, we get idiocy like this:

http://www.heraldsun.com/state/6-708845.html

[ToSeek]

Smoking shouldn't be illegal, but like all perverted acts*, it should be restricted to consenting adults in private locations.

*If killing yourself slowly while potentially harming everyone around you isn't a perverted act, I don't know what is. ;)

[farmerjumperdon]

Each human birth results in the eventual death of a human being. The casualty rate is 100%. It must be banned immediately.

I concur. Not only is the casualty rate 100%, but the causality rate is also 100%! It is the one sure thing in life. If you are born, you will die. There are a lot of choices in between that effect the manner in which you live and die; but the one absolute certainty is that once you have come into this world, you will eventually die and leave this world. Therefore, birth, as the single common factor preceding all deaths, must be forbidden.

Who would have thought the solution to be so elegant and simple. The way to avoid all risk, and to avoid death itself, is simply to never be born. Brilliant, but I hope the underwriters and actuaries don't see this.

[Doodler]

Nah, the current program is working. Given the results of the Prohibition, any time you outright ban something, you only make it more hip to do.

[Moose]

*If killing yourself slowly while potentially harming everyone around you isn't a perverted act, I don't know what is. ;)

Tentacle hentai. Now you know. ;)

[Taks]

Chewing tobacco is illegal in Australia because there is a proven link between it and mouth cancer. Snuff is illegal for a similar reason.???

you're joking, right? so, simply because it's bad for you it should be banned?

guess what, there's a proven link between fire and burning to death, or water and drowning, should we ban both those, too? how about red meat? or milk? most of the world cannot digest milk, therefore it is bad for them, should we ban that, too? let's be realistic here.

your poll is wrong, btw... at least, the options are wrong. my reasons are no, not because of feasibility, but because of the moral implications of the government trying to be my mommy. it's no the governments job to coddle me.

taks

[Gruesome]

Smoking shouldn't be illegal, but like all perverted acts*, it should be restricted to consenting adults in private locations.

Perverted?

I understand your point, but I think that word may be a tad hyperbolic. :)

[antoniseb]

I am pretty vigorously against people smoking. I am strongly in favor of laws that prevent smoking in public places. I support insurance companies charging more to smokers. I am not in favor of laws banning smoking altogether at this time. I suspect that the good sense of the public will increase on this and other self-destructive habits, (binge-drinking, over-eating, etc) and these will become less of a problem in years ahead.

edit- added "binge-" before drinking above. - Thanks jkmccrann.

[jkmccrann]

I am pretty vigorously against people smoking. I am strongly in favor of laws that prevent smoking in public places. I support insurance companies charging more to smokers. I am not in favor of laws banning smoking altogether at this time. I suspect that the good sense of the public will increase on this and other self-destructive habits, (drinking, over-eating, etc) and these will become less of a problem in years ahead.

I have to inform you antoniseb that drinking in moderation, ie red wine, has been shown to be beneficial to one's health, and to lower the risk of developing certain medical conditions - so I'd hardly refer to drinking as a self-destructive habit.

Binge drinking, however, is a different matter.

As for smoking, it should absolutely not be banned. Whatever happened to freedom of choice? There is a law they're considering here in Australia, in NSW, that would ban smoking in cars. I'm not sure if it's going to be on the books, but its definitely under consideration.

[Doodler]

I am pretty vigorously against people smoking. I am strongly in favor of laws that prevent smoking in public places. I support insurance companies charging more to smokers. I am not in favor of laws banning smoking altogether at this time. I suspect that the good sense of the public will increase on this and other self-destructive habits, (drinking, over-eating, etc) and these will become less of a problem in years ahead.

You can overstep the line though. If I don't want to live a 100% healthy lifestyle, that's MY choice, and the minute someone with an overbearing sense of public conscience steps on that right, its going to get extremely ugly.

[LurchGS]

Aside from my own political views (If I'm stupid enough to poison myself, it's my lookout), banning anything is a pointless waste of time. All that happens is it's driven underground, where the prices go up and the quality control goes down.

As an ex-selfpoisoner (in more than one flavor), I'm all for letting people have legal access to that stuff. In the end, it improves the gene pool.

[Argos]

As for smoking, it should absolutely not be banned. Whatever happened to freedom of choice?

You know what? I don´t even think that pot and cocaine should be illegal. Here´s an interesting take on the issue, coming from a surprising source.

http://www.druglibrary.org/special/friedman/prohibition_and_drugs.htm

[Cookie]

Once these: " http://www.nicstic.com/engl/index.php " are released in the USA, [and assuming regular tobacco cigarettes, cigars, snuff and other "chewies" are no longer manafactured] does most of the reasons behind banning Smoking here become a moot point?

On the other hand, after reading about that product, I'm wondering if it will truly live up to it's promises... O_o

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Tentacle hentai. Now you know. ;)
Yeah ...

What ARE they Thinking ...

As for Drugs, Legalize it All, Then Tax The Heck Out of it!

:dance:

[Taks]

You know what? I don´t even think that pot and cocaine should be illegal. Here´s an interesting take on the issue, coming from a surprising source.oddly, even bill o'reilly thinks pot should be decriminalized (i don't think he views harder drugs the same way, however).

taks

[farmerjumperdon]

Perverted?

I understand your point, but I think that word may be a tad hyperbolic. :)

Unless of course the cigarette follows the act.

[ToSeek]

Tentacle hentai. Now you know. ;)

Not that I wanted to. :surprised :sick:

[Gillianren]

Smoking in public places? Ban away. That stuff is noxious, and if you smoke in public, you're making the choice for everyone around you. We in Washington recently (this is true) passed an initiative that, among other things, banned smoking in day care centers--specifically ones run out of people's homes. You'd think that'd've been taken care of already.

Tobacco subsidies? Dump 'em. Cigarette ads? Take 'em away. Injecting more chemicals into cigarettes than Nature did? (A lot of those toxins, however, are natural to burning the stuff.) Whoever came up with it should not live a happy and peaceful life--they should die of emphysema.

But banning cigarettes even in the privacy of your own home a) wouldn't work and b) is a bad idea anyway. However, I'm all for keeping people from having free access to a drug that stands a decent chance of killing you any given time you use it, like cocaine or heroin.

[Argos]

However, I'm all for keeping people from having free access to a drug that stands a decent chance of killing you any given time you use it, like cocaine or heroin.

So, we must not make choices for other people (public smoking), but we should allow other people making choices for us (banning booze, pot, coke)...

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Not that I wanted to. :surprised :sick:
Eh ...

It Has, its Moments ...

Just Remember, they're MULTI-Purpose!

:whistle:

[Melusine]

I support insurance companies charging more to smokers.
Curious, do you support insurance companies charging more to obese people? Where does it end?

[AGN Fuel]

Curious, do you support insurance companies charging more to obese people? Where does it end?

They do. Generally any condition that is actuarially shown to significantly affect the mortality/morbidity of an applicant will incur a loading of premium.

[Swift]

No. Im not a smoker but i do feel that you have a right to engage in activity that may harm yourself. What i also agree with though is that while you are harming yourself you should not be allowed to harm others. Thats why a ban on smoking in public places is something im for.
That sums it up for me (others have said this too).

I am strongly opposed to smoking in public places, particularly restaurants and bars. I generally do not go to bars any longer because of smoking and feel that I'm effectively banned from them. I've actually had to leave bars that I went to, for example to hear a band, because the smoke was making me sick. At least in this area, going to a "non-smoking" bar is not an option, as very few bars around here are non-smoking or have non-smoking sections (most restaurants have non-smoking sections, that are more or less effective).

But what consenting adults do in their own home is their business. Others have pointed that all prohibition did/does (for alcohol, drugs, etc.) is fuel the black market with money. Personally, I do not think drugs, tobacco, various acts between and among consenting adults, etc. should be illegal.

[AGN Fuel]

As a point of interest, just in case there were any people out there still under the delusion that smoking is not extremely harmful - I just pulled out some actuarial tables from a company I did some contract work with a while back to check out their rates.

For a Trauma contract (paying a benefit on confirmed diagnosis of heart attack, cancer, stroke, etc), the premium rate for a 42 year old female non-smoker was $3.10 per mille. The equivalent rate for a smoker was $6.16 per mille - i.e. double. The rates are actuarially derived from hard and extensive data, with no spin-doctoring from tobacco company hacks.

Smoking is a slow, gruesome and rather expensive way to commit suicide.

[paulie jay]

Originally Posted by paulie jay
Chewing tobacco is illegal in Australia because there is a proven link between it and mouth cancer. Snuff is illegal for a similar reason.
???

you're joking, right? so, simply because it's bad for you it should be banned?

guess what, there's a proven link between fire and burning to death, or water and drowning, should we ban both those, too? how about red meat? or milk? most of the world cannot digest milk, therefore it is bad for them, should we ban that, too? let's be realistic here.

your poll is wrong, btw... at least, the options are wrong. my reasons are no, not because of feasibility, but because of the moral implications of the government trying to be my mommy. it's no the governments job to coddle me.

taks

Why? It's the reason heroin, ice and crack are illegal. It's more than just "because it's bad for you" - it's also has something to do with the way it effects others as well as the public purse. I don't see that same thing happening with water, fire or red meat. And is milk really killing that many people?? Your examples really are irrelevant, Taks. (And it's not my poll ;))

This whole "people can do what they want in their own homes" line is just a cop out. Can I, for example, torture kittens in my own home with impunity?

[Parrothead]

Under new laws coming into effect June 1, in Ontario, the final lines of this article (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1141339814082&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467), says it all.

[quote]Under the new law, smokers will be able to light up at home

[Argos]

This whole "people can do what they want in their own homes" line is just a cop out. Can I, for example, torture kittens in my own home with impunity?

Sorry paulie j. Apples and oranges.

[Taks]

Curious, do you support insurance companies charging more to obese people? Where does it end?
yes, actually, that is a good idea. insurance is a risk-based business. if your health is poor, then you SHOULD pay more simply because you are forcing increased premiums on the rest of the insured. i.e. the rest of the insured are paying for your increased risk.

taks

[paulie jay]

This whole "people can do what they want in their own homes" line is just a cop out. Can I, for example, torture kittens in my own home with impunity?


Sorry paulie j. Apples and oranges.



So where do we draw the line between what peple can and can't do in their own homes?


edited to add quote

[Melusine]

They do. Generally any condition that is actuarially shown to significantly affect the mortality/morbidity of an applicant will incur a loading of premium.
My co-worker is obese and doesn't pay any more for insurance than I do. I don't think you are correct here. Perhaps some companies do, but never the ones my employer has signed up with, which unfortunately has gone through several changes over the years.

[Taks]

Why? It's the reason heroin, ice and crack are illegal. It's more than just "because it's bad for you"the impact of a hard-core drug is hardly comparable to nicotine addiction. heroin and cocaine devastate lives, nicotine does not. and i also think making them illegal is not the government's business, either, but that's besides the point. therefore, not only are you trying to compare, in magnitude, the impact of hard-core drugs to nicotine, you're excusing having rights trampled based on other examples of rights being trampled. hardly a good way to prove an already weak point.

it's also has something to do with the way it effects others as well as the public purse.the public purse? i'm sorry, but we're not a socialist society. smokers should well pay for their bad habit by increased insurance premiums, but that is not "public" in any way.

I don't see that same thing happening with water, fire or red meat. And is milk really killing that many people?? Your examples really are irrelevant, Taks. (And it's not my poll ;))no, they are not. you said "it increases the risk of death (or illness) therefore must be banned" (paraphrased)... lots of things increase risk of death/illness, and they are not illegal. lots of things not only increase the risk of death, but they also threaten those around us, but they are not illegal, either.

it is not the government's job to regulate our risk activities.

This whole "people can do what they want in their own homes" line is just a cop out. Can I, for example, torture kittens in my own home with impunity?as noted, apples and oranges. when you do something that infringes on others' rights, the analogy does not hold. torturing a kitten infringes on the cat's rights, however few they may be. smoking in your own home does not impact others' rights. even if you have a family and they are impacted significantly, then they can force a change, but not the government.

taks

[Swift]

So where do we draw the line between what peple can and can't do in their own homes?

When it harms others. And I don't mean emotionally, I mean physically.

If I want to ruin my life using drugs and my mom is emotionally upset about it, she can cut off support or kick me out, but it is her hang-up. But if I assult someone under the influence, or wreck my car and hurt someone, or steal to support my habit, then those are illegal acts and I must be punished for them. If your second-hand smoke is poisoning someone else's lungs, then it is illegal.

And kittens count as "others", so no kitten torture. However, if two or ten consenting adults want to "party" and torture each other, have fun.

Maybe it is a slippery slope, but it really seems pretty clear cut to me.

[Taks]

So where do we draw the line between what peple can and can't do in their own homes?if it infringes on the rights of others'... really, not a difficult concept.

taks

[Melusine]

This whole "people can do what they want in their own homes" line is just a cop out. Can I, for example, torture kittens in my own home with impunity?
You are hurting something else if you torture kittens. If you smoke pot or do whatever in your own home, that's your problem. If you drink and hit your spouse or kids then that is different. But really, what's the difference between legally drinking yourself silly and smoking marijuana? It makes no sense for alcohol to be legal and not other things.

[paulie jay]

the impact of a hard-core drug is hardly comparable to nicotine addiction. heroin and cocaine devastate lives, nicotine does not. and i also think making them illegal is not the government's business, either, but that's besides the point. therefore, not only are you trying to compare, in magnitude, the impact of hard-core drugs to nicotine, you're excusing having rights trampled based on other examples of rights being trampled. hardly a good way to prove an already weak point. Nicotine may not devastate lives, but smoking does. It effects the family around the smoker, not only with the actual smoke, but also when the family needs to care for the person once emphysema sets in.

As for "rights being trampled" - exactly what right is being trampled? Do I have the right to go around spraying sulphur dioxide in people's faces? This is hardly the thin end of the wedge to Big Brother!

the public purse? i'm sorry, but we're not a socialist society. smokers should well pay for their bad habit by increased insurance premiums, but that is not "public" in any way. In Australia we have a public health system that every citizen contributes to via taxation. If I could choose where that money went to, it would NOT be for the care of people who wilfully harm themselves with toxic substances. Unfortunately I dont have that choice. Smokers are treated just like everyone else by the health system.

no, they are not. you said "it increases the risk of death (or illness) therefore must be banned" (paraphrased)... lots of things increase risk of death/illness, and they are not illegal. lots of things not only increase the risk of death, but they also threaten those around us, but they are not illegal, either. Oh yeah, way to paraphrase Taks! I didn't say that at all! I said snuff and chewing tobacco are illegal in Australia because of their proven link to cancer. I made a point of saying that it wasn't just the health issues that make me think the way I do on the subject.

it is not the government's job to regulate our risk activities. Maybe in Utopia, but in the real world I disagree.

as noted, apples and oranges. when you do something that infringes on others' rights, the analogy does not hold. torturing a kitten infringes on the cat's rights, however few they may be. smoking in your own home does not impact others' rights. even if you have a family and they are impacted significantly, then they can force a change, but not the government.
And what if they can't enforce a change? Smokers seem to be pretty pig headed on the subject. And what's the difference anyway if the smoker's "rights" are being taken away by a family instead of a government? Have you never done anything against another person's wishes for their own good?

Anyway Taks, I don't want this to drag on into a big fist fight. My opinion goes one way, and yours the other :)

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

You are hurting something else if you torture kittens. If you smoke pot or do whatever in your own home, that's your problem. If you drink and hit your spouse or kids then that is different. But really, what's the difference between legally drinking yourself silly and smoking marijuana? It makes no sense for alcohol to be legal and not other things.
Eh ...

During Prohibition People Turned to OTHER Highs, Including Cocaine, Marijuanna, Opium, And Bennies (Benzedrine) ...

Once Prohibition Was Lifted, The Newly Back in Business Beer Lobby, Bullied Congress Into Illegalizing The Competition; Reefer Madness, Being a Good Example Of their Propaganda!

:evil:

[AGN Fuel]

My co-worker is obese and doesn't pay any more for insurance than I do. I don't think you are correct here. Perhaps some companies do, but never the ones my employer has signed up with, which unfortunately has gone through several changes over the years.

I don't want to go into this too deep because it is leading OT, but if you are getting insurance through your employer, it is likely you are part of a 'Group Scheme', where the risk is spread between very large numbers of people employed in a similar field. Such schemes have very simple underwriting (in fact, often have Automatic Acceptance limits below which there is no underwriting of risk at all).

Should your co-worker take out insurance as an individual and have a BMI exceeding (say) 34, I guarantee you they will pay a higher premium than an individual with a BMI of <30.

[Taks]

As for "rights being trampled" - exactly what right is being trampled?my right to pursue my happiness anyway i want as long as i don't intrude on the rights of others.

Do I have the right to go around spraying sulphur dioxide in people's faces?i don't think you get what we're saying... where did any of us say this would not be illegal anyway? (hint: this example is known as assault, very different than me or anyone else smoking around other smokers).

if you're going to equate evils, at least you could choose those that are remotely similar.

Anyway Taks, I don't want this to drag on into a big fist fight. My opinion goes one way, and yours the other :)mine is the opinion of liberty...

taks

[Taks]

I don't want to go into this too deep because it is leading OT, but if you are getting insurance through your employer, it is likely you are part of a 'Group Scheme', where the risk is spread between very large numbers of people employed in a similar field. Such schemes have very simple underwriting (in fact, often have Automatic Acceptance limits below which there is no underwriting of risk at all).uh, well, actually, the life portion is predicated on smoking or not, as well as general health sometimes... your personal contribution to general health could just as easily be predicated on that as well (though i agree, currently it is not).

taks

[Josh]

Whatever happened to freedom of choice?
I don't have a problem with people sucking down on a cancer stick. I do have a problem with them doing it near me. Their smoke affects people around them so they shouldn't have freedom of choice in that regard. Perhaps they just shouldn't be allowed to smoke in public? Here in Melbourne smoking in public places is getting more and more restricted. You can't smoke at a tram or bus stop or train station now. You can't smoke within 10 meters of some buildings. You haven't been allowed to smoke in restaurants and cafes for a good few years now and there is a cut off date for smoking in pubs and clubs too (I'm not sure of the date).


It shouldn't be illegal though. Making smoking illegal will only serve to line the pockets of drug dealer and baron types. Making things illegal makes them hard to regulate. Legalising things, but ensuring severe restrictions, is the way to go.

[Josh]

Nothing should be illegal, except if it harms someone other than the participant or (voluntary) participants.

Injecting nicotine, or heroin, or testosterone, or whatever, should therefore be legal.

What about evidence showing that heroin and other crimes such as muggings and burglaries are related (example (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/10/1070732287510.html?from=storyrhs))? Doesn't a direct link between the two mean that a person doing one necessarily means that others will get harmed by it?

[Taks]

uh, aren't mugging and burglary already illegal? drug use would certainly go to mitigating circumstances for enhanced punishment (or treatment, maybe).

taks

[Josh]

ahuh. yes they are illegal. the point being, however, that people who inject heroin are likely to steal to get money for their next hit (as is their lifestyle). So, when Relmius said that injecting shouldn't be illegal because it doesn't harm others ... I dispute that statement.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

What about evidence showing that heroin and other crimes such as muggings and burglaries are related (example (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/10/1070732287510.html?from=storyrhs))? Doesn't a direct link between the two mean that a person doing one necessarily means that others will get harmed by it?
No ...

People ONLY Commit Those Crimes Because of Huuge Prices, Caused By its Illegality ...

If they Were Legal The Crmes Wouldn't Commited, Ergo it's a Possible Solution!

:think:

[Van Rijn]

I'm going to echo others, but this is a big issue to me - as I've mentioned before, I never knew my father's father because of smoking and my father ruined his lungs the same way and died when I was 13. But I'm going to have to agree that it shouldn't be made illegal, because that causes more problems than it solves and I do believe people should be able to commit suicide if they really want to.

Of course, I'm very much in favor of smoking restrictions in public places (which are very common in California anyway).

[Josh]

Prices for heroin aren't exactly high. Sure they go up when there's a shortage out there but that's only after a big bust every now and then. The thing with heroin (and i unfortunately know a few users) is that it affects you in such a way that you don't want to do much else. You certainly aren't going to have a great work ethic and holding down a job isn't really on the cards. So, legalising heroin may or may not (unlikely) cause a reduction in price ... but that isn't going to change the type of person using nor will it change them into people who go to work and earn money to keep their habit going. I know there are exceptions to the rule but for the bulk of heroin users that is the case.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Prices for heroin aren't exactly high. Sure they go up when there's a shortage out there but that's only after a big bust every now and then. The thing with heroin (and i unfortunately know a few users) is that it affects you in such a way that you don't want to do much else. You certainly aren't going to have a great work ethic and holding down a job isn't really on the cards. So, legalising heroin may or may not (unlikely) cause a reduction in price ... but that isn't going to change the type of person using nor will it change them into people who go to work and earn money to keep their habit going. I know there are exceptions to the rule but for the bulk of heroin users that is the case.
But, a Lot of This, Is Because of The Lack of Casual Users ...

If it Were Legalized it Could Be Policed at Acceptable Levels ...

Furthermore, Even With The Lower Prices, it Would STILL Provide a Huuge Amount of Money to Government Coffers Through Taxes!

:dance:

[Josh]

Casual users??? are you saying it would be better if there were more casual users? Have you watched Trainspotting?

[Knowledge_Seeker]

heck, i say dont ban it EVER! if your gonna do somethin about it, i say tax the living daylights out of it!

[RMallon]

NO! You make smoking illegal, and the next bad habit will be illegal. Should drinking be illegal? It certainly has a deleterious effect on society when people abuse it. Should fatty, high calorie foods be illegal? Should wearing perfume be illegal? It is, apparently, in some town in Belgium I read on the news once. (I could be wrong on the country, could be Denmark or Holland).

I think the anti-smoking measure by way of prohibiting people smoking in public places is enough. Anything more and we are legislating our inability to live perfectly sterile lives. We have enough laws! Use persuasion, education and peer pressure if you must.

Sorry, not to single you out here...just a starting point -- maybe it slipped your mind of the 400,000 Americans that drop dead each year from tobacco related deaths (check Am. Heart Assoc/ Cancer society). What are the laws governing tobacco use today?? Well, you sort of need to be 18 to buy tobacco (did I leave anything out?).

Not to compare apples and oranges here but, look at the marijuana laws and the billions spent to keep it illegal. As far a human deaths are concerned, I don't truely know of one person that's lost their live to marijuana use (remember ciggies and 400k lives cut short each year from smoking....and imagine, with cigarettes -- if you rush down to your neighborhood convience store, you can get a free lighter with purchase of two packs. That's fricking sick, isn't it...big govt/taxes income/lobbiest).
Education is the key.

[Taks]

no matter how many people it kills, as long as the activity doesn't harm others it should be up to the individual.

as you noted, education, early education, would be a good idea. if people chose not to smoke because they were properly taught, eventually only the fringe would do it, just like hard-core drug use.

i've said before, i'm a part-time smoker - while drinking or skiing. i drink on wednesday and ski... well, 20 times this year. i've tried quitting many, many, many times, and have even managed about 1 1/2 years without it once before. however, the desire won't go away. in spite of that, not smoking has to be my choice, not the government's, or some guy named paulie that's "looking out for my own good."

at some point, intrusion into our lives has to stop... it just has to.

taks

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Casual users??? are you saying it would be better if there were more casual users? Have you watched Trainspotting?
Seriously ...

If I Could Swap Out Every Heavy User for a Casual One, I'd Do it In a Heart Beat ...

If Drug Use Were LEGAL, Policed, and Taxed, Most of its Bad Qualities Would Fall Away!

:clap:

[paulie jay]

no matter how many people it kills, as long as the activity doesn't harm others it should be up to the individual.

as you noted, education, early education, would be a good idea. if people chose not to smoke because they were properly taught, eventually only the fringe would do it, just like hard-core drug use.

i've said before, i'm a part-time smoker - while drinking or skiing. i drink on wednesday and ski... well, 20 times this year. i've tried quitting many, many, many times, and have even managed about 1 1/2 years without it once before. however, the desire won't go away. in spite of that, not smoking has to be my choice, not the government's, or some guy named paulie that's "looking out for my own good."

at some point, intrusion into our lives has to stop... it just has to.

taks
Oh for christs sake Taks, you wanna get down off your high horse? Do you have to see the mind control bogey man hiding behind everything that you don't agree with? The OP asked for my opinion on the matter - shall I pretend that I don't have one just because you don't like it? Frankly, I don't care what you think of my opinion. Just stop with the goading, OK?

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Oh for christs sake Taks, you wanna get down off your high horse? Do you have to see the mind control bogey man hiding behind everything that you don't agree with? The OP asked for my opinion on the matter - shall I pretend that I don't have one just because you don't like it? Frankly, I don't care what you think of my opinion. Just stop with the goading, OK?
He's an American, we're SUPPOSED to Distrust Authority, Otherwise they Take Away Our Pilgrim's Bank Cards ...

Leaving Out The Goad Though, his Main Point Is That Not Only as Adults we Should Be Capable of Taking Care of Ourselves, But Also That The Illegal Stuff Is No More and In Some Cases Quite a Bit Less Dangerous, than Stuff That's Already Legal ...

So Enough With The Hyperbole, On Both Sides, Can you Offer Any Proof That So-Called Hard Drugs, Are Intrinsically Any Worse for People than The Legal Ones?

:think:

[mickal555]

Eh ...

It Has, its Moments ...

Just Remember, they're MULTI-Purpose!

:whistle:

OK

Now you're scaring me :neutral:

[Melusine]

AGN, I'm glad I have decent insurance. I always see ads on TV or in print for individual insurance mentioning, "If you're a non-smoker..." but I don't see, "If you weigh over 200 lbs..." or anything regarding BMI, but I admit I don't look into it much (at least for now). Considering the numbers of persons employed by companies, I think my point still stands: there are behaviors not being penalized by higher insurance. If smokers were to pay more, then obese and/or sedentary people should pay more, too. It gets kind of nutty with pre-existing problems in getting new insurance. You're right, insurance is a whole other topic.

Zaphod, I agree with you on several points. Marijuana in the US is a real middle-class drug. When I went to a Tom Petty concert in The Woodlands, that fact was highlighted by the number of 40+ year olds, decent people, smoking away. If there was a way to make every person who smokes crack, uses heroin, or meth and get them to smoke pot, it would be a better place. People don't go bonkers or drive 100 mph on pot or steal the wedding rings off their sleeping spouses to hawk them for drug money. Those are seriously addictive drugs with dangerous behavioral effects, unlike smoking cigarettes, et al.

Sorry, not to single you out here...just a starting point -- maybe it slipped your mind of the 400,000 Americans that drop dead each year from tobacco related deaths (check Am. Heart Assoc/ Cancer society). What are the laws governing tobacco use today?? Well, you sort of need to be 18 to buy tobacco (did I leave anything out?).
It's OK, but no, it didn't slip my mind about deaths. It doesn't slip my mind about alcohol-related deaths either. (This poor couple was just killed in their sleep when a drunk driver drove into their house). The thing is, anti-smokers have made much progress; in my 20s, one could still smoke on many planes, at work, in airports, etc. Everyone in my family was a smoker at one point, now they've all quit. The number of smokers has been reduced and there's much more of a stigma associated with it--all with it being legal. Smoking is more prevalent among poorer people. So, as far as I see it, there are a lot of regulations regarding smoking: no commercials, warning labels, no smoking here or there, have to be 18 to purchase, the tobacco companies (as a result of lawsuits) have to offer info on cessation programs, etc.

Unless someone lives in a cave, they know smoking is bad for them. Humans aren't perfect--they do stupid things. I know medical doctors who smoke. I could go to McDonalds every day for lunch, but I don't, it's my choice to eat what foods I want. We could say alcohol is a major health problem--people drink and drive, they get violent; I don't like to drive after 12:00 a.m. in Houston, I see too many whacky drivers. Would it be fair to punish all the moderate drinkers? We already know that making an addictive substance illegal doesn't deter those who really want it from using it. But more important is, how much should the govt regulate our choices? As it is, cigarettes and alcohol have exhorbitant taxes--smokers are paying into HUGE coffers, especially in states like NY. People who say they should pay more for insurance--well they are paying for the right to smoke!

Not to compare apples and oranges here but, look at the marijuana laws and the billions spent to keep it illegal. As far a human deaths are concerned, I don't truely know of one person that's lost their live to marijuana use (remember ciggies and 400k lives cut short each year from smoking....and imagine, with cigarettes -- if you rush down to your neighborhood convience store, you can get a free lighter with purchase of two packs. That's fricking sick, isn't it...big govt/taxes income/lobbiest).
Education is the key.
I'm not sure what you're point is here: if you are arguing for legal marijuana, I agree. I don't know what your point is about the free lighter. Ligthers are cheap--the store and cigarette companies choose to do that. I don't think there's anything sick about that--they are competing against a host of other cigarette companies. Do you expect them to be any different from other companies? One can choose to be a sucker or not. :neutral:

[MrClean]

There are weight penalties with insurance Melusine. In shape I am 240 pounds and don't need doors, I make my own holes in walls. Yet according to the BMI stuff I'm obese and have to pay extra. Right now I'm 20 over that, but it's been a long winter with little help and I've been held away from the gym. Life is unfair to the Mesomorph. Now once when I went in for some life insurance the nurse they sent out to asses me was a skinny little thing that probably got sick every time she looked at a steak. My rates went up. 10 years later We changed finances and insurance and I got re-assesed. I was 10 pounds heavier, lift about 100 pounds more too. The nurse was a big roundie girl who looked at the charts, scoffed, and I get good insurance rates.

Like smoking, if you're overweight according to their charts, you have to pay extra.

By the way, if you're thinking of working out and getting a little bit of a cut on, make sure you get assessed BEFORE you start putting on the muscle mass.

[Melusine]

There are weight penalties with insurance Melusine. In shape I am 240 pounds and don't need doors, I make my own holes in walls.

I don't disagree, but the companies I've worked for have NEVER charged higher premiums for weight. I work for a corporation. As AGN said, for individual/private insurance that may be so, but all the obese people in my companies are not and have not paid more for insurance at all. My company is not unusual, that's all I'm saying. And also, my sister, who was obese and works for the state, got her stomach surgery paid for 100%. Her state govt insurance does not charge more for obese people, either.

[Argos]

Interesting BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4779694.stm).

Not everyone with lung cancer is - or has been - a smoker. But some sufferers say people assume they have been - and warn that the stigma could be costing lives.

[farmerjumperdon]

There are weight penalties with insurance Melusine. In shape I am 240 pounds and don't need doors, I make my own holes in walls. Yet according to the BMI stuff I'm obese and have to pay extra. Right now I'm 20 over that, but it's been a long winter with little help and I've been held away from the gym. Life is unfair to the Mesomorph. Now once when I went in for some life insurance the nurse they sent out to asses me was a skinny little thing that probably got sick every time she looked at a steak. My rates went up. 10 years later We changed finances and insurance and I got re-assesed. I was 10 pounds heavier, lift about 100 pounds more too. The nurse was a big roundie girl who looked at the charts, scoffed, and I get good insurance rates.

Like smoking, if you're overweight according to their charts, you have to pay extra.

By the way, if you're thinking of working out and getting a little bit of a cut on, make sure you get assessed BEFORE you start putting on the muscle mass.

You're either applying for some pretty big policies, or applying with the wrong companies. What do you mean by "a little bit of a cut?" I can't imagine a little bit being enough to keep you from getting accepted at regular rates. It's also difficult to agree without seeing your complete health history. Stuff like prior surgeries, prior injuries, blood pressure, family history, current activities (including sports, alcohol use, ongoing treatments, etc), medical conditions, etc. There are so many things to consider, with most considered as a matter of degree. One of the groups I worked with actually had policies issued to Pro Wrestlers - standard rates. Also, laws vary widely from state to state (something I've ranted about before), making it tough for companies to operate under any kind of logical broad standard. You can bet that if they have to default, they are going to play it very safe.

[farmerjumperdon]

I don't disagree, but the companies I've worked for have NEVER charged higher premiums for weight. I work for a corporation. As AGN said, for individual/private insurance that may be so, but all the obese people in my companies are not and have not paid more for insurance at all. My company is not unusual, that's all I'm saying. And also, my sister, who was obese and works for the state, got her stomach surgery paid for 100%. Her state govt insurance does not charge more for obese people, either.

Not to bore everyone with another iteration of my rants, but:

<> Regulations vary state to state.
<> Health v. life are in most states regulated by entirely different law, and often by different agencies.
<> Group v. individually purchased also brings different rules into play.
<> Political subdivisions (govt employees) almost always get to take advantage of loopholes and more generous benefit packages than are available to all but employees of the largest self-insured companies.
<> Large self-insured get what they want, individuals gets the shaft, and small to mid-size business fall in the middle.
<> Most politicians are either afraid of trying to truly fix any of this for fear of who they might anger, or, they haven't a clue on the topic and offer solutions that usually just make things worse (see Medicare Part D).

[Relmuis]

I would like to point out a few things about the connection between unhealthy habits, medical costs and people becoming what it sometimes called "a burden to society".

I will start with smoking. I have known several smokers, some of whom are still alive (so I cannot be sure what they are going to die of), but most of whom have died. Only one of the latter died of emphysema. And it is doubtful if smoking had caused it, as this was the only one of my acquaintances who had, as a youth, worked in a stoneworking shop where no safety measures were taken, and people inhaled large amounts of stone dust as a consequence. I think it would have been most unfair to deny him full medical care or to increase his premiums because of the emphysema being somehow his own fault. In my opinion it is very likely that the emphysema would have occurred even without him smoking, and not likely at all that it would have occurred if he had not worked in that stonecutting shop. Who is to be blamed?

As for the other smokers who died: one died of a heart attack, and only a few hours passed between the first symptoms and death. She was rushed to hospital in an ambulance, but costs can hardly have been exhorbitant. Another one died of renal failure at the age of 88; I don't think there was any causal connection to her smoking. But several other ones died of cancer (lung cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, melanoma, and other types), though usually without very costly treatment. And among my acquaintances, I have never seen anyone die of cancer who never smoked. So I suspect that most of these cancers were indeed directly caused by smoking.

However, I also suspect that smoking (or inhaling fine dust from other sources) didn't cause cancer before we started to pollute the environment with radioactive gases. These gases (radon among them) are adsorbed to fine dust, which lodges in the lungs and is then taken up into the bloodstream. To my knowledge, no connection between smoking and cancer was ever suspected before 1945. So whose fault is it, if smokers get cancer?

Then there is obesity. There is a well known statistical connection between obesity and both heart attacks and (even more strikingly) type 2 diabetes. However, most people who get heart attacks or type 2 diabetes are not obese. One may assume that a non-obese person who gets a heart attack, would also have gotten this heart attack if he or she had been obese. In which case some people would have been ready to blame his or her obesity. And they would have been wrong. Therefore: most (though not all) of the obese people who get heart attacks would have had these anyway, even if they had not been obese.

There is, moreover, the issue of epigenetic inheritance. Lately, the B.B.C. showed a program about this. It seems that if a boy is nearly starved during puberty, or if a girl is nearly starved while still in utero (i.e. if her mother is nearly starved during pregnancy) certain genes are turned on or off, with the result that their descendants become prone to both obesity and early-onset type 2 diabetes. I personally know one obese man with type 2 diabetes, and, sure enough, his father almost died from hunger during the end of World War Two, when he (the father) was 13 and 14 years old. Again, who is to be blamed?

And of course, there is also normal (genetic rather than epigenetic) inheritance. The likelyhood of getting several diseases is, for a large part inheritable, so it would be most unfair to blame someone if they come down with a disease for which their genes predisposed them anyway. Here nobody else deserves blame, but that doesn't change the principle. If some people drink twelve cups of coffee every day without getting high blood pressure, it is most unfair to blame someone with high blood pressure on account of his or her coffee habit, if this consists of drinking merely seven cups daily.

Instead of blaming the victim for something which may well have been inflicted from outside, or which may have nothing to do with the supposedly unhealthy habit, it would be better to tax the habit-forming products. Not in order to raise their prices to a level which prevents people from using them, but to make this tax pay for those medical and care costs which would not have occured if the product had not been used. Those costs can be calculated by statistical means, without investigating how the diseases of individual patients are connected to these products. Simply put: if 16 % of those who use product P get disease D, and only 12 % of those who don't use it get the disease anyway, then 4 out of every 16 P-using patients is a victim of product P and product P must be taxed to an amount sufficient to take care of 25 % of the assiociated cost. And this money must then be used for that purpose!!

Applying this principle in an equitable way would have some surprising resuls, such as a tax on skis and diving gear; products whose users have an elevated risk of suffering an invalidating accident after which they may need half a century of full-time care.

[teddyv]

However, I also suspect that smoking (or inhaling fine dust from other sources) didn't cause cancer before we started to pollute the environment with radioactive gases. These gases (radon among them) are adsorbed to fine dust, which lodges in the lungs and is then taken up into the bloodstream.

I thought radon was a naturally occuring gas that can accumulate in places like basements and mineshafts, particularly in areas that overlie granitic rocks (which usually contain some radioactive elements)?

[Relmuis]

Yes, it can occur naturally, but most exposure is due to plaster or gypsum containing traces of radioactive elements and being used in buildings.

There has always been some cancer, but it used to be a rare disease found predominantly in the extremely elderly.

[Doodler]

They do. Generally any condition that is actuarially shown to significantly affect the mortality/morbidity of an applicant will incur a loading of premium.

Fiscal eugenics. :naughty:

[Taks]

Oh for christs sake Taks, you wanna get down off your high horse?my high horse? you're trying to regulate my behavior, not the other way around. let's call a spade a spade, ok?

Do you have to see the mind control bogey man hiding behind everything that you don't agree with?where did i say anything about mind control? it is plain and simple intrusion into my personal liberties.

The OP asked for my opinion on the matter - shall I pretend that I don't have one just because you don't like it?works both ways, doesn't it? my opinion is that your opinion fails the test of liberty. am i not allowed to have my opinion?

Frankly, I don't care what you think of my opinion. Just stop with the goading, OK?goading?

taks

[Taks]

Can you Offer Any Proof That So-Called Hard Drugs, Are Intrinsically Any Worse for People than The Legal Ones?assuming hard drugs would be cocaine or heroin, and legal would be nicotine and alcohol (marijuana is not a hard drug, IMO), only anecdotal. people don't starve themselves for a cigarrette, but they do some pretty nasty things for alcohol, cocaine and heroin. alcohol, by and large is just as damaging as any hard drug, and it doesn't require a needle.

taks

[Moose]

I can't believe I'm letting myself get dragged into this, but I have to point something out.

As smoking is very much a luxury and not a basic necessity, nor is it covered in your Bill of Rights, it's technically a fallacy to describe smoking as a right.

It's more properly called a privilege, and is thus is subject to regulation same as any other privilege (like driving).

Taks, if I recall from the last time you went off on this subject, you're of the opinion that public smoking should be permissable, that non-smokers "can always go elsewhere", am I recalling correctly?

[Melusine]

However, I also suspect that smoking (or inhaling fine dust from other sources) didn't cause cancer before we started to pollute the environment with radioactive gases. These gases (radon among them) are adsorbed to fine dust, which lodges in the lungs and is then taken up into the bloodstream. To my knowledge, no connection between smoking and cancer was ever suspected before 1945. So whose fault is it, if smokers get cancer?
In high school when I did a big project on Gothic and Romanesque cathedrals, sources said that many of the stonecutters died from stone dust inhalation. Most of those cathedrals took 40 years to build. Besides the dust causing emphysema, what else would the stones contain? I don't know the answer to that.

Instead of blaming the victim for something which may well have been inflicted from outside, or which may have nothing to do with the supposedly unhealthy habit, it would be better to tax the habit-forming products.... And this money must then be used for that purpose!!

I said that in my above post--smokers and drinkers are already paying high taxes to use the products, which fills the state's coffers. Not all the money gets used the way it should (depends on the state). If the $ goes into the general fund, then...

But what you seem to be saying would lead to unevenly taxing a whole slew of items, and I do not think that's feasible. Taxing skiis higher? Taxing mountain climbing? It could go on and on.

[Tinaa]

Come on people. This topic seems to bring out the worst in some of us. I can lock the thread, send out warnings, or those of you who are forgetting to be polite can stop now.

[Vaelroth]

I don't think smoking should be illegal, and I think it would save a lot of time the hard drugs were legalized and the money from the taxes on those drugs was spent on educating young ones about the nastiness of these hard drugs. Now, there are always going to be some people that will be doing some drug or another. I mean, just look at the medical professions. There is a higher percentage of doctors and nurses that smoke when compared with the percentage of smokers out of the entire population. These people should know not to smoke, and yet they still do.

I am a smoker, and both my parents are nurses so I should also know well enough about smoking that I wouldn't want to do it. However, with my family situation being a hairy mess (my father isn't the nicest of guys and he is into all that 'high class' crime) and my parents pushing me to get into a 4 year college I've gone out for a smoke plenty of times just to clear my head and get away from everything. Whether you want to admit it or not, smoking is one of the best stress relievers that doesn't mess you up for long amounts of time. Its not entirely the nicotine either. Being able to take five and get away from everything is the primary reason that people take smoke breaks (whether that person realizes it or not, the smoke break is helping them eliminate a lot of stress from their day by giving them a chance to clear their head). There is also plenty of medical evidence that shows it is possible for the human body to almost completely heal itself after smoking for twenty years (sorry, I don't have a source for this but there is a book called [u]The Healthy Guide to Unhealthy Living[/b] that cites some of the evidence for it).

As for hard drugs like cocain and heroin, my view on those is much like Niven's ideas about current addicts. If you legalize something like that, you can weed out the people that are susceptible to such forms of extreme glorification by letting them devote all their time and energy into it. If you let a heroin addict have all the heroin he wanted, he wouldn't detract from society and in the end would only end up harming himself and eventually he would die. Thus eliminating a negative influence on society.

[Taks]

Taks, if I recall from the last time you went off on this subject, you're of the opinion that public smoking should be permissable, that non-smokers "can always go elsewhere", am I recalling correctly?no, not right.

my view is that smoking in public places is certainly subject to regulation, i.e. court houses, etc. a private business, however, is not public, nor is my own home, or car. smart restaurant owners already ban smoking on their own. but i think bars are a bit of a different situation. oh, workplaces, as a general rule, have all banned smoking as well.

for the record, applicable only to the US, the constitution neither allows the government to tell us what to do with our own bodies.

taks

[Gruesome]

Smoking is a slow, gruesome and rather expensive way to commit suicide.

I take offense to this....well, just the fifth word. ;)

[Taks]

ooh... assisted suicide in the house! :)

and yes, expensive. $5.00 a pack at my bar. of course, i'll spend about $50-$60 on alcohol tonight as well. ugh.

taks

[farmerjumperdon]

I can't believe I'm letting myself get dragged into this, but I have to point something out.

As smoking is very much a luxury and not a basic necessity, nor is it covered in your Bill of Rights, it's technically a fallacy to describe smoking as a right.

It's more properly called a privilege, and is thus is subject to regulation same as any other privilege (like driving).

Taks, if I recall from the last time you went off on this subject, you're of the opinion that public smoking should be permissable, that non-smokers "can always go elsewhere", am I recalling correctly?

I don't think it is a privelege. A privelege is something you get permission for, and for which permisssion can be withdrawn. I wouldn't look to the Bill of Rights for all rights. For instance, it doesn't specifically give us the right to go to the grocery store.

I'd avoid codification in defining rights other than to say if something is prohibitied by code, than it is not a right. Then, after that, if it is permitted by law with qualifications, it is a privelege - and everything else is a right.

Not playing picky semantics, I just like trying to figure out formulas for things.

[Reina]

No smoking should not be illegal. While I dont smoke, I think everyone should have the right to decide for themselves. Everyone knows damn well that smoking can give you cancer. If you chose to smoke, then thats your problem.

In NYC smoking is illegal in bars, restaurants and clubs.

[pumpkinpie]

[snip] Whether you want to admit it or not, smoking is one of the best stress relievers that doesn't mess you up for long amounts of time. Its not entirely the nicotine either. Being able to take five and get away from everything is the primary reason that people take smoke breaks (whether that person realizes it or not, the smoke break is helping them eliminate a lot of stress from their day by giving them a chance to clear their head).

I'm sure, Vaelroth, that you didn't mean to imply the converse isn't true. But I have to point it out.

I'm not a smoker. I can "take five and get away from everything" and "eliminate a lot of stress from [my] day" without putting a toxin into my body or polluting the air around me. And there are plenty of people who i have used smoking as a stress reliever in the past, and can now find other ways to calm them down. There are other ways, don't use smoking as a crutch.

edit: I voted no. I support the current laws banning smoking in public places, including any states working toward extending that to bars and restaurants. But I would never support making it illegal in a private residence.

[Vaelroth]

I understand your point Pumpkinpie, but the nicotine does play a part in the stress relief. Since nicotine is a stimulant, when the person in question returns back to work they will be a bit more energized. Granted, you could drink a coke as well but I'm not a soda drinker. Smoking also gives someone a legitimate excuse to go outside and get away from their work for a moment. If you were to just stand up and tell your boss that you need a break, they might not be so inclined to let you step outside for a few minutes to clear your head.

You brought up a good point though, thank you.

[pumpkinpie]

I understand your point Pumpkinpie, but the nicotine does play a part in the stress relief. Since nicotine is a stimulant, when the person in question returns back to work they will be a bit more energized. Granted, you could drink a coke as well but I'm not a soda drinker. Right, I'm not saying smoking doesn't relieve stress. Just that it's not the only method, and it's a poor excuse.
Smoking also gives someone a legitimate excuse to go outside and get away from their work for a moment. If you were to just stand up and tell your boss that you need a break, they might not be so inclined to let you step outside for a few minutes to clear your head.


Well, that's discrimination against non-smokers, then! :lol:

[farmerjumperdon]

No smoking should not be illegal.

I'm down with that.

[antoniseb]

Curious, do you support insurance companies charging more to obese people?
Yes. Unless we get to a point where there is no insurance (or 'single payer insurance'). This is the same as charging teenagers with fast cars more for car insurance than middle aged women with no violations.

[ozzmosis]

i guess am in the 1 % heheh...

[antoniseb]

no matter how many people it kills, as long as the activity doesn't harm others it should be up to the individual.

Personally, I am not in favor of paying more for my insurance and taxes to cover the cost of treating people who got lingering illnesses from these self destructive choices. If people who smoked just suddenly died, without hospital costs, and miraculously not leaving orphans, perhaps I could agree with you... or perhaps you agree with me that this is harming people.

[zebo-the-fat]

I don't care if someone decides to kill themselves, that's their problem ... I do object to coming home after a night out with my clothes and hair stinking of smoke. I like a drink, but I don't go pouring it over everone!

[Swift]

In high school when I did a big project on Gothic and Romanesque cathedrals, sources said that many of the stonecutters died from stone dust inhalation. Most of those cathedrals took 40 years to build. Besides the dust causing emphysema, what else would the stones contain? I don't know the answer to that.

I would guess they suffered from silicosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicosis).
When fine particles of silica dust are deposited in the lungs, macrophages that ingest the dust particles will set off an inflammation response by releasing tumor necrosis factor, interleukin-1, leukotriene B4 and other cytokines. In turn, these stimulate fibroblasts to proliferate and produce collagen around the silica particle, thus resulting in fibrosis and the formation of the nodular lesions.

Furthermore, the surface of silicon dust can generate silicon-based radicals that lead to the production of hydroxyl and oxygen radicals, as well as hydrogen peroxide, which can inflict damage to the surrounding cells.

[Doodler]

Personally, I am not in favor of paying more for my insurance and taxes to cover the cost of treating people who got lingering illnesses from these self destructive choices. If people who smoked just suddenly died, without hospital costs, and miraculously not leaving orphans, perhaps I could agree with you... or perhaps you agree with me that this is harming people.

So where do you draw the line? At what point does legislating or charging for unhealthy choices cross the line of personal freedom?

Should doctors charge more for people who weigh more than 200 pounds?

Put a textile tax on clothing over XXL?

Should we put a special tax on non-skim milk?

Should we outlaw tablesalt? Make MSG a controlled substance?

Maybe we just need to get beyond this idea that everyone needs to live to be 100. To be quite honest with you, there are some patterns I've seen in the medical field lately that annoy the crap out of me. People being hit with $500 or more dollars a month worth of prescriptions just to keep them going in the face of their choices. Really, what it comes down to is picking a pricetag beyond which, if you can't pay for the medical support to keep you alive, you don't get it.

We (both people living with choices that are less than healthy, and the healthnuts trying to cram their lifestyle down everyone's throats) really just need to get over the fact that people die, some young, some old, some painfully, and some not.

[R.A.F.]

Personally, I am not in favor of paying more for my insurance and taxes to cover the cost of treating people who got lingering illnesses from these self destructive choices. If people who smoked just suddenly died, without hospital costs, and miraculously not leaving orphans, perhaps I could agree with you... or perhaps you agree with me that this is harming people.

This same type of reasoning also applies to those who chose not to wear seat belts, or wear proper motorcycle helmets...which is why there are laws covering those things.

I do find it rather ironic that (here in California, at least...soon to be the entire country I imagine) in bars, it is illegal to smoke, yet OK to contribute to the drunk driving "problem" by serving alcohol...

[Moose]

Quibbles:

Should we put a special tax on non-skim milk?

No, because certain chronically underweight people due to overactive metabolism benefit from drinking whole milk. My aunt's a nutritionist, and her daughter/my cousin had this problem as a child. Still does, come to think of it, but she's not as finicky as she'd been as a kid, so it's easier to manage.

Should we outlaw tablesalt?

Doodler, buddy, table salt is a necessity, particularly in hot country. And doubly-so with that nonsense urban legend about "8 glasses of water" that's been going around.

While a case can be made for reducing it somewhat from the typical diet (in western culture, anyway), the only people who should be regulating their salt intake in any sort of drastic way are people with high blood pressure, and only on the advice of their doctor.

Taks, I appreciate the clarification. It seems we're not so far apart, then.

[Gillianren]

Smoking also gives someone a legitimate excuse to go outside and get away from their work for a moment. If you were to just stand up and tell your boss that you need a break, they might not be so inclined to let you step outside for a few minutes to clear your head.

Mine always have been. Granted, I generally only asked for the minute or two when I was starting to have a panic attack, and it was better than having me start screaming on the call floor, but they also frowned upon people taking smoke breaks at any time other than their legally-mandated ten-minute breaks or lunch breaks. Let's face it--if your job is lousy enough, it's hard enough getting a couple of minutes to go to the bathroom.

And yes, I do support control on quite a lot of substances. For example, prescription drugs. We don't let just anybody get their hands on, say, morphine; why should we let just anybody get their hands on heroin, its basic equivalent?

[Moose]

This same type of reasoning also applies to those who chose not to wear seat belts, or wear proper motorcycle helmets...which is why there are laws covering those things.

Actually, the reasoning behind helmets and seat belts have some rather significant differences.

Making the driver belt-in means the driver doesn't have to brace him/herself in an emergency, so the driver may attempt to mitigate the damage or regain control, regardless of the forces he/she may be experiencing.

Making the passengers wear seat belts protects the driver from impact by unrestrained flying bodies.

And last, making children in particular wear the appropriate restraints comes from the idea that minors cannot legally consent. To anything, really. Consent is delegated to their parents or guardians. And the parents don't have the right (legally or morally) to make decisions that directly endanger or harm their children.

Making adults wear helmets doesn't have the same logic behind it, so it's a shakier rationale.

[Moose]

Smoking also gives someone a legitimate excuse to go outside and get away from their work for a moment. If you were to just stand up and tell your boss that you need a break, they might not be so inclined to let you step outside for a few minutes to clear your head.

To permit "at-will" smoke breaks (and they add up) while not allowing equivalent time for non-smokers was deemed discriminatory by the courts when a bunch of grievances were filed over this in New Brunswick a few years ago.

Apparently the time taken for smoke breaks really had gotten abusive, where the worst abusers had been taking as much as an hour off during the day.

After the decision, the companies had been forced to correct the problem.

[antoniseb]

So where do you draw the line? At what point does legislating or charging for unhealthy choices cross the line of personal freedom?

* Should doctors charge more for people who weigh more than 200 pounds?
* Put a textile tax on clothing over XXL?
* Should we put a special tax on non-skim milk?
* Should we outlaw tablesalt? Make MSG a controlled substance?


Where do *I* draw the line? Basically, I think that cost centering is the way to go. Addressing your points:

Should doctors charge more for working on a chubby person?
- Doctors charge what it costs to do the treatment. If someone is a 600 pound type II diabetic, they will likely incur many more medical costs than someone with low body fat who gets regular exercise. If the skinny person in this example gets colon cancer, his costs will go up. Right now, we use actuaries to keep people sorted by risk pools, but we keep the pools very broad. It is the insurance companies, and government programs that pay medical costs for the un and under-insured that currently take money from people living healthy lives to pay for the treatment of people who choose risky habits. Do you think that I even if I put a lot of effort into staying healthy I should pay for the consequences of someone else's excesses?

- Textile tax on XXL+ clothing? Clothes cost what they cost. There are some garments where the XXL sizes cost more than M sizes, but there is no need to apply a tax there. As a side note, some airlines charge more for seats that tall people need.

- Special Tax on non-skim milk? I don't think a tax is required on the causes of obesity, but I think we could end up in a few decades having more financial and social penalties for obesity. We will likely also have better tools for avoiding it, and as a condition it will be less common than it is now.

- Outlaw tablesalt and contol MSG? Here I think you are using rhetorical hyperbole, so an answer probably isn't really required. I do think that before the end of this century, people will have the tools and responsibility for controlling their blood pressure, and many other aspects of themselves so as to generally minimize comunity health costs.

Please notice that I have said that some of these controls will come in the future. I think they are inevitable, but they won't happen until people have to tools to control these things better than we have today.

[R.A.F.]

Making adults wear helmets doesn't have the same logic behind it, so it's a shakier rationale.

Actually, (in that whole post) I was looking at it from the perspective of the cost of health care/insurance.

[Jorge]

We have done some pretty strange things in Belgium, but I haven't heard of a city where perfume is illegal.
Although I would like it if some perfumes were banned (at least in elevators and other confined spaces) :razz:

Nor do i... I remeber reading something on this on Yahoo too...
I think it was sweden or denmark.... something more north that belgium atleast.

[Swift]

To permit "at-will" smoke breaks (and they add up) while not allowing equivalent time for non-smokers was deemed discriminatory by the courts when a bunch of grievances were filed over this in New Brunswick a few years ago.

Apparently the time taken for smoke breaks really had gotten abusive, where the worst abusers had been taking as much as an hour off during the day.

After the decision, the companies had been forced to correct the problem.
The same situation seems to exist in many (most?) companies in the US, though I do not know if it is a legal/court decision or a negotiated point between labor and managment. I know from personal experience that there were situations where smokers were taking 5 or 10 minute smoke breaks once an hour - this ends up being 30 to 60 minutes more off-time a day, just because you smoke.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

OK

Now you're scaring me :neutral:
Mickal ...

If I'm ONLY Scaring you Now ...

You Haven't, Been Paying Attention!

[The Mangler]

This poll seems a little biased. 3 out of 4 options are really the same thing - to effectively ban smoking. And the option against banning smoking is actually for banning it, but not at this time because it is not feasable.

I don't think smoking should be banned. I don't really need a reason why. The government does not (they try to, but I don't listen) tell me how to live my life. That's up to me.
I'm not saying everyone should be able to smoke anywhere they want, of course there will be areas that you can't smoke. That decision should be left to the owner of that property though.

[Moose]

Man, I'm feeling pedantic today. Or maybe it's the flu.

- Doctors charge what it costs to do the treatment.

Quibble: More properly, unregulated doctors (and HMOs) charge what they think the market will bear. Or be forced to bear, if someone can sell the justifications so they stick. (Thinking Big Oil, especially.)

[Vaelroth]

To permit "at-will" smoke breaks (and they add up) while not allowing equivalent time for non-smokers was deemed discriminatory by the courts when a bunch of grievances were filed over this in New Brunswick a few years ago.

Apparently the time taken for smoke breaks really had gotten abusive, where the worst abusers had been taking as much as an hour off during the day.

After the decision, the companies had been forced to correct the problem.

Thats only because of greedy Americanitis. I work a 10 hour day and only take 3 smoke breaks, one of which is while I'm taking out the trash. In the meantime I'm still working 10 minutes early and 10 minutes late every day. Granted, I'm not the average "American" so I've probably got my head under control more than most of us. If people are abusing at will smoke breaks they need to be fired. Granted, the law makes sense, but I've never abused the idea.

Gillianren: Your example is another legitimate reason, and we did have an employee who had to take breaks because of panic attacks.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

This poll seems a little biased. 3 out of 4 options are really the same thing - to effectively ban smoking. And the option against banning smoking is actually for banning it, but not at this time because it is not feasable.

I don't think smoking should be banned. I don't really need a reason why. The government does not (they try to, but I don't listen) tell me how to live my life. That's up to me.
I'm not saying everyone should be able to smoke anywhere they want, of course there will be areas that you can't smoke. That decision should be left to the owner of that property though.
Well Said, Mangler ....

Is it Anybody Else's Business, How I Choose to Live MY Life, Or In This Case, End it?

:clap:

[Taks]

Personally, I am not in favor of paying more for my insurance and taxes to cover the cost of treating people who got lingering illnesses from these self destructive choices.i've already made it clear that i think people that engage in high-risk activities should shoulder the burden. that sort of renders this point moot, i think.

keep in mind, too, cigarrettes are probably the most heavily taxed product in our economy. it's not like smokers aren't putting into the kitty.

taks

[Taks]

Taks, I appreciate the clarification. It seems we're not so far apart, then.sure, i appreciate the question, actually. i hate being misrepresented or misquoted. if you look back at my posting history, that tends to be the thing that unnerves me more than anything.

now that we've all settled down, btw, there seems to be some slightly less aggravated discussion going on.

re smoke breaks... i don't take them, because i only smoke when i'm out (mostly wednesday evenings... 2 more hours), but i happen to have a job where taking a break is not frowned upon. i often go out with my buddy, who does take frequent breaks, and discuss what we're working on. of course, we're engineers doing design and development work, so sitting at our desks is not necessarily a requirement. other than that, our hourly types are given a break in the morning (15 minutes), lunch and another 15 minute break in the afternoon. i don't believe they smoke otherwise, though i could be wrong.

oh, and also, helmets are not required here. i had never heard the "flying bodies" defense of seat belts before, btw... the image in my head was, well, humorous. ;)

taks

[The Mangler]

re smoke breaks... i don't take them, because i only smoke when i'm out (mostly wednesday evenings... 2 more hours), but i happen to have a job where taking a break is not frowned upon. i often go out with my buddy, who does take frequent breaks, and discuss what we're working on. of course, we're engineers doing design and development work, so sitting at our desks is not necessarily a requirement. other than that, our hourly types are given a break in the morning (15 minutes), lunch and another 15 minute break in the afternoon. i don't believe they smoke otherwise, though i could be wrong.
At my work we get two 15 min. breaks and a 30 min lunch. I admit that sometimes I sneak one when it's not break time. ;) I don't see it as a problem though. I usually only take one (sometimes two) illegal breaks per day. When I do sneak one, I don't stay out there very long. I smoke my cigarette, then I go back to work. Sometimes there really is nothing you could be doing instead of sneaking a break - waiting for paint to dry, waiting for your plane to get in the hangar. The main thing you have to do in these situations is hide, don't get caught standing in front of your toolbox with your hands in your pockets.

Lets say your working with someone on a job, and you encounter a problem that requires a little discussion to figure it out. If you are both smokers, why not have that conversation outside?

That's the way I see it, but management tends to see things differantly.

[Moose]

One of my old professors (for the life of me, I can't at all remember what he'd taught me. I can remember his face, just not the class. Strange.)

He'd told a story about the time he'd gotten in a 20+ car pile-up on the Autobahn. He'd been driving a Daff (sp?) "because you'd have to be daft to drive one on the Autobahn".

Well, he's a bit knocked around, more than a little disoriented and confused. "I can't see", he'd muttered to the guy in the next car up who'd run up screaming "ARE YOU ALL RIGHT! ARE YOU ALL RIGHT!" Well, the professor's glasses had fallen off his face somewhere, hence everything being blurry.

So the "samaritan" grabs the prof by the shoulders and starts shaking the living snot out of him (giving him whiplash, go figure, he'd been mostly unhurt before) still screaming "OMG! ARE YOU ALL RIGHT?!".

The guy in the car behind came up and calmly asked the professor: "Are these yours?" The glasses had gone though two windows, intact, and ended up in the back seat of the car right behind him.

:lol:

It's certainly not as funny in the retelling as it had been when he'd told it in that bone-dry deadpan british accent he had.

[paulie jay]

my high horse? you're trying to regulate my behavior, not the other way around. let's call a spade a spade, ok?

where did i say anything about mind control? it is plain and simple intrusion into my personal liberties.

works both ways, doesn't it? my opinion is that your opinion fails the test of liberty. am i not allowed to have my opinion?

goading?

taks
Yes goading. Surely we are adult enough to be able to have a disagreement without the condescending attitude? I am not trying to regulate your behavior Taks, as I am not actively campaigning to make smokng illegal - I am merely expressing an opinion. Likewise, I haven't taken issue with your opinion at all! I haven't said you were wrong - all I've done is respond to your criticisms of my opinion.

It may be the case that my opinion fails the test of liberty, but I don't really care Taks. What are you more concerned about - your right to smoke, or your son's right to a living father?

[Taks]

It may be the case that my opinion fails the test of liberty, but I don't really care Taks. What are you more concerned about - your right to smoke, or your son's right to a living father?
that's an issue between my son and i.

taks

[Taks]

At my work we get two 15 min. breaks and a 30 min lunch.
generally speaking, for not exempt employees, that is the law in most places. non-exempt, for those not familiar with US workers rights, usually means hourly employees. contracted employees, typically on salary, such as i, do not qualify for such rules.

taks

[Taks]

Yes goading. Surely we are adult enough to be able to have a disagreement without the condescending attitude?i'm sorry, but i kinda felt that this statement:

Oh for christs sake Taks, you wanna get down off your high horse? was pretty condescending in its own right. particularly since what you quoted was nothing more than my opinion. do unto others and all that. you did, whether you like it or not, question my opinion, as did i yours after that. like i said, it works both ways.

mutual respect. truce, 'k?

taks

[Laguna]

Banning smoking does not solve the problems with smoking.
It should not be forbiddden.

There are other things related to tobacco products I would bann:

1. Adding addiction enhancing additives to cigarettes.
2. Adding flavors to cigarettes to make them taste better.
(No kid would smoke more than one cigarette without all that menthol, caramel and stuff inside.)
3. Advertising for tobacco products
If not possible then
4. Advertising aiming at children
I guess that would solve most of the problem. Most smokers started when they where younger than 15 because smoking is cool. I know no one who started smoking when 25+.

In addition, tobacco products should be made more expencive.
They should bring in enough money (by taxes) to pay for all those poor people our health care system has to treat. As it is today, the tobacco industry makes the money and we pay the bill.

[banquo's_bumble_puppy]

you know I can remember the day...really not that long ago...when people smoked at there desks....

[farmerjumperdon]

As it is today, the tobacco industry makes the money and we pay the bill.

That was the logic used when Blue Cross in MN and the MN Attorney General's office successfully sued big tobacco to the tune of half a billion dollars a few years back. They just recently completed all the appeals, and the Blue pumped most of the money into health care initiatives for ALL Minnesotans. Oddly enough, a few current and past customers in turn sued to have part of the money distributed back to people that had paid the premiums.

[Argos]

Yes, I remember when we smoked in the classroom at the university, back in the 80´s. It was a "rebel" gesture.

About the privacy and self-determination issues, advocates of cigarette banning here use the argument that most smokers will end up in the public health system, imposing a burden on all other citizens. The same with safety belts and bike helmets (which are obligatory).

I support smoke banning in public places (they´re trying to pass a federal law on this).

[antoniseb]

Quibble: More properly, unregulated doctors (and HMOs) charge what they think the market will bear. Or be forced to bear, if someone can sell the justifications so they stick. (Thinking Big Oil, especially.)

Pricing for care is regulated to some degree, but it does (over all) cost what the market will bear. I agree. I attemted to oversimplify in my explanation.

[Melusine]

Laguna2:Banning smoking does not solve the problems with smoking.
It should not be forbiddden.

There are other things related to tobacco products I would bann:

3. Advertising for tobacco products

Already has been curtailed greatly.

If not possible then
4. Advertising aiming at children

Already has been addressed.

In addition, tobacco products should be made more expencive.
They should bring in enough money (by taxes) to pay for all those poor people our health care system has to treat. As it is today, the tobacco industry makes the money and we pay the bill.

They already are expensive products, and in many states have huges taxes, relatively speaking, attached to them. I've looked at a country-wide state tax map. If everyone in the US stopped smoking all at once today, states would lose huge amounts of money. Where would that come from? Ideas like adding a sucharge to coffee, as was proposed and shot down in Washington? The healthcare system needs to be fixed, not that some people should pay for it. That's what the already existing taxes are supposed to do.

The thing that really bothers me about this issue is that it's not about just smoking, but that it's a slippery slope to taxing/banning other things, and that we are turning into risk-assessed people. How far you drive, issues regarding credit history (such as if you are late on one credit card, but never on another, the non-late one can still impose a higher rate, etc.) I understand the business-risk-assessment part of it, it's what I do, but I don't like that we are becoming so penalized for mistakes, errors in judgment, et al. I don't like it when people advocate for taking away personal decisions. It's like saying, well, there is such a widespread problem with STDs, so let's ban sex. STDs cost millions of dollars a year in medical costs. Is that apples and oranges? Not really, because it's about people's choice to engage in bad behaviors and the effects it has on society healthwise. Really, people are quite irresponsible about STDs.

I agree with Doodler's comments about death. If I said to a hypothetical husband, please don't smoke, please don't mountain climb, go to the moon, race cars, fish out in the north Pacific--all risky behaviors--I mean, people take their chances in leaving their kids parentless. Education and persuasion are the best routes. :neutral:

[antoniseb]

...The thing that really bothers me about this issue is that it's not about just smoking, but that it's a slippery slope to taxing/banning other things, and that we are turning into risk-assessed people.

You make some good points, particularly with respect to other risky behavior (hang-gliding, unprotected sex, etc.). Personally, I have said that outright banning is not where we will go with this. I think that we will see a hugely more complex system develop, which will be possible through our loss of privacy, and capability of maintaining much more detailed information on every human being. Looking very far ahead, I think it is likely that by the end of this century, no one will: be overweight, smoke, have risky sex, have high blood pressure, be constipated, mistreat their children, cheat on their taxes, or any of a giant pile of other things. I expect that every one of these will be as a matter of choice at some level by every individual. There are some things about the future that a lot of you won't like.

[paulie jay]

i'm sorry, but i kinda felt that this statement:

Oh for christs sake Taks, you wanna get down off your high horse?
was pretty condescending in its own right. particularly since what you quoted was nothing more than my opinion. do unto others and all that. you did, whether you like it or not, question my opinion, as did i yours after that. like i said, it works both ways.
Well, I did say that in response to in spite of that, not smoking has to be my choice, not the government's, or some guy named paulie that's "looking out for my own good." which I found unnecessary because you had dragged me into a post that you were directing toward someone else.



that's an issue between my son and i.

taks
Hmmm... that's very slippery of you. I feel it directly addresses one of my main points - that smoking effects other people in ways that aren't necessarily medical.

But on the whole, yes, I agree - let's please just observe the line in the sand without any more debate. It won't get us anywhere :)

[Melusine]

You make some good points, particularly with respect to other risky behavior (hang-gliding, unprotected sex, etc.). Personally, I have said that outright banning is not where we will go with this. I think that we will see a hugely more complex system develop, which will be possible through our loss of privacy, and capability of maintaining much more detailed information on every human being. Looking very far ahead, I think it is likely that by the end of this century, no one will: be overweight, smoke, have risky sex, have high blood pressure, be constipated, mistreat their children, cheat on their taxes, or any of a giant pile of other things. I expect that every one of these will be as a matter of choice at some level by every individual. There are some things about the future that a lot of you won't like.

Thank you for some morning doom and gloom! (I'm sort of kidding). :)

The thing is, wealthier people can buy their way out of "bad" behaviors. Something to think about, huh? I know, I know, life isn't always fair.

[Taks]

Hmmm... that's very slippery of you.
slippery? sorry, that doesn't make sense. any issue with my health and my family is between my family and i. as noted by melusine, there's lots of high risk activities everyone of us engage in on a regular basis that could leave a child parentless. that does not automatically mean we should go about banning said activities based solely on that premise.

i drive a car. death occurs every day as the result of driving a car. i ski. skiers die all the time. i eat red meat. red meat is a carcinogen (supposedly... weak evidence).

we can't just choose something we don't like and say "it should be banned."

I feel it directly addresses one of my main points - that smoking effects other people in ways that aren't necessarily medical.
but my behavior does not effect you (general "you" pointed at anyone other than me), nor is it your right to control my behavior that does not effect you. that's my point. but your (again general) insistence on passing a law banning smoking does effect me.

taks

[Gillianren]

What irks me is those people who believe that they should be allowed to smoke in public because it's their choice, ignoring all the other people they're choosing for! I mean, let's leave out health risks for a moment, here. Even people who are allergic--and I know quite a few.

Tobacco smoke is really, really disgusting. And it doesn't respect any boundaries. Walls, okay, sometimes--but I had downstairs neighbors a while back who smoked so much they were, for all intents and purposes, making the choice that I would smoke as well. (They smoked pot in the same way; it's a marvel to me that they were never busted, especially given their tendency to smoke pot in the summer with the windows wide open so everyone knew what they were smoking!) I had a roommate once who listened very politely to the request of the other four people sharing the apartment that it be smoke-free and smoked so much in the apartment that there was a haze of smoke in our living room--and she smoked in her bedroom.

Yes, you have the right to make the choice. You don't, and I want to emphasize this, have the right to make the choice for me.

[zebo-the-fat]

What irks me is those people who believe that they should be allowed to smoke in public because it's their choice, ignoring all the other people they're choosing for! I mean, let's leave out health risks for a moment, here. Even people who are allergic--and I know quite a few.

Tobacco smoke is really, really disgusting. And it doesn't respect any boundaries. Walls, okay, sometimes--but I had downstairs neighbors a while back who smoked so much they were, for all intents and purposes, making the choice that I would smoke as well. (They smoked pot in the same way; it's a marvel to me that they were never busted, especially given their tendency to smoke pot in the summer with the windows wide open so everyone knew what they were smoking!) I had a roommate once who listened very politely to the request of the other four people sharing the apartment that it be smoke-free and smoked so much in the apartment that there was a haze of smoke in our living room--and she smoked in her bedroom.

Yes, you have the right to make the choice. You don't, and I want to emphasize this, have the right to make the choice for me.

I agree, as I said earlier why should I come home with my clothes stinking of smoke? As an asthmatic the smoke has other damaging effects on me, but even if the levels are too low for me to notice while I am out I always smell it when I get home. (No one has ever smoked in my home or car, if they want to they can stand outside in the rain)

[SeanF]

I guess what I don't understand is this (I'm using "you" in the general sense, not directed at anyone specific):

If you were a guest in someone else's home, would you expect them to not smoke in deference to you - under penalty of law? I don't think so.

What if you were a guest and another guest started smoking? Would you expect the homeowner to prevent the other guest from smoking, again under penaly of law? Again, I don't think so.

But if you're a guest in someone's restaurant, now all of a sudden it's some huge violation of your rights?

I guess I just don't get the sudden leap there.

[Josh]

I guess what I don't understand is this (I'm using "you" in the general sense, not directed at anyone specific):

If you were a guest in someone else's home, would you expect them to not smoke in deference to you - under penalty of law? I don't think so.

What if you were a guest and another guest started smoking? Would you expect the homeowner to prevent the other guest from smoking, again under penaly of law? Again, I don't think so.

But if you're a guest in someone's restaurant, now all of a sudden it's some huge violation of your rights?

I guess I just don't get the sudden leap there.

Well, in the restaurant case they're providing a service for which you're paying for. What's more, the establishment is set up specifically to get people to come in and pay for food. You aren't a guest and you should be able to expect - by law - that your meal won't be ruined by others around you. So, yes, i think it's completely reasonable.

As to the first two, there should be no law against it ... but it's pretty damn rude to smoke around someone who hates it.

Perhaps non-smokers should have the right to cough in any smokers face if they inhale their second hand smoke?

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

I guess what I don't understand is this (I'm using "you" in the general sense, not directed at anyone specific):

If you were a guest in someone else's home, would you expect them to not smoke in deference to you - under penalty of law? I don't think so.

What if you were a guest and another guest started smoking? Would you expect the homeowner to prevent the other guest from smoking, again under penaly of law? Again, I don't think so.

But if you're a guest in someone's restaurant, now all of a sudden it's some huge violation of your rights?

I guess I just don't get the sudden leap there.
The Issue Isn't So Much About The Restaurant, Actually ...

That's PRIVATE Property, And it's their Riight to Refuse Service to you, If you Create a Situation That Disturbs The Other Customers, But Is Not Covered Under Anti-Discrimination Laws ...

However, The Government Doesn't Have The Riight to Force The Restaurant to Discriminate Against you, it's Strangely Analogous to The Old Jim Crow Laws, In a Weird Way, No?

:think:

[SeanF]

Well, in the restaurant case they're providing a service for which you're paying for.
Yes, but the service and the payment are mutually agreed upon. If you don't approve of the service (eg, too smoky), you go somewhere else. They're only obligated to proved the service they wish to provide, not the service you wish to receive - they're only obligated to do that if they want to retain your business.

What's more, the establishment is set up specifically to get people to come in and pay for food.
But not all restuarants market to all customers. If they have a bunch of TVs playing ESPN, and you don't like sports, they're not marketing to you. And if they allow smoking and you don't smoke, they're not marketing to you. Either way, they are not trying to get you to come in and pay for food.

You aren't a guest and you should be able to expect - by law - that your meal won't be ruined by others around you. So, yes, i think it's completely reasonable.
"Ruined" suggests a lot more than smoke. Should the law force restaurants to throw out people who are too loud for your enjoyment, because they're ruining your meal? Should the law require that restaurant with ESPN to turn down the volume on the TVs?

As to the first two, there should be no law against it ... but it's pretty damn rude to smoke around someone who hates it.
Agreed. But rude<>illegal.

Perhaps non-smokers should have the right to cough in any smokers face if they inhale their second hand smoke?
Is that illegal?

[Moose]

Yes, but the service and the payment are mutually agreed upon. If you don't approve of the service (eg, too smoky), you go somewhere else. They're only obligated to proved the service they wish to provide, not the service you wish to receive - they're only obligated to do that if they want to retain your business.

We've been through this before, Sean. There were none. None whatsoever, in Eastern Canada. No smoke-free bars. No clubs. No bowling alleys, dances, events, concerts, workplaces or... well... anything really.

I believe I've asked this before, possibly of you, and have gotten no response. Can you name me even a single restaurant, anywhere, that had been entirely smoke-free before 1991?

Nothing short of the public smoking ban has been in any way effective in controlling the problem. Smokers either dragged their feet with token compliance, or refused any sort of compromise outright for well over forty years. A textbook tyranny of the minority.

So here we are. Public smoking bans are being legislated just about everywhere. The comprehensive public ban was a long time in coming, and smokers refusal to compromise in any way made it possible for it to happen. And of course only now hard-core smokers start bleating about compromise and their "rights". Meh.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

We've been through this before, Sean. There were none. None whatsoever, in Eastern Canada. No smoke-free bars. No clubs. No bowling alleys, dances, events, concerts, workplaces or... well... anything really.

I believe I've asked this before, possibly of you, and have gotten no response. Can you name me even a single restaurant, anywhere, that had been entirely smoke-free before 1991?

Nothing short of the public smoking ban has been in any way effective in controlling the problem. Smokers either dragged their feet with token compliance, or refused any sort of compromise outright for well over forty years. A textbook tyranny of the minority.

So here we are. Public smoking bans are being legislated just about everywhere. The comprehensive public ban was a long time in coming, and smokers refusal to compromise in any way made it possible for it to happen. And of course only now hard-core smokers start bleating about compromise and their "rights". Meh.
Eh ...

Get What you Ask for, I Suppose ...

STILL, I Wonder If The Threat of This Could've Led to an Eqitable Compromise, Sooner!

[Josh]

Well, in the restaurant case they're providing a service for which you're paying for.
Yes, but the service and the payment are mutually agreed upon. If you don't approve of the service (eg, too smoky), you go somewhere else. They're only obligated to proved the service they wish to provide, not the service you wish to receive - they're only obligated to do that if they want to retain your business.
Nobody disagrees that the smoke from cigarettes is toxic. Should anyone be allowed to come into a place where others are eating (or doing anything at all really) and release toxic fumes into the air? Of course not. We only accept cigarette smoke because it's ingrained. That doesn't make it right.


Perhaps non-smokers should have the right to cough in any smokers face if they inhale their second hand smoke?
Is that illegal?

Not that I know of. It might be. .. but regardless, it would a whole lot of fun. I'll give it a go and let you know how it works out. :)

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Nobody disagrees that the smoke from cigarettes is toxic. Should anyone be allowed to come into a place where others are eating (or doing anything at all really) and release toxic fumes into the air? Of course not. We only accept cigarette smoke because it's ingrained. That doesn't make it right.
But, Those Other Substances, Aren't Legal to Spread Around Anywhere ...

Also, There Are Some Who Believe, Cigarette Smoke Adds to a Meal, Why Should their Rights Be Trampled ...

Futhermore, How Is This ANY Different from The Old Jim Crow Laws, Where Businesses Were Forced, to Not Serve Certain Customers?

:think:

[Van Rijn]

Nobody disagrees that the smoke from cigarettes is toxic. Should anyone be allowed to come into a place where others are eating (or doing anything at all really) and release toxic fumes into the air? Of course not. We only accept cigarette smoke because it's ingrained. That doesn't make it right.


Emphasis added. Of course, there are many people that try to ignore the toxins in second hand smoke. Interestingly, I've noticed that many smokers are more concerned about other toxins than I am.

I guess what I don't understand is this (I'm using "you" in the general sense, not directed at anyone specific):

If you were a guest in someone else's home, would you expect them to not smoke in deference to you - under penalty of law? I don't think so.

What if you were a guest and another guest started smoking? Would you expect the homeowner to prevent the other guest from smoking, again under penaly of law? Again, I don't think so.


Actually, those are interesting questions. Here are some others: If someone deliberately started waving asbestos insulation around in the air in his own home, occasionally beating it with a stick, would you expect them to stop in deference to you - under penalty of law?

If another guest started deliberately started spraying dioxins (even a little) around the house, would you expect the homeowner to prevent the other guest from doing this?

I'm sure we can all think of plenty of other examples: Putting arsenic in the coffee, thorium on the cookies, lead in the tea. Not in any great amount, you understand - you probably will never notice. It probably won't give you cancer or poison you or cause significant damage to your lungs.

I can just see it: "Yes, your Honor, I was spraying poison around, deliberately. Why? Oh, it gives me pleasure. But what's the big deal? It probably wasn't enough to hurt anyone and it was my home . . ."

What's the difference? Beyond being used to cigarette smoke, that is?

[Van Rijn]

But, Those Other Substances, Aren't Legal to Spread Around Anywhere ...


Yes, but why aren't they legal to spread around anymore? What is the difference, except that nobody argues in one case, but in the other, people make a big stink over it?

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Emphasis added. Of course, there are many people that try to ignore the toxins in second hand smoke. Interestingly, I've noticed that many smokers are more concerned about other toxins than I am.

Actually, those are interesting questions. Here are some others: If someone deliberately started waving asbestos insulation around in the air in his own home, occasionally beating it with a stick, would you expect them to stop in deference to you - under penalty of law?

If another guest started deliberately started spraying dioxins (even a little) around the house, would you expect the homeowner to prevent the other guest from doing this?

I'm sure we can all think of plenty of other examples: Putting arsenic in the coffee, thorium on the cookies, lead in the tea. Not in any great amount, you understand - you probably will never notice. It probably won't give you cancer or poison you or cause significant damage to your lungs.

I can just see it: "Yes, your Honor, I was spraying poison around, deliberately. Why? Oh, it gives me pleasure. But what's the big deal? It probably wasn't enough to hurt anyone and it was my home . . ."

What's the difference? Beyond being used to cigarette smoke, that is?
Simple, Those Items Are NEITHER Available, Nor Intended for Consumption ...

Why, Does Everyone Keeping Making Analogies ...

Is The Actual Subject, Too Difficult to Defend On its Own Merit?

:think:

[Dragon Star]

I haven't read one response on this thread so it may have been said before:

Banning smoking is not going to get people to stop, continually raising the price of cigarettes to extreme prices will. * In young adults anyways*

Eventually that will end smoking, end problem.

My 2 Cents.

[Van Rijn]

Simple, Those Items Are NEITHER Available, Nor Intended for Consumption ...


Huh? I have no problems finding them, and they are toxins just like many of the chemicals in cigarette smoke.


Why, Does Everyone Keeping Making Analogies ...

Is The Actual Subject, Too Difficult to Defend On its Own Merit?

:think:

Perhaps because they aren't analogies?

[Van Rijn]

Banning smoking is not going to get people to stop, continually raising the price of cigarettes to extreme prices will. * In young adults anyways*

Eventually that will end smoking, end problem.

My 2 Cents.

That's not a complete answer either. At some point, raising the price amounts to a de facto ban. Artificially high prices always create a black market anyway.

[Dragon Star]

Well black market drugs are usually because the drug is powerful, putting you in a altered state of mind, and thats why people want them.

Tobacco is low in effect and useless and harmful, totally different thing.

But if prices for Tobacco are extreme then young people get less, figure out it's bad for them more, and the peer pressure is reduced causing the next generation to be effectively clean from Tobacco or damn near anyways.

I know your going to find some simple fault in this, but if you do please explain why so I can understand better, thanks.:D

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Huh? I have no problems finding them, and they are toxins just like many of the chemicals in cigarette smoke.

Perhaps because they aren't analogies?
But, they're NOT Intended for Consumption, Cigarettes Are ...

Of Course they're Analogies, Because they're Not Directly, About The Subject at Hand ...

So, How Is This Any of The Government's Business, Anyway?

[Van Rijn]

But, they're NOT Intended for Consumption, Cigarettes Are ...


I do not and never will intend to consume second-hand smoke. It is pollution made of toxic chemicals. I do not and never will intend to consume cigarette smoke, period.

If you want to do that to yourself, fine, but you do not have the right to make that choice for me.


Of Course they're Analogies, Because they're Not Directly, About The Subject at Hand ...


A very telling comment. Because it is smoking, you believe it is different, even though the pollution issues are identical.


So, How Is This Any of The Government's Business, Anyway?

Because once that pollution leaves the end of the cigarette or the lungs of the smoker, it is a public health issue, subject to pollution regulation like any other toxic substance.

[Van Rijn]

Well black market drugs are usually because the drug is powerful, putting you in a altered state of mind, and thats why people want them.

Tobacco is low in effect and useless and harmful, totally different thing.

But if prices for Tobacco are extreme then young people get less, figure out it's bad for them more, and the peer pressure is reduced causing the next generation to be effectively clean from Tobacco or damn near anyways.

I know your going to find some simple fault in this, but if you do please explain why so I can understand better, thanks.:D

One issue is that tobacco, like marijuana, can be grown fairly easily. Apparently crack has become such a massive problem because it is both very powerful and can be produced easily. Yes, price can have a limiting effect on use, but there is a limit to how high you can raise the price before the market moves underground. Once that happens you've lost any control.

[Dragon Star]

But that still raises a good question, is it worth all that trouble? I feel that over 30% of current users would give it up for that reason alone. Once people start to quit, more and more of the non smokers will start to make a stand against smokers, stores, coffee shops, and businesses would ban smoking, making smoking a personal time thing like other drugs, and then you could make it illegal placing users under even more pressure to quit, and effectively stopping public smoking all together.

Wonder if it would really work like that...:think:

It sounds good anyways.:D

[davidlpf]

Here are mine two cents on the topic first of all there should places were people who do not like tobacco smoke to go to eat or dance or whatever without having to take in second smoke. And the funny thing in my life is that I know people who smoke drink to an absurb levels some nights and do certain drugs but as soon as I have coke (the pop) they go into how can you drink that (ok a may drink to much at times).

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

I do not and never will intend to consume second-hand smoke. It is pollution made of toxic chemicals. I do not and never will intend to consume cigarette smoke, period.

If you want to do that to yourself, fine, but you do not have the right to make that choice for me.
Yes ...

And In your OWN Home, you Are a Soverign Entity ...

However, In a Restaurant, they Are Another Sort of Soverign Entity, And Now They Get to Make Most of The Rules!

A very telling comment. Because it is smoking, you believe it is different, even though the pollution issues are identical.
No ...

It Is Different, Because it Is a Legal Drug, Intended for Consumption ...

If you Can Make it Illegal, Then you'll Have a Point, But Not While it's Available, to Any Adult With $5.00!

Because once that pollution leaves the end of the cigarette or the lungs of the smoker, it is a public health issue, subject to pollution regulation like any other toxic substance.
That's Just it, This Isn't About The Public Health ...

Restaurants Are Private Property ...

What Business Does The Government Have There?

[Josh]

Restaurants are privately owned but they have to have public liability insurance because they .. wait for it .. serve the public. they have to refrigerate their food properly. They have to clean up the kitchen properly each day. They have to provide a safe environment.

A very telling comment. Because it is smoking, you believe it is different, even though the pollution issues are identical.
No ...

It Is Different, Because it Is a Legal Drug, Intended for Consumption ...

You can't say that it is legal therefore the issue of toxicity doesn't matter. the whole point of this thread is whether or not it should be legal at all. The point Van Rijn and I are making, ZaphodBeeblebrox, is that there is no debate as to the toxicity of cigarettes. They are toxic. period. And as such people should not be allowed to use a toxic substance when that toxic substance willaffect those around them.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Restaurants are privately owned but they have to have public liability insurance because they .. wait for it .. serve the public. they have to refrigerate their food properly. They have to clean up the kitchen properly each day. They have to provide a safe environment.
True, However your Definition of a Safe Environment And My Definition of a Safe Environment, May NOT Be The Same ...

No One Wants to Get Food Poisoning, And Those Few Who Do, Are More than Welcome to Slip Botulinin Toxin Into their Meal at their Leisure ...

But, When you Start Constraining People's Personal Consumption, Because it May Harm you, you Start Down a Very Slippery Slope; Will we Curtail Alchohol Use Because of The Possibillity of a Fiight, How About Watching Sporting Events?

You can't say that it is legal therefore the issue of toxicity doesn't matter. the whole point of this thread is whether or not it should be legal at all. The point Van Rijn and I are making, ZaphodBeeblebrox, is that there is no debate as to the toxicity of cigarettes. They are toxic. period. And as such people should not be allowed to use a toxic substance when that toxic substance willaffect those around them.
The Problem Is, as Long as they Are Legal, The Law Simply Can't See them That Way ...

As Long as they Are Available to Adults, Without Further Restriction, Limiting their Use on Private Property, Curtails The Riights Both of Those Who Own and Use Said Property ...

As Already Noted, Businesses That Allow Smoking Are Not Seeking to Offer their Services to Non-Smokers, Why Should they Have to, Are Non-Smokers a Protected Minority Now?

:think:

[SeanF]

I believe I've asked this before, possibly of you, and have gotten no response. Can you name me even a single restaurant, anywhere, that had been entirely smoke-free before 1991?
Yes, we've been over this before. Smoke-free restaurants were coming around before smoking was banned, in many places. It may have taken longer in some places than others, but it would happen.

Actually, those are interesting questions. Here are some others: If someone deliberately started waving asbestos insulation around in the air in his own home, occasionally beating it with a stick, would you expect them to stop in deference to you - under penalty of law?

If another guest started deliberately started spraying dioxins (even a little) around the house, would you expect the homeowner to prevent the other guest from doing this?

I'm sure we can all think of plenty of other examples: Putting arsenic in the coffee, thorium on the cookies, lead in the tea. Not in any great amount, you understand - you probably will never notice. It probably won't give you cancer or poison you or cause significant damage to your lungs.

I can just see it: "Yes, your Honor, I was spraying poison around, deliberately. Why? Oh, it gives me pleasure. But what's the big deal? It probably wasn't enough to hurt anyone and it was my home . . ."

What's the difference? Beyond being used to cigarette smoke, that is?
Interesting. Can I take it, then, that you believe it should be illegal for me to smoke in my home if a guest is present who objects? Or, given that your asbestos example doesn't even mention the presence of a guest, you believe it should be illegal for me to smoke in my home - or anywhere, for that matter - at all?

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Yes, we've been over this before. Smoke-free restaurants were coming around before smoking was banned, in many places. It may have taken longer in some places than others, but it would happen.
Yeah, Market Forces ...

Unless you Belong to a Protected Minority, And That's Why you Are Being Denied Use, Private Businesses Can Refuse Service to ANYONE ...

As Long as they Are Getting Enough Revenue from The Smokers, How Is it In their Best Interests to Turn them Away?

Interesting. Can I take it, then, that you believe it should be illegal for me to smoke in my home if a guest is present who objects? Or, given that your asbestos example doesn't even mention the presence of a guest, you believe it should be illegal for me to smoke in my home - or anywhere, for that matter - at all?
Yeah ...

That Gets Way Too Close, to Violating The 1st, 4th, 14th, and Even The, In a Wide Application, 21st Amendments, And All of The Analogous Statues in Other Countries ...

Do you Guys Really Wanna Go That Far?

:think:

[Gillianren]

No One Wants to Get Food Poisoning, And Those Few Who Do, Are More than Welcome to Slip Botulinin Toxin Into their Meal at their Leisure ...

But you can't slip it into mine.

Smoke respects no boundaries. Didn't I just say that? It's not like there's some magic forcefield at Denny's that keeps smoke from crossing the open space between the smoking and nonsmoking sections. (Well, there's no smoking sections in Washington anymore. But you get the idea.)

As to how smoking corresponds to Jim Crow laws, well, smokers weren't born with cigarettes in their hands. They made a choice, of themselves, to consume toxic chemicals. (I've never understood that particular choice, but hey.) Black people under Jim Crow couldn't leave their black skin outside, or be white at certain times. You made a choice, for yourself, to start smoking or not. The issue with smoke-free restaurants, daycare centers, etc., is to prevent people from choosing that other people will inhale toxic chemicals.

That's where smokers' rights fall down--you do not have the right to spray toxins at other people. You just don't. You can smoke in your own home, though if you do, I won't come over. This means you have also chosen to lose the dubious pleasure of my company through your toxic fumes. Parents still have the right to blow toxic chemicals over their kids, even. But you can't contaminate the air of an airplane, or a public building, or in fact an increasing number of places. Because smokers choose that everyone around them will smoke, that's why.

[Josh]

But you can't slip it into mine.

Smoke respects no boundaries. Didn't I just say that? It's not like there's some magic forcefield at Denny's that keeps smoke from crossing the open space between the smoking and nonsmoking sections. (Well, there's no smoking sections in Washington anymore. But you get the idea.)

As to how smoking corresponds to Jim Crow laws, well, smokers weren't born with cigarettes in their hands. They made a choice, of themselves, to consume toxic chemicals. (I've never understood that particular choice, but hey.) Black people under Jim Crow couldn't leave their black skin outside, or be white at certain times. You made a choice, for yourself, to start smoking or not. The issue with smoke-free restaurants, daycare centers, etc., is to prevent people from choosing that other people will inhale toxic chemicals.

That's where smokers' rights fall down--you do not have the right to spray toxins at other people. You just don't. You can smoke in your own home, though if you do, I won't come over. This means you have also chosen to lose the dubious pleasure of my company through your toxic fumes. Parents still have the right to blow toxic chemicals over their kids, even. But you can't contaminate the air of an airplane, or a public building, or in fact an increasing number of places. Because smokers choose that everyone around them will smoke, that's why.

Not much left to say but ... exactly

[Van Rijn]

Interesting. Can I take it, then, that you believe it should be illegal for me to smoke in my home if a guest is present who objects?


I'd like to hear your answers to the questions I posed before I answer that.


Or, given that your asbestos example doesn't even mention the presence of a guest, you believe it should be illegal for me to smoke in my home - or anywhere, for that matter - at all?

Quoting myself:

If someone deliberately started waving asbestos insulation around in the air in his own home, occasionally beating it with a stick, would you expect them to stop in deference to you - under penalty of law?

Apparently, it wasn't clear enough, but "you" are the guest.

[Van Rijn]

Yes ...

And In your OWN Home, you Are a Soverign Entity ...


Oh good! So, if I put some trap doors in the floor, and a guest just happens to fall into one and break a leg I can say "I Am A Soverign Entity!" and that will be that. Right?


It Is Different, Because it Is a Legal Drug, Intended for Consumption ...


And, folks, this blind spot is exactly why non-smokers get so darned frustrated and are forced to turn to the law. Here we have a product that says right on the package that it is dangerous to use. We endlessly remind smokers that we were not the ones with any intention of consuming this poison. And still, they try to draw a distinction between it and other pollution, and insist that their rights trump our rights.


If you Can Make it Illegal, Then you'll Have a Point, But Not While it's Available, to Any Adult With $5.00!


So you want to make it illegal? That is really what you want?


That's Just it, This Isn't About The Public Health ...
Restaurants Are Private Property ...


In this country/state/city restaurants face many health code regulations. So, are you arguing for a libertarian position that there should be no public health regulation of any kind for restaurants? Or do you just want to make an exception for smoking?

[Moose]

Yes, we've been over this before. Smoke-free restaurants were coming around before smoking was banned, in many places. It may have taken longer in some places than others, but it would happen.

In other words: none. In 40 years, there weren't any. But we're supposed to simply patiently wait for these mysterious "market forces" of yours to kick in real soon now[tm]?

Meh. And I say again: meh.

I don't share your optimism, Sean. After 40 years of inaction, non-smokers have gotten a little jaded.

Here's the reality of those market forces: no restaurant is going to take the chance of alienating >20% of their potential clientele on the hopes of making it up on what are frankly uncertain numbers. Not alone, anyway.

Timmy's was able to do it on the sheer strength of their coffee (brewed from meth crystals, the way it keeps people lining up. Let's see if they notice...) It worked out for them, 'cause the non-smokers came out in droves to buy lunches, and the unemployed smokers who would hang out all day, every day, buying only a cup of coffee went elsewhere.*

According to one of the local Timmy's franchise owners commenting to my father a few months after the switch.

[SeanF]

I'd like to hear your answers to the questions I posed before I answer that.
Fair enough. The examples you cited should be illegal in restaurants, and they should be illegal in private homes. I would like to point out, though, that one of your examples included the phrase "you probably will never notice." In regards to smoking, we're not talking about doing something without the other person being aware you're doing it. I presume if somebody placed a plate of food in front of you and said, "By the way, I put some arsenic in there for you," that you'd leave without eating. :)

Now, do you say the same thing about smoking? Illegal, even in my own home, because I can't simply expect the objecting visitor to leave if they don't like it?

In other words: none. In 40 years, there weren't any. But we're supposed to simply patiently wait for these mysterious "market forces" of yours to kick in real soon now[tm]?
Here's (http://www.maricopa.gov/public_health/tobacco/secondhand/resturants.asp) a list of restaurants that have chosen to go smoke-free in Maricopa County, AZ. Here's (http://www.idph.state.il.us/public/press02/smokefree4000.htm) a press release stating that 4000 restaurants in Illinois had chosen to go smoke-free by 2002, and here (http://centerstage.net/restaurants/articles/smoke-free-spots.html) is a list of some specific ones in Chicago. It can and does happen.

Here's the reality of those market forces: no restaurant is going to take the chance of alienating >20% of their potential clientele on the hopes of making it up on what are frankly uncertain numbers. Not alone, anyway.
Well, no, why would they risk alienating 20% of their clientele when they can alienate 80% instead? Perfectly logical business decision.

Timmy's was able to do it on the sheer strength of their coffee
What? You mean you knew of a restaurant that went smoke-free without being required by law while you were claiming that nobody ever did it?

[Moose]

What? You mean you knew of a restaurant that went smoke-free without being required by law while you were claiming that nobody ever did it?

Before 1991, Sean. Before 1991. Read my question again.

Incidentally, Timmy's went smoke-free in 2001 or 2002, within weeks of the public smoking ban being announced for the end of the year.

[SeanF]

Before 1991, Sean. Before 1991. Read my question again.
Well, I think it's somewhat unfair to suggest that restaurants in one part of the country that went smoke-free without being subject to a law don't count if they did it after a law was passed someplace else, but I suppose that's your call. Just out of curiosity, what exactly happened in 1991 that made you choose that year as your cut-off point?

Nonetheless, The Pillar House Restaurant (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE7D91730F931A15755C0A9609482 60) in Boston, MA, prohibited smoking in 1986. Maybe they decided they'd rather alienate the 80% instead of the 20%, the risk-taking sons-of-a-gun.

(They've since closed - within the last five years or so, I believe - but I'm not going to claim it was because of the smoking! ;) )

[ToSeek]

you know I can remember the day...really not that long ago...when people smoked at there desks....

When I started at NASA, people smoked in our computer lab until someone made a formal complaint.

[Moose]

Well, I think it's somewhat unfair to suggest that restaurants in one part of the country that went smoke-free without being subject to a law don't count if they did it after a law was passed someplace else, but I suppose that's your call. Just out of curiosity, what exactly happened in 1991 that made you choose that year as your cut-off point?

Nothing special happened in 1991. That's pretty much why I chose it. It's about ten years after the tobacco companies finally started 'fessing-up about cigarette smoke being dangerous, and about ten years before there was a real trend towards second-hand smoke regulation. 1991ish is more-or-less when smokers and non-smokers started butting heads in the political arena. Seems like a neutral enough time to examine.

The Pillar House, eh? Sounded like my kind of place. Shame about the 15 hour drive (wild estimate) it would have taken me to get there, though.

But that's pretty much my point, Sean. You'll notice the newspaper article explicitly said it was the very first in its state to make that move. And they said it like it was a big deal. Boston+suburbs has more population than my 4-province region (which would take 36+ hours to drive across, including the 14+ hour ferry trip.)

So if a big city like Boston had only one restaurant to go fully non-smoking in 1986, where a single establishment can only snip off an infantessimal fraction of the market, what sort of chance does anybody in a significantly more rural area like mine, where our more popular restaurants (all three of them) will probably have seen 100% of the local population at some time or another in the span of a year, and still worry that a single bad month could put the business in serious jeopardy?

[Tinaa]

If a friend, who does not smoke, is riding in my car I don't smoke. If a non-smoking guest comes to my house, I don't smoke. I would never even suggest lighting up around non-smokers; it is just rude. And this was way before all the non-smoking campaigns.

I, like others here, do get a little upset with those who want to limit what I do, as an adult, with a legal product in my own home. This topic is kind of scary. Of course, I am of the opinion the gov't has its nose in my business too much as it is.

I don't drink, so I feel that you shouldn't be allowed to drink, not even a glass of wine with dinner, if you may have to drive. No drinking in restaurants nor anywhere outside the home because there is a link between drinking and DWI deaths. And no drinking in the home, if there are children, because there are links between early adolescent exposure to alcohol and alcohol abuse later in life.

Just a bit of hyperbole to make a point. I really don't care if anyone drinks. As long as they are responsible, it is really none of my business. As it is no one's business what I do in my own home with a legal product.

[zebo-the-fat]

I don't drink, so I feel that you shouldn't be allowed to drink, not even a glass of wine with dinner, if you may have to drive. No drinking in restaurants nor anywhere outside the home because there is a link between drinking and DWI deaths. And no drinking in the home, if there are children, because there are links between early adolescent exposure to alcohol and alcohol abuse later in life.

A fair point, but would it not be better to show youngsters that alcohol can be consumed in moderation and used sensibly? Many youngsters (under 25) don't seem to think that you can drink without getting drunk.
I drink in the house, but my kids (aged 12 and 17, have never seen me drunk). (But then I am just perfect!!)

[SeanF]

Nothing special happened in 1991. That's pretty much why I chose it. It's about ten years after the tobacco companies finally started 'fessing-up about cigarette smoke being dangerous, and about ten years before there was a real trend towards second-hand smoke regulation. 1991ish is more-or-less when smokers and non-smokers started butting heads in the political arena. Seems like a neutral enough time to examine.

The Pillar House, eh? Sounded like my kind of place. Shame about the 15 hour drive (wild estimate) it would have taken me to get there, though.

But that's pretty much my point, Sean. You'll notice the newspaper article explicitly said it was the very first in its state to make that move. And they said it like it was a big deal. Boston+suburbs has more population than my 4-province region (which would take 36+ hours to drive across, including the 14+ hour ferry trip.)

So if a big city like Boston had only one restaurant to go fully non-smoking in 1986, where a single establishment can only snip off an infantessimal fraction of the market, what sort of chance does anybody in a significantly more rural area like mine, where our more popular restaurants (all three of them) will probably have seen 100% of the local population at some time or another in the span of a year, and still worry that a single bad month could put the business in serious jeopardy?
Well, I guess that's what I get for assuming that "Can you find even one restaurant..." actually meant "It would mean something if you could find even one restaurant..." Oh, well.

Fine, Moose. 80% of the people in your town don't smoke, but there weren't enough of you to convince even one single restaurant to cater to you. Whatever. Who needs a free market, anyway, when the government will do it for you, right?

[Tinaa]

A fair point, but would it not be better to show youngsters that alcohol can be consumed in moderation and used sensibly? Many youngsters (under 25) don't seem to think that you can drink without getting drunk.
I drink in the house, but my kids (aged 12 and 17, have never seen me drunk). (But then I am just perfect!!)


Fewer people are smoking today than in the last fifty years. Education has been the key. Smoking is bad, no matter how one looks at it. Prohibition and the current war on drugs, in the US, has shown that out-lawing a product does not stop its use.

[Moose]

Just another log for the fire:

Cigarette Sales Hit A 55-Year Low (http://www.kmbz.com/listingsEntry.asp?ID=418108&PT=National+Headlines).

The National Association of Attorneys General said Wednesday that the 378 billion cigarettes sold in the United States last year marked the lowest number sold since 1951, a time period in which the U.S. population more than doubled.

...

Tobacco causes over 400,000 deaths a year in the United States, making it the largest preventable cause of death.

The figures cited by the attorneys general were compiled by the Tobacco Tax Bureau of the Treasury Department.

[Big Brother Dunk]

Here are a few thoughts on the subject.

Public smoking was banned here in Saskatoon in January 2005. Bar and restaurant owners were bemoaning the fact that patronage would drop and they’d be going out of business.

It didn’t happen. In fact, business at bars and restaurants has gone up at least 8% since that time and it appears the trend will continue. It seems the non-smokers are starting to come back.

Secondly, smoking will probably die out simply because smokers are becoming an increasing minority. Education at an early age is discouraging kids from starting smoking and more and more adults are quitting for health reasons and because of the pressures of society. I heard in a news story the other day, tobacco sales in the U.S. last year were the lowest since 1953. I wouldn’t be surprised to see that continue.

By the way, I’m an ex-smoker (quit in 1988) and I sympathize with smokers. It’s a tough habit to kick. Occasionally I still get the urge, especially on a slow day at the golf course.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

But you can't slip it into mine.

Smoke respects no boundaries. Didn't I just say that? It's not like there's some magic forcefield at Denny's that keeps smoke from crossing the open space between the smoking and nonsmoking sections. (Well, there's no smoking sections in Washington anymore. But you get the idea.)
I Can't Stress This Enough, Restaurants Are PRIVATE Property ...

Unless you Are a Member Of a Protected Minority, they Have No Obligation to Serve you ...

Why Should they Have to Cater to you, Anyway?

As to how smoking corresponds to Jim Crow laws, well, smokers weren't born with cigarettes in their hands. They made a choice, of themselves, to consume toxic chemicals. (I've never understood that particular choice, but hey.) Black people under Jim Crow couldn't leave their black skin outside, or be white at certain times. You made a choice, for yourself, to start smoking or not. The issue with smoke-free restaurants, daycare centers, etc., is to prevent people from choosing that other people will inhale toxic chemicals.
However The Goverment Is Not Allowed, to Make That Choice for People ...

As Far as The Law Is Concerned, Once you Have Made a Choice it Becomes a Part of Who you Are ...

The Law Especially, Can Not Bar you From Someone Else's Private Property Because of your Choices!

That's where smokers' rights fall down--you do not have the right to spray toxins at other people. You just don't. You can smoke in your own home, though if you do, I won't come over. This means you have also chosen to lose the dubious pleasure of my company through your toxic fumes. Parents still have the right to blow toxic chemicals over their kids, even. But you can't contaminate the air of an airplane, or a public building, or in fact an increasing number of places. Because smokers choose that everyone around them will smoke, that's why.
In a Public Place, you Are Absolutely Correct ...

But, Per your Own Example, Airplanes Are Private, And In Some Cases Extra-Territorial, Property, they Get to Choose What Happens or Doesn't Happen, On their Property ...

Furthermore, you Still Retain your Own Choice, you Can Choose to Eat Somewhere Else!

:think:

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Oh good! So, if I put some trap doors in the floor, and a guest just happens to fall into one and break a leg I can say "I Am A Soverign Entity!" and that will be that. Right?
Yes, Exactly ...

Provided, The Trap Doors Are Intended for your Personal Enjoyment and Are Not Intended as an Assault, The Portions of The Floor That Are Trap and Non-Trap Are Clearly Marked, People Are Warned That There Are Trap Doors On The Premises, And MOST Importantly, they Are Given The Opportunity to Leave If they Do Not Choose to Take The Risk ...

BTW Van Rijn, I Love How you're Trying to Hang me By My Own Noose, But, How Do you Like it?

And, folks, this blind spot is exactly why non-smokers get so darned frustrated and are forced to turn to the law. Here we have a product that says right on the package that it is dangerous to use. We endlessly remind smokers that we were not the ones with any intention of consuming this poison. And still, they try to draw a distinction between it and other pollution, and insist that their rights trump our rights.
That's Just it ...

Their Riights Don't Trump your Riights ...

However, On their Own Private Property, The Riights of The Restaurant Very Much Do Trump yours, Just Try Making a Scene or Getting Overly Drunk, I Double-Dog Dare ya'!

So you want to make it illegal? That is really what you want?
Personally ...

I Don't Smoke, And Am, In Fact, Slightly Allergic to Cigarette Smoke...

So, I Don't Care Either Which Way!

In this country/state/city restaurants face many health code regulations. So, are you arguing for a libertarian position that there should be no public health regulation of any kind for restaurants? Or do you just want to make an exception for smoking?
Actually, I've Worked In Food Service, And I Do Think There Are Too Many Regulations ...

However Market Forces, Have Made Some Companies Go Above and Beyond The Regulations, On their Own ...

At Any Rate, There's a Difference, If Someone Wants a Spoiled Meal and they're Willing to Pay Enough, a Restaurant Will Provide it, With The Accompaning Waivers Of Course, The Same Applies to Cigarettes, People Purchase them Of their Own Volition, And Thus Assume The Risks Associated With them, If you Do Not Wish to Share These Risks, Then you Can Choose to Stay Away from Places Where it Is Encouraged!

[davidlpf]

Smoking should be banned like asbestos and other chemicals that have been proven dangerous to us and other living beings (ddt, etc..) but this is not going to happen because too much money is being made by the government in Canada and the US.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Smoking should be banned like asbestos and other chemicals that have been proven dangerous to us and other living beings (ddt, etc..) but this is not going to happen because too much money is being made by the government in Canada and the US.
Why ...

Some People Enjoy Smoking ...

What Gives you, The RIIGHT, to Tell them they Can't?

:question:

[Dragon Star]

Just the same, some people hate smoking, what give you the right to say they can't protect their own opinion?

It's a loose loose discussion.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Just the same, some people hate smoking, what give you the right to say they can't protect their own opinion?

It's a loose loose discussion.
That's Just it, NOTHING ...

However, On Private Property, The Owners Have The Riight to Decide What Happens and Doesn't Happen on their Property ...

There their Riights, Definitely Trump your Riights!

[davidlpf]

Some people like killing so by your logic if they do it on their own property they can kill whatever and whoever they want.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Some people like killing so by your logic if they do it on their own property they can kill whatever and whoever they want.
No, Killing Is Illegal ...

Smoking Isn't, And Since it Is a Risk People Assume for themselves and Like-Minded People Around them, it Won't Be ...

What's With you Guys and The ANALOGIES, Anyway?

:exclaim:

[Gillianren]

What's with the analogies? Well, who brought up Jim Crow, Zaphod?

Please hear this. The smoker doesn't just decide for one person. By choosing to smoke, you are choosing for everyone around you. Sure, restaurants are public places--but the individual smoker doesn't own them. Just as you point out, try making a scene in a restaurant. It's private property, but you still don't get to do that, because a) it isn't your private property, and b) while it is privately owned, it is also considered being out in public. I know that's a hard concept, but it's true.

Being a smoker doesn't define a person entirely. You will note that quite a lot of smokers, to be fair, are reasonable smokers. They will not smoke in confined spaces with nonsmokers. This means making the choice of either not being in a confined space with a nonsmoker or waiting until they are no longer in that situation before they light up. Those are both choices that are perfectly valid, and I don't think any of us are saying which way any individual smoker should choose. But they either make the decision or inflict their choice on the nonsmoker; there's just no way around that short of Star Trek-style forcefields, which don't in so many words exist.

Second hand smoke is a public health hazard. It's bad for people. In fact, among other things, it contains the arsenic being used elsewhere as an analogy. So, in fact, if you're smoking in a restaurant, you're slipping arsenic into other people's air; that's not an analogy but a fact. What gives smokers the right to decide that other people should breathe poison?

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

What's with the analogies? Well, who brought up Jim Crow, Zaphod?
Well, Everyone Else Seemed to Be Doing it but that's Never a Good Excuse ...

However, I Feel The Comparison is Unfortunately Apt ...

It's STILL The Government Telling a Private Business, Who they Can and Can Not Serve!

Please hear this. The smoker doesn't just decide for one person. By choosing to smoke, you are choosing for everyone around you. Sure, restaurants are public places--but the individual smoker doesn't own them. Just as you point out, try making a scene in a restaurant. It's private property, but you still don't get to do that, because a) it isn't your private property, and b) while it is privately owned, it is also considered being out in public. I know that's a hard concept, but it's true.
Not According to The Law ...

This is an Even Harder Concept ...

But, Restaurants Are Not Required to Seek your Business, Nor to Serve you, If you Show Up Anyway!

Being a smoker doesn't define a person entirely. You will note that quite a lot of smokers, to be fair, are reasonable smokers. They will not smoke in confined spaces with nonsmokers. This means making the choice of either not being in a confined space with a nonsmoker or waiting until they are no longer in that situation before they light up. Those are both choices that are perfectly valid, and I don't think any of us are saying which way any individual smoker should choose. But they either make the decision or inflict their choice on the nonsmoker; there's just no way around that short of Star Trek-style forcefields, which don't in so many words exist.
Most Restaurants I Frequent, Have Separate Rooms, for Smoking and Non-Smoking ...

Those Are The Ones I Patronize With My Money ...

That, Is My Choice!

Second hand smoke is a public health hazard. It's bad for people. In fact, among other things, it contains the arsenic being used elsewhere as an analogy. So, in fact, if you're smoking in a restaurant, you're slipping arsenic into other people's air; that's not an analogy but a fact. What gives smokers the right to decide that other people should breathe poison?
They Don't ...

However, On Private Property a Restaurant Can Decide, Arbitrarily If Necessary, Where and If Otherwise Legal Substances Are Consumed ...

I Repeat, you Don't Have to Eat There!

[davidlpf]

Heres the problem with allowing people doing what they want on their own property is sometimes the effect people who do not have a say like children in the house or other patrons of a restaurant who have allergies to smoke. The thing is a can not smoke because I have asthma so it does not matter if it is illegal or not I can not smoke.

[davidlpf]

Zaphod i do not have to eat there but how about the people working there.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Heres the problem with allowing people doing what they want on their own property is sometimes the effect people who do not have a say like children in the house or other patrons of a restaurant who have allergies to smoke. The thing is a can not smoke because I have asthma so it does not matter if it is illegal or not I can not smoke.
Children Are a WHOLE Different Story, it's Considered Endangering The Welfare of a Minor By Creating an Unsafe Home Environment ...

Do you Really Wanna Go there ...

As for The Asthma, I'm Mildly Allergic, Join The Club, But That Doesn't Give us The Riight to Impose Our Will Upon Someone Else's Private Property!

Zaphod i do not have to eat there but how about the people working there.
That Just it ...

It's The Same, Exact Qualification ...

They Don't, Hafta Work There!

:think:

[SeanF]

It's private property, but you still don't get to do that, because a) it isn't your private property, and b) while it is privately owned, it is also considered being out in public. I know that's a hard concept, but it's true.
That's not universally true, though. If a stripper went outside of the strip club wearing what she wears on stage, she'd be arrested for public indecency - when she's inside the club, it's okay, because she's not in "public."

If I wanted to open up a "smoking bar," a business that sold cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, etc., and had chairs for folks to sit around in and smoke, should that be illegal? It's no more (or less) "public" then a restaurant is, but I imagine most folks wouldn't object to it. And it'd probably be okay if I allowed people to bring in their own preferred tobacco products rather than buying what I'm selling (although that might cut into my profits!). It's just a given that non-smokers wouldn't ever even want to go in there.

But, if I wanted to serve sandwiches and drinks, too (you know, to get some profit off those folks bringing in their own cigars!), then all of sudden it's got to be illegal. Once there's something - anything - other than smoking going on, then non-smokers might want to go partake of that other thing, and so smoking's got to be disallowed. So while it's okay to have the smoking, it's not okay to have the eating with the smoking - because, of course, the smoking is hazardous.

Make sense?

Not to me.

Maybe we just need to do like we do with liquor licenses. A community could have a limited number of smoking licenses available, and a restaurant with a license could allow smoking. The others couldn't.

Would that be acceptable to the anti-smokers?

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

That's not universally true, though. If a stripper went outside of the strip club wearing what she wears on stage, she'd be arrested for public indecency - when she's inside the club, it's okay, because she's not in "public."

If I wanted to open up a "smoking bar," a business that sold cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, etc., and had chairs for folks to sit around in and smoke, should that be illegal? It's no more (or less) "public" then a restaurant is, but I imagine most folks wouldn't object to it. And it'd probably be okay if I allowed people to bring in their own preferred tobacco products rather than buying what I'm selling (although that might cut into my profits!). It's just a given that non-smokers wouldn't ever even want to go in there.

But, if I wanted to serve sandwiches and drinks, too (you know, to get some profit off those folks bringing in their own cigars!), then all of sudden it's got to be illegal. Once there's something - anything - other than smoking going on, then non-smokers might want to go partake of that other thing, and so smoking's got to be disallowed. So while it's okay to have the smoking, it's not okay to have the eating with the smoking - because, of course, the smoking is hazardous.

Make sense?

Not to me.

Maybe we just need to do like we do with liquor licenses. A community could have a limited number of smoking licenses available, and a restaurant with a license could allow smoking. The others couldn't.

Would that be acceptable to the anti-smokers?
It's NOT Acceptable to me ...

This Whole Thing Is Far Too Slippery Slope, The Smoking Section Was Invented a Generation Ago, to Appease These People ...

Why Is That, Now Not Enough, for you?

[SeanF]

It's NOT Acceptable to me ...

This Whole Thing Is Far Too Slippery Slope, The Smoking Section Was Invented a Generation Ago, to Appease These People ...

Why Is That, Now Not Enough, for you?
I'm just offering a compromise, Zaphod. :)

Of course, I would prefer to let the market handle it. I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it (despite the fact that Moose doesn't believe it), in absence of smoke-free laws most communities would have some smoke-free restaurants by now - with more coming up all the time. Smoking is slowly but surely going away in our society.

The limited license idea is just a way to reach the same end result (some of each type of restaurant) directly instead of waiting for the market to do it. And if the market pushes more towards non-smoking, you'll see the non-smoking restaurants clientele increases while the smoke restaurants decreases. If the community doesn't have enough licenses available for the current desires of the community, you'll see it go the other way.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

I'm just offering a compromise, Zaphod. :)

Of course, I would prefer to let the market handle it. I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it (despite the fact that Moose doesn't believe it), in absence of smoke-free laws most communities would have some smoke-free restaurants by now - with more coming up all the time. Smoking is slowly but surely going away in our society.

The limited license idea is just a way to reach the same end result (some of each type of restaurant) directly instead of waiting for the market to do it. And if the market pushes more towards non-smoking, you'll see the non-smoking restaurants clientele increases while the smoke restaurants decreases. If the community doesn't have enough licenses available for the current desires of the community, you'll see it go the other way.
True ...

I Guess I'm Too Much, of a New Hampshiran at Heart ...

Long Before This Point, we Just Tell People, "TOUGH Cookies, The World Is Under No Obligation to Cater to you!"

:think:

[Peter Wilson]

Should smoking be made illegal? How could this be enforced?
If you want an increase in crime, violence, gangs, police corruption and general lawlessness, then yes, of course we should outlaw smoking. But if you believe we have enough crime, violence, gangs, police corruption and general lawlessness, then why add to it?

In the entire history of humankind, every prohibition ever enacted has led to an increase in crime, violence and lawlessness; every repeal of prohibition (even legalizing abortion) has led to a drop-off of in crime.

If you support prohibiton, you support crime.

[Moose]

This Whole Thing Is Far Too Slippery Slope, The Smoking Section Was Invented a Generation Ago, to Appease These People ...

"Appease", Zaphod? Try "put off". "Ignore" might be more accurate.

Anyone (http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch4/properties2.html) who has walked into a kitchen where bread was baking has experienced the fact that gases expand to fill their containers, as the air in the kitchen becomes filled with wonderful odors. Unfortunately the same thing happens when someone breaks open a rotten egg and the characteristic odor of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) rapidly diffuses through the room. Because gases expand to fill their containers, it is safe to assume that the volume of a gas is equal to the volume of its container.

Note that the container is the whole restaurant. Not just the smoking section. Once smokers finally figure this out, maybe we won't need to legislate solutions anymore.

[Moose]

If you support prohibiton, you support crime.

Legalized murder, then?

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

"Appease", Zaphod? Try "put off". "Ignore" might be more accurate.
Hate Being Ignoured ...

Can't Say I Blame you ...

But, it's Not Enough of a Reason to Curtail The Riights of Businesses, on their Own Property!

Note that the container is the whole restaurant. Not just the smoking section. Once smokers finally figure this out, maybe we won't need to legislate solutions anymore.
Not if Closed Doors Separate The Two Sections ...

Also you Can Always Leave ...

The Restaurants, Are NOT Seeking your Business, Why Should they Have to?

:think:

[Dragon Star]

The Restaurants, Are NOT Seeking your Business, Why Should they Have to?

Ok that makes no sense once so ever... A restaurant is a business, for a business to make money they need customers money, and customers need to be satisfied to give them money...Marketing anyone?

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Ok that makes no sense once so ever... A restaurant is a business, for a business to make money they need customers money, and customers need to be satisfied to give them money...Marketing anyone?
Exactly ...

They Are MARKETING to Smokers ...

Why, Should they Be Forced, to Instead Market to you?

:wall:

Legalized murder, then?
Already Answered: No, Killing Is Illegal ...

Smoking Isn't, And Since it Is a Risk People Assume for themselves and Like-Minded People Around them, it Won't Be ...

What's With you Guys and The ANALOGIES, Anyway?

[Moose]

Not if Closed Doors Separate The Two Sections ...

Doesn't work unless the ventilation is separate and isolated.

Also you Can Always Leave ...

And where are we supposed to go, exactly? The Moon? (And I don't mean Moon, Pennsylvania).

And why exactly are your needs more important than mine?

Non-smokers are the majority. You leave, if you really think that's a viable alternative.

The Restaurants, Are NOT Seeking your Business, Why Should they Have to?

Do you even hear yourself, Zaphod? This is exactly the kind of persistent unreasonableness and, frankly nonsensical argumentation in the face of reality that made it possible, and utterly necessary, to invoke legislation to correct the problem.

I've said it before: compromise has proven impossible. So deal with it. We have.

[Moose]

Already Answered: No, Killing Is Illegal ...

Smoking Isn't, And Since it Is a Risk People Assume for themselves and Like-Minded People Around them, it Won't Be ...

Wrong. Public smoking is illegal in NB and a number of other places.

Restaurants in NB (and NS) who permit smoking on their premises can lose their liquor licenses. Employers can face significant fines. Smokers themselves can also be fined.

Now, granted, public smoking carries a far lesser penalty than murder (and is technically a misdemeanor, not a felony), but it's quite illegal.

[Dragon Star]

Also you Can Always Leave ...

And so can YOU! You are the one blowing toxic smoke into people who don't want it.

Again, your going to counter this and we can go on and on about this or that back and forth forever, no matter what you not going to agree with us and we are not going to agree with you.

Just agree to disagree.

This is almost as bad as "Does .999999~=1"!

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Doesn't work unless the ventilation is separate and isolated.
Then Do that ...

They Already Have, Done that ...

In Airports!

And where are we supposed to go, exactly? The Moon? (And I don't mean Moon, Pennsylvania).

And why exactly are your needs more important than mine?

Non-smokers are the majority. You leave, if you really think that's a viable alternative.
Because you're The One, Trying to Change Things ...

That's The Position, That Has to Fiight ...

Furthermore, you Can Always Go to a Restaurant that Doesn't Allow Smoking, Why Do you Have to Force your Point of View on The Rest of us?

Do you even hear yourself, Zaphod? This is exactly the kind of persistent unreasonableness and, frankly nonsensical argumentation in the face of reality that made it possible, and utterly necessary, to invoke legislation to correct the problem.

I've said it before: compromise has proven impossible. So deal with it. We have.
By Abrogating The Riights of Businesses on Private Property ...

Also I Notice you Have Not Answered The Question ...

The Restaurants, Are NOT Seeking your Business, Why Should they Have to?

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Wrong. Public smoking is illegal in NB and a number of other places.

Restaurants in NB (and NS) who permit smoking on their premises can lose their liquor licenses. Employers can face significant fines. Smokers themselves can also be fined.

Now, granted, public smoking carries a far lesser penalty than murder (and is technically a misdemeanor, not a felony), but it's quite illegal.
PUBLIC Spaces Can Be Legislated In This Manner ...

Private Property Can Not Be ...

Expect a Legal Challenge, And Likely an Overturning, in The Near Future!

:think:

[Moose]

Because you're The One, Trying to Change Things ...

Actually, no. I want things to stay exactly the way they are right now.

Furthermore, you Can Always Go to a Restaurant that Doesn't Allow Smoking, Why Do you Have to Force your Point of View on The Rest of us?

Apparently you really do think your needs are more important than everybody else's.

By Abrogating The Riights of Businesses on Private Property ...

... That wish to make money by behaving as if they were a public area. As has been pointed out repeatedly, Zaphod, the rules change somewhat when you do that. You have to follow health and safety standards to operate a restaurant, such as proper refrigeration, sanitation, not having vermin, shirts and shoes, and not permitting cigarette smoke.

The Restaurants, Are NOT Seeking your Business, Why Should they Have to?

I haven't replied because this is an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. Of course they're seeking my business. In fact, I just came back from a restaurant where the wait staff now invariably offer me the very best table they have available, even on their busiest nights, because they know me as a good customer. The sort they want.

[Moose]

In any case, I think I'm done with this thread. Life's too short to spend arguing what is now a moot point. In any case, I'm well satisfied with the status quo, particularly in light of Zaphod's arguments in this thread.

As for Zaphod's dire threat of "legal overturning", meh. I'll spend sleepless nights quivering in bed, I'm sure.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

And so can YOU! You are the one blowing toxic smoke into people who don't want it.

Again, your going to counter this and we can go on and on about this or that back and forth forever, no matter what you not going to agree with us and we are not going to agree with you.

Just agree to disagree.

This is almost as bad as "Does .999999~=1"!
But, you're The One Creating The Situation, However, If you Want to Have Hermetically Sealed Smoking and Non-Smoking Sections, That Is Possible to Do ...

And, I Hate to Get Repetitive, But Why Won't Someone Answer The Following, Simple Question ...

The Restaurants, Are NOT Seeking your Business, Why Should they Have to?

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Actually, no. I want things to stay exactly the way they are right now.
Ah ...

I Wouldn't, Count On them

Staying that Way!

Apparently you really do think your needs are more important than everybody else's.
No, I Don't ...

However The Businesses' Needs, On their Own Private Property ...

Are More Important than yours, And Must Be, Unless we Want to Take Away their Riights!

... That wish to make money by behaving as if they were a public area. As has been pointed out repeatedly, Zaphod, the rules change somewhat when you do that. You have to follow health and safety standards to operate a restaurant, such as proper refrigeration, sanitation, not having vermin, shirts and shoes, and not permitting cigarette smoke.
However ...

Past The Point of Protecting Everyone from Food Poisoning ...

That is their Own Private Property, And they Get to Decide What Does and Does Not Happen There!

I haven't replied because this is an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. Of course they're seeking my business. In fact, I just came back from a restaurant where the wait staff now invariably offer me the very best table they have available, even on their busiest nights, because they know me as a good customer. The sort they want.
Yes ...

And they Obviously Want to Serve, And Value you as a Customer ...

But, If they DON'T Want you, Why Should they Have to?

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

In any case, I think I'm done with this thread. Life's too short to spend arguing what is now a moot point. In any case, I'm well satisfied with the status quo, particularly in light of Zaphod's arguments in this thread.

As for Zaphod's dire threat of "legal overturning", meh. I'll spend sleepless nights quivering in bed, I'm sure.
Don't Expect it to Last ...

And, Even If This Kind of Thing Is Tolerated in Canada ...

The United States Supreme Court Has Issued MANY Rulings About Private Property, And Public Control, Or Lack of it, Over Same!

[SeanF]

I've said it before: compromise has proven impossible.
Excuse me...

Maybe we just need to do like we do with liquor licenses. A community could have a limited number of smoking licenses available, and a restaurant with a license could allow smoking. The others couldn't.

Would that be acceptable to the anti-smokers?

So deal with it. We have.
When the law was not the way you wanted it, you didn't "deal it," you fought and worked to change the law.

Now that the law is not the way Zaphod wants it, why shouldn't he do the same?

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Excuse me...

When the law was not the way you wanted it, you didn't "deal it," you fought and worked to change the law.

Now that the law is not the way Zaphod wants it, why shouldn't he do the same?
Eh, I ACTUALLY Don't Care ...

The Day This Happens in New Hampshire, Is The Day I Leave ...

So, Sean, Why Do you Think Nobody's Answered My Simple Question?

:think:

[Moose]

When the law was not the way you wanted it, you didn't "deal it," you fought and worked to change the law.

Now that the law is not the way Zaphod wants it, why shouldn't he do the same?

Never said he shouldn't, and he should absolutely feel free to try. I personally don't think he'll succeed. (Not with those arguments, anyway.)

[Dragon Star]

But, you're The One Creating The Situation, However, If you Want to Have Hermetically Sealed Smoking and Non-Smoking Sections, That Is Possible to Do ...

And, I Hate to Get Repetitive, But Why Won't Someone Answer The Following, Simple Question ...

The Restaurants, Are NOT Seeking your Business, Why Should they Have to?


Well Zap, to be perfectly honest I don't give a rats butt about smoking other then the fact that I have Friends that can't be around smoke at all, and if they are they have severe asthma attacks, because of this they can't even go to the bathroom at school because people use it as a ash tray, I find that to be totally wrong, so I see it best that smoking is stopped all together by any means necessary, I mean the poor kid goes outside for #1 and he calls home sick of he has to go #2, how frigging embarrassing is that? And this is not just in my school and just my Friend, thousands all over have the same problem...and something needs to be done about it.

Simply pushing the dirt under the rug is not cleaning...an OMG yes I used an analogy.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Never said he shouldn't, and he should absolutely feel free to try. I personally don't think he'll succeed. (Not with those arguments, anyway.)
Actually ...

I Don't Care, I Live in New Hampshire, The Most Free State In The Union ...

Good Luck to ya', Be Sure to Check yourself Daily, for Government Tracking Devices!

Well Zap, to be perfectly honest I don't give a rats butt about smoking other then the fact that I have Friends that can't be around smoke at all, and if they are they have severe asthma attacks, because of this they can't even go to the bathroom at school because people use it as a ash tray, I find that to be totally wrong, so I see it best that smoking is stopped all together by any means necessary, I mean the poor kid goes outside for #1 and he calls home sick of he has to go #2, how frigging embarrassing is that? And this is not just in my school and just my Friend, thousands all over have the same problem...and something needs to be done about it.

Simply pushing the dirt under the rug is not cleaning...an OMG yes I used an analogy.
Wait, Wait, WAIT, Let me Get This Straight ...

You're Against Smoking in Restaurants, Because Someone Breaks The Law, And Smokes Underage, Somewhere they're Not Supposed to ...

What Is The Point Pray Tell, of Creating New Laws, If People Aren't Even Following The Ones we Have?

:question:

[Archer17]

ZaphodBeeblebrox, it would be a good idea to modify your last post. I'm sure you can come up with a better analogy if you put your mind to it.

Since I'm here I might as well comment on the poll question. It's just another bone BBP tosses to watch the dogs fight over. Smoking won't be outlawed and you're going to have people with different opinions. You don't need a poll to figure that out.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

ZaphodBeeblebrox, it would be a good idea to modify your last post. I'm sure you can come up with a better analogy if you put your mind to it.

Since I'm here I might as well comment on the poll question. It's just another bone BBP tosses to watch the dogs fight over. Smoking won't be outlawed and you're going to have people with different opinions. You don't need a poll to figure that out.
Eh, Already Done, I Figured This Thread Deserved a Real Howler at This Point, Still, I Actually Think BBP Out-Did himself With This Question, it Really Makes The Blood Pump ...

In Fact, Speaking of Questions, Why Has No One Answered Mine ...

The Restaurants, Are NOT Seeking your Business, Why Should they Have to?

[zebo-the-fat]

Having a smoking section in a building is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.

[Archer17]

Eh, Already Done, I Figured This Thread Deserved a Real Howler at This Point, Still, I Actually Think BBP Out-Did himself With This Question, it Really Makes The Blood Pump ...Exactly my point. You don't see BBP involved in this discussion, right? You don't have to be one of those bone-chasing dogs of his/hers you know.

Anyway .. I'm off to greener pastures.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Having a smoking section in a building is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
Wait ...

You Mean, you Don't Pee In The Pool ...

Why Not, a Healthy Adult's Urine, Is Completely Sterile!

Exactly my point. You don't see BBP involved in this discussion, right? You don't have to be one of those bone-chasing dogs of his/hers you know.

Anyway .. I'm off to greener pastures.
Eh ...

This Bone's, FUN to Chase ...

Besides, Check The Siggy!

:p

[Dragon Star]

Wait, Wait, WAIT, Let me Get This Straight ...

You're Against Smoking in Restaurants, Because Someone Breaks The Law, And Smokes Underage, Somewhere they're Not Supposed to ...

What Is The Point Pray Tell, of Creating New Laws, If People Aren't Even Following The Ones we Have?

:question:

No no no, let me put you strait, people's lives are hurt by smoking, I was just using my friend as a demonstration, people all over the world have similar problems Zap, does it not affect you at all to know you put strain on people every day? Smoking is bad, everyone knows this, but yet people somehow talk them selves psychologically into thinking it is ok, and that no one is affected by such a thing, why?

[Taks]

people's lives are hurt by fire, too... and cars. and trains. and planes. and air. and <insert just about anything else you can think of here>.

taks

[Dragon Star]

Duh, but everything you listed there are things that for the most part won't change for a LONG time and some of them never. But smoking can be stooped, it's just that no one is willing too even try.

Pathetic.

[Titana]

people's lives are hurt by fire, too... and cars. and trains. and planes. and air. and <insert just about anything else you can think of here>.

taks


Yep very true.......and ALCOHOL!



Titana

[Vaelroth]

Cars can also be stopped, but we aren't putting an end to those either.

At any rate, smoking can't be stopped. Big Tobbacco is too big and they have too large of an infulence on society. I'm perfectly fine with smoking, and private businesses that say I can't smoke inside their building. However, if the Big Wigs that make laws tell me that I can't smoke on a street corner then I'm going to waltz into their chambers and light up in front of all of them. The health issues posed to people on an open street corner from one or two persons lighting up are negligible since they all have a greater chance of dieing due to a drunk driver than from the person with a cigarette*. Also, the environmental problems that smokers create are nothing compared to the emissions of coal power plants in LDCs alone, so we smokers aren't going to be bothered with that any time soon either.

*In the street corner situation, I realize that some people are allergic to cigarette smoke and if someone asked me nicely to put out my cigarette because they were allergic to cigarettes then I would gladly do so. However, the majority of people are not allergic to cigarette smoke and are only miffed by the smell.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

No no no, let me put you strait, people's lives are hurt by smoking, I was just using my friend as a demonstration, people all over the world have similar problems Zap, does it not affect you at all to know you put strain on people every day? Smoking is bad, everyone knows this, but yet people somehow talk them selves psychologically into thinking it is ok, and that no one is affected by such a thing, why?
Ah, The Certainty of Youth, I Miss it Sometimes ...

But, Only Sometimes, As Then you Don't See Life's Grey Areas, as Well as The Simple Fact, Sometimes People Have Different Ideas of What Constitutes an Acceptable Risk ...

Now Mine: The Restaurants, Are NOT Seeking your Business, Why Should they Have to?


:exclaim:

[Dragon Star]

Man, sometimes trying to get your opinion considered is like trying to lick your elbow, I'm out.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Man, sometimes trying to get your opinion considered is like trying to lick your elbow, I'm out.
I CONSIDERED your Opinion ...

Decided I Didn't Agree With it, And Then, Asked you to Consider Mine ...

What's Wrong With That?

:think:

[Wolverine]

I realize there are strong underlying emotions here, but please stick to issues without getting personal. Otherwise this thread's on the fast-track to lockville.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

I realize there are strong underlying emotions here, but please stick to issues without getting personal. Otherwise this thread's on the fast-track to lockville.
Understood Wolverine ...

I'm Just Getting a Little Frustrated ...

I'm Asking What I Feel to Be, The Central Question of The Debate, And NOBODY Is Answering!

:doh:

[Taks]

Duh, but everything you listed there are things that for the most part won't change for a LONG time and some of them never.
so that's the qualifier? it can be stopped, therefore it must... it's the hard ones we avoid? why not just let people do their own thing? what does it hurt if someone wants to endanger their own life? really, as long as they are responsible for the consequences?

Pathetic.
yeah, right.

taks

[Taks]

Yep very true.......and ALCOHOL!
ah yes... my fave. even if i were to manage a complete abstinence of nicotine, alcholol would NEVER be on the list of things to quit. i'd rather quit breathing. and probably would live longer without it, too! :)

taks

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Taks ...

I Suppose we WON The Debate ...

Or, Is it More Like, we're The Last Two Drunks In a Bar, When they Close it Down, for The Night?

:doh:

[Titana]

:lol:



Titana

[StarWidget]

Pretty soon we'd alll be living in padded rooms and eating tofu and yogurt.

Hey! I *like* tofu and yogurt. ;)

All joking aside, I don't think banning smoking is the way to go. I read a while back (not sure where, or in what context), somebody suggesting that smoking should be considered child abuse. I almost agree with that. I am at a higher risk of developing lung cancer, even though I've never smoked, because my mother is a chain smoker. I no longer live with her, but the effects her smoking had on my developing lungs will probably be with me my entire life.

I believe smoking is a touchy subject - it's something some people enjoy, addicted or not, and I don't think it should be for nonsmokers to decide what smokers do with themselves. I do, however, think that the bans on public smoking, as well as the idea of it being considered child abuse, are a move in the right direction. I'm not saying we should make it harder for people to smoke. If they want to, they're going to - allowed or not.

So - ban smoking altogether? No.
Limit/ban smoking around other people? Yes.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Hey! I *like* tofu and yogurt. ;)

All joking aside, I don't think banning smoking is the way to go. I read a while back (not sure where, or in what context), somebody suggesting that smoking should be considered child abuse. I almost agree with that. I am at a higher risk of developing lung cancer, even though I've never smoked, because my mother is a chain smoker. I no longer live with her, but the effects her smoking had on my developing lungs will probably be with me my entire life.

I believe smoking is a touchy subject - it's something some people enjoy, addicted or not, and I don't think it should be for nonsmokers to decide what smokers do with themselves. I do, however, think that the bans on public smoking, as well as the idea of it being considered child abuse, are a move in the right direction. I'm not saying we should make it harder for people to smoke. If they want to, they're going to - allowed or not.

So - ban smoking altogether? No.
Limit/ban smoking around other people? Yes.
Oh Boy, Just Got Here and you're Walking into a Mine Field ...

While I Want to Agree With you, In Principle, In Practice it's a Whole Lot More Complicated, So, Since No One Else Seems to Be Able to, Will you Answer My Question ...

The Restaurants, Are NOT Seeking your Business, Why Should they Have to?

:think:

[Dragon Star]

Zap, he joined in 03 man..:p

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Zap, he joined in 03 man..:p
True ...

Still, LURKED For a While, And I Repeat ...

The Restaurants, Are NOT Seeking your Business, Why Should they Have to?

:think:

[Van Rijn]

Fair enough. The examples you cited should be illegal in restaurants, and they should be illegal in private homes. I would like to point out, though, that one of your examples included the phrase "you probably will never notice." In regards to smoking, we're not talking about doing something without the other person being aware you're doing it. I presume if somebody placed a plate of food in front of you and said, "By the way, I put some arsenic in there for you," that you'd leave without eating. :)

Now, do you say the same thing about smoking? Illegal, even in my own home, because I can't simply expect the objecting visitor to leave if they don't like it?


I had a response for this Friday, then lost it *sigh*. As a point of information, the "you probably will never notice" was in reference to the effects of the chemicals: In small amounts, you probably, but only probably, wouldn't notice the effects. You probably would notice someone walking around waving asbestos in the air.

But I have to wonder: Do you realize what is in cigarette smoke?

From here:

http://www.quit.org.au/quit/FandI/fandi/c05s1.htm

Thirty metals have been detected in tobacco smoke, including nickel, arsenic, cadmium,(12) chromium and lead.(2) Arsenic and arsenic compounds and chromium and some chromium compounds are causally associated with cancer in humans, while nickel and cadmium and their compounds are probably carcinogenic to humans.

The radioactive compounds found in highest concentration in cigarette smoke are polonium-210 and potassium-40. Other radioactive compounds present include radium-226, radium-228 and thorium-228. Radioactive compounds are well established as carcinogens.(12)

(emphasis added)

And here is a paper on dioxins in cigarette smoke:

http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Dioxins-Cigarette-Smoke.htm

And there is plenty of other nasty stuff, though no asbestos (although ash acts in much the same way).

So it certainly sounds like you think smoking should be illegal under the circumstances I specified . . .

As for myself: I'm not too worried about guests in a home, but if there was a practical, legal way to protect children ("practical" meaning a non-1984ish method that wouldn't cause more problems than it would solve) from inconsiderate smoking , I would be all for it. But ask me again in 10 years. Smoking is still relatively accepted. I wouldn't be surprised to see the general attitude continue to shift. Clearly, smoking is still given special dispensation compared to most other forms of pollution.

[Moose]

While I Want to Agree With you, In Principle, In Practice it's a Whole Lot More Complicated, So, Since No One Else Seems to Be Able to, Will you Answer My Question ...

Zaphod, I answered this question for you twice. Dragon Star did so as well.

Just because you don't like the answers you got doesn't entitle you to cry about how no-one will tell you what you want to hear. This isn't ATM (and even there they don't get the free lunch you seem to be expecting here.)

Tell you what: you'll have answered your own question as clearly as it can be answered once you come up with a good explanation for "why you've stopped beating your wife". The exact same fallacy applies to both questions.

[SeanF]

As for myself: I'm not too worried about guests in a home...
Okay, so does that mean that you also think it should be legal to do all those other things you mentioned when there's a guest in your home?

Zaphod, I answered this question for you twice. Dragon Star did so as well.
With all due respect, I don't think you did. As I recall (and please point out if I'm mistaken), both of you basically dismissed the question, as if the restaurants are, in fact, marketing to you, and Zaphod just doesn't understand that.

That's wrong.

A restaurant that serves only Thai food is not marketing to people who dislike Thai food. A restaurant that plays ESPN on bigscreen TVs and has sports memorabilia all over the walls is not marketing to people who actively dislike professional sports. And a restaurant that allows smoking is not marketing to people who dislike smoke.

There is such a thing as niche marketing, and it is possible for a business to be marketing to a specific subset of the general population, rather than trying to market to everybody.

So I think that Zaphod's question, why should a restaurant not be allowed to market to people who do not dislike smoke, still stands as unanswered. Why is that one niche market - people who want to have a smoke with their dinner - prohibited from being a target market?

[Gillianren]

Logically, restaurants as a whole must market to nonsmokers, simply because there are more of them than there are smokers. Ergo, in order to do more business, it is in the best interest of the restaurant to ban smoking, simply because a majority of people don't smoke, and I think we've demonstrated that a majority of nonsmokers don't want to be around cigarette smoke.

By the way, I'm amused how often my most relevant points get ignored. I answered the whole "Jim Crow" analogy--which, for the record, I find incredibly offensive--and got brushed off. Yet when we who are opposed to public smoking--and it is public, private property notwithstanding--brush things off, you'd think we had no valid points whatsoever.

[Dragon Star]

Sean,

Ok that makes no sense once so ever... A restaurant is a business, for a business to make money they need customers money, and customers need to be satisfied to give them money...Marketing anyone?

For the record.

[Moose]

Exactly. And I've had several key points, including the fact that non-smokers are in the clear majority (rendering the whole niche market argument rather fallacious, as I've pointed out twice), a fact which acknowledged by you Sean, yet immediately brushed off by you when inconvenient, and utterly ignored by Zaphod.

It's somewhat disingenious to then be crying about us brushing off (lame duck) arguments that we haven't brushed off in the slightest.

[The Mangler]

Sean,Ok that makes no sense once so ever... A restaurant is a business, for a business to make money they need customers money, and customers need to be satisfied to give them money...Marketing anyone?




For the record.
What Sean is trying to say is that resturants are making money because the customers are handing over their money, the customers just don't always have to be the general public. A strip club markets to men (mostly), a sports bar markets to sports fans, a dance club markets to people who like to dance. What Sean is asking is - Why can't there be a resturant/bar that tries to attract smokers as their main clientele?

[Dragon Star]

Hey, I was only making the point that I posted an answer to Zap's repetative question.

[SeanF]

Exactly. And I've had several key points, including the fact that non-smokers are in the clear majority (rendering the whole niche market argument rather fallacious, as I've pointed out twice), a fact which acknowledged by you Sean, yet immediately brushed off by you when inconvenient, and utterly ignored by Zaphod.
This doesn't even make sense, Moose. A market that is a "clear minority" is the definition of a niche market.

And my whole argument from the beginning has been that non-smokers being a "clear majority" would only make the argument for the law fallacious - you shouldn't need to force businesses to market to the "clear majority."

Both you and DragonStar are making the point that a restaurant marketing specifically to smokers would probably be restricting their potential customer base to a non-viable number. But you're using that to justify prohibiting a restaurant from even trying - apparently, anyway, because that's the act which I (and Zaphod) are asking you to justify.

[Van Rijn]

Okay, so does that mean that you also think it should be legal to do all those other things you mentioned when there's a guest in your home?


But they're the same thing! That's the point! So why not? As long as the amounts are equivalent, of course. What's a little poison among friends?