February 27, 2005

• Fuck inconsiderate smokers (metaphorically, of course. I don't stick my bits into ashtrays). The treaty is trying to save us non-smokers from the poison that inconsiderate smokers belch out all over the place. It is unpleasant, as well as dangerous for our health. As a non-smoker, I'm glad the legislation is making mandatory what consideration for others should have made effective long ago.
• So you've been reading up on the dangers of environmental smoke, have you? You know the science behind it? How much cancer it causes, how much worse it is for you than, say, pollution from driving on the highway? Or are you guessing because, obviously, it's dangerous for you?
• Also, what other legislation would you like to include to force people to be more polite? Not wearing too much cologne? That has many of the same effects as secondhand smoke. How about not driving an ugly car? That's incredibly offensive. Ooh! Not voting for a particular political party. Not being gay! That offends many, many people. Oh, wait, they're doing that already. Well, who needs personal freedom when we could just legislate politeness and non-ickiness. Yes, this issue does bring out my sarcastic side. Apologies to those who don't like sarcasm. On the plus side, there'll probably be legislation forbidding it sometime in the near future.
• As someone who doesn't drive, I hope for a global treaty that bans the abuse of motor vehicles when walking/biking/public transit would do. Car exhaust causes worse damage to human health and the environment than smoke does; not to mention, car accidents directly kill thousands of people and seriously injure countless others worldwide every day. [hates on inconsiderate, murderous drivers] *moral outrage!*
• Jebus. Even the preview button failed me.
• If I had a product that has the same benefits and dangers that cigarettes have and presented it to the FDA, I would get laughed out the door. It would not even be considered. The two main reason that cigarettes are legal are: 1- there are corporations making billions of dollars from them; and, 2- they are already legal and people are used to it. That is not very convincing intellectual reasoning.
• As a non-smoker, I'm glad that the culture is shifting to make smoking in enclosed public places unacceptable. I'd rather you didn't kill yourself, but that's your call (as long as I can stay out of the insurance pool you're in). However, Smoking in restaurants and bars make food and drink taste bad. Smoking near electronics shortens the life of gear. Even if your pleasure in smoking doesn't have health consequences (and I haven't done the research to determine if the quoted article is good science or if it's a "tobacco science" FUD debunking), it lowers the enjoyment of others and has economic costs to other people. It's rude and no amount of "consideration" (where you're putting the burden on someone else to ask you to be "considerate") can undo the damage you've done prior to someone approaching you. "Can you not have smoked 5 minutes ago?" isn't a request I can make with any expectation that you'll be able to comply with. When I'm appointed Benign Dictator For Life, smoking will be like masturbation. Fine if you want to do it, but please don't ask me to deal with the sticky, nasty residue.
• Miss Manners has pointed out more than once that the law got called in as a bigger hammer once smokers decided that it was OK for them to smoke without asking people around them. Telling people they can't indulge their nasty habits in public isn't prohibition. It's illegal in most places to urinate and defecate in public, too, but we don't describe enforcement of minimal public behavior standards in that area as forbidding elimination. I don't want to smell the stink of people's smoke in public any more than I want to smell the stink of their sh1t.
• First, although a lot of the data on cigarette smoking is skewed, there's still a very convincing amount of evidence against cigarette smoking. Yes, it's dangerous, yes people know it's dangerous. If you don't know cigarette smoking is dangerous by now, why are they working so hard to keep you alive? Second, let's take caffeine. That'll kill you quick in large doses, is highly addictive, and has been shown to cause a decrease in actual functioning ability when used to try to keep you alert. It also causes sleep disturbance, which leads to increase caffeine use to compensate, and so on. Should we keep caffeine, or legislate against it for people's own good. Finally, we're talking about science, people. How many of you have seriously looked at studies on the health dangers of, say, cigar and pipe smoking? Not studies that lump the effects in with cigarette smoking, not "studies" that don't bother to quote statistics, aren't peer reviewed, and don't allow you access to the data and methodology? Or have you just heard from the media and those Truth commercials all that you need to know on the subject to close your mind. This should not be a religious war. We can find out the actual effects on health of any of these products, and yet, people tend to say, "Well, the answer is obvious, why should I bother actually engaging my mind. Science is hard!" And MCroft, some people enjoy the smell of pipe smoke, so do not. I have received many more compliments from the smell of my pipe smoke than complaints. However, if someone doesn't like it, I will lean towards not smoking, if I'm asked politely. What annoys me more are places that allow cigarette smoking and not pipe smoking, but that's a discussion for another time.

• And MCroft, some people enjoy the smell of pipe smoke, so do not.

  yep. And you're choosing for all of them. Also, you're backpedaling from "if they ask me to stop smoking, then I'll go outside or just set it aside" to "I will lean towards not smoking, if I'm asked politely". I'd prefer it if you (and your fellow users) assumed that it was unacceptable unless you receive consent, rather than assuming consent unless someone protests. The burden should be on you, not on innocent bystanders.
• I can smell a cigar smoker for a good twenty feet if they are actually smoking, and at about 5 feet if they haven't got one going, but simply reek from the smoke in their clothes and hair. It's a goddamn revolting stench to me. I have received many more compliments from the smell of my pipe smoke than complaints. People are often reluctant to be "rude" to someone even though that person is being rude to them, particularily in public, because they don't want to make a scene. In my mind, someone who lights up anything, but especially a cigar or pipe in a public place is being passive aggressive at best, and childish to boot. In other words, when you light up with others around you, you're telling those around you to either go fuck themselves or get into a confrontation with you. Stats, blah blah, etc. etc. don't matter once something has been decided offensive to do in a public place, and going on about what if other silly things are decided offensive too is just defensive silliness. If it is offensive to most people, *and* you do it anyways, you are acting like a lout. All the rest of the rhetoric does nothing to change that.
• How much do we pay out in medicare for smoking related illnesses? Over twenty billion dollarsa year. The rest of us help pay for your "habit" and don't tell us not to try and stop you. Have you ever seen someone die from lung cancer? I have, and let me tell you it ain't pretty.
• Cigarettes stink. Smokers stink. They stink so much that I have trouble (physically) being around them. Setting rules for this disgusting activity is not paternalism. I don't give two shits about your health, if you want to destroy it (so long as you're willing to pay for it). It isn't really the science issue that you try to make it out to be, either. It's about the very real effects it has on my body. Second, let's take caffeine. Yes, let's take caffeine. Your coffee affects me how? It doesn't.
• So you've been reading up on the dangers of environmental smoke, have you? Nope, that's what the experts are for. But it doesn't take a genius to understand that exposure to poison poisons a person. I understood that leaded petrol was dangerous, even though I only ever inhaled it second hand. I applauded the withdrawal of that poison; I applaud the law that prevents inconsiderate smokers (as opposed to considerate pipe smokers) from poisoning me and mine. That's all.
• But it doesn't take a genius to understand that exposure to poison poisons a person. I suppose so. So I think we should stop people from cooking with alcohol, because alcohol is a poison and, although much of it is burned out with cooking, not all of it is. And it doesn't take a genius to understand that exposure to poison poisons a person. Same goes with caffeine. Yes, let's take caffeine. Your coffee affects me how? It doesn't. That wasn't the point of the caffeine argument. There are many issues going on here, and one of them is that doing X will harm people, so let's not expose people to X. Caffeine hurts people, it's dangerous, and has few benefits. Let's ban it shall we? Have you ever seen someone die from lung cancer? Have you ever seen a pipe smoker who doesn't inhale die from lung cancer? No, that's probably because they tend to live a little longer than non-smokers (which was merely a rhetorical point, because it could easily have been the fact that pipe smokers were more affluent at the time of the study, on average, than non-smokers, or similar consounding factors, that caused the increase in lifespan). In other words, when you light up with others around you, you're telling those around you to either go fuck themselves or get into a confrontation with you. I'm in a bar with cigarette smokers, I think it should be okay to smoke a pipe without having to ask every single person in the place if it's okay. I do ask those in my immediate vicinity, though. And again, where does this stop? Seriously. There are people who believe it's dangerous not to your physical body, which'll last you 100 years if necessary, but to your immortal soul if you engage in homosexual relationships. And yet gay people all over the world are being so rude as to hold hands or even kiss in a public place. Many people find that incredibly disgusting. Should we outlaw it? Should we outlaw it without outlawing physical displays of affection between heterosexual couples? Parents and children? If you feel strongly that smoking should be outlawed by not gay couples in public, then why? Because it's your personal preference one way or the other? Especially if you take the stance that the science doesn't matter (though I don't think anyone here has taken up both of those issues at the same time, I think they were separate issues). So, that's what I'm asking: Where does it stop? Which personal freedoms should be taken away because they bother some people, and which should be kept because people should be free? Which forms of passive aggressiveness should be outlawed, and which should not? If it's something that harms other people, should that be scientifically-proven physical harm, or just something enough people "know" is harmful. (And I apologize for the backpedaling, MCroft, but I did remember that if someone is rude to about the smoking, I sometimes will tell them that I won't stop smoking. Yup, petty, stubborn, perhaps even hypocritical. I've never tried to be perfect, but I felt it would be improper of me to misrepresent myself on this issue.
• Manitoba to back B.C. in tobacco case WINNIPEG - The Manitoba government is joining British Columbia's court fight to recover $10 billion in health-care costs from cigarette companies, saying tobacco use hurts smokers and non-smokers alike... http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/02/25/manitoba-smoking050225.html
• Just because you don't like X, doesn't mean it should be banned. There has to be a stronger reason. Personally, I don't like the smell of stale beer - I dislike it as much as other people dislike cigarette smoke. I don't hang around bars or clubs much. The actual reasons for bans on smoking in enclosed public places, like bars and restaurants, isn't to do with the other customers, who all have a choice on whether to be there (see the businesses voluntarily moving to non-smoking, like most fast food places in Toronto before the ban), but to make sure that employees have a safe work environment. The health effects of working around second hand smoke in a place like a coffee shop are immediate and very noticiable. (I lost my sense of smell and had a lot of nose and throat problems during the time that I worked in a coffee shop frequested by chain smokers.) That's very different from banning advertising altogether, or seeking to end smoking in private places or unenclosed places (where the smoke can disipate). Frankly, if we were to ban dangerous things, we'd start with cars and move on to fatty foods and bungie cord jumping. Eventually, we'd all be living in padded rooms, eating oatmeal and trying not to move for fear of bruising ourselves. Personally, I don't want to live in that world. We have our warnings, we have protected employees, now let adults do what they please. Smoke, eat unpasterised cheese, drink fizzy cider (yum), and get over it. On one last note - I once heard the British government did a study on the cost of smoking to the government, hoping to find support for banning it, only to drop the issue when they realised smokers didn't cost them money, because they died more quickly after their employed tax-paying years, rather than lingering on for decades on old age pensions. Anyone else hear of this?
• If you feel strongly that smoking should be outlawed by not gay couples in public, then why? Last time I checked, gay people didn't give me lung cancer.
• Very good point, jb. What about proper ventilation and air filtration in places that allow smoking? It's more expensive, but it would give a better environment all around. Last time I checked, gay people didn't give me lung cancer. Nope, they'll just damn you to an eternity in hell for encouraging you to be gay. Oh, I know, you can't prove it, but they're having a difficult time with the lung cancer for Environmental Tobacco Smoke issue as well. At least, according to some of the links above. Certainly a bit of an embarrassment for the EPA. At least, it would be, if anyone paid attention to the retraction rather than the improperly researched meta-study.
• My last word. Kill yourself. Fine. Contribute to the death of my kids, and I'll either get on the government's case, or - if the government won't listen - harm you in a similar way before you can hurt my kids. The governments of the countries that have signed this treaty have been listening to their people. Tobacco is heavily taxed; there is no motivation for this treaty and the introduction of laws to curb public smoking other than that our governments are doing what we want them to do: looking after our welfare. Whine on. You have no right to smoke tobacco when the smoke hurts (not just upsets) a third party.
• Ok. I did not understand what that last bit was about, but answer me this...why is downplaying the risks of second-hand smoke so important to you? if someone is rude to about the smoking, I sometimes will tell them that I won't stop smoking. You've just been rude to them in the very act of smoking in the first place, and then are again rude to them if they are less than jovial having to ask you not to spew poison fumes around them? Why is your individual "right" to spew crap into common airspace more important than the rights of all those around you to not breath crap? I don't care if you think the real danger from second-hand smoke is, to be hypothetical, only a 2 out of 10, whereas these apparently questionable studies might put it at, say, 7 out of ten, the idea remains the same. What I want to know, to put it bluntly, is what makes you so special you feel it appropriate to either annoy others, be they silent or otherwise, or damage the health of those around you? "My biggest complaint about people is that they refuse to take responsibility for their actions." Is that statement not problematic for you in taking the stance that others, essentially, just have to put up with you, and are sheep blindly buying into propaganda if they don't agree with you? So, that's what I'm asking: Where does it stop? This cuts both ways; next time you're in a public space, can I take a shit in front of you? How about flashing folks in the park? How about a hard-core porn screensaver on my computer in an open-air office? Can I grab a stool next to you in a bar, cook up some smack, tie off and hit up right there? I mean, I'm only hurting myself, right? And if the junk makes me feel sick, can I just puke on the floor, then order a beer?
• *comes back to party to find only some chick crying drunkenly about her ex-boyfriend, and the guy nobody knows passed out in a chair with no pants and a bunch of empties on a coke-smudged glass coffee table.* Man...can I empty a room. *runs away*
• The risks of secondhand smoke have, probably, been overplayed on the health front. There is maybe, and I say maybe a 10 to 20% increase to the non-smoking population's risk of cancer. The data for CPOD, CVD and other smoking related diseases is about as strong which is to say, from an epidemiological point of view, not very. The data is practically indistinguishable from noise. There are probably defensible _social_ reasons for banning public smoking, and one of those is to press the point that smoking in general is frowned upon. The risks associated with cigarette smoking are considerable, that's well known. Curiously enough though, the risks only really started in the 1930s, with the mass production of cigarettes. Prior to that, the risks of an individual smoking were not capable of being resolved from baseline never smoker. This paper in the British Medical Journal is probably a great place to start to get a feel for the overall dangers of smoking; a fifty year study on a cohort of British male doctors. Extraordinary, unique, work.
• Where it stops in a democratic society is where most people decide that your fist-swinging hits their nose. Used to be the fist won a lot with smoking. Now the nose is winning. With the "offense" of gay people doing whatever in public, the nose of "OMG, teh gay, how gross!" used to have a lot of power and the fist not so much, and now that's reversing. Community standards for what's acceptable change over time. Sometimes community standards are codified in manners; in other times and places they are codified in laws, such as smoking regulations, noise pollution ordinances, vagrancy laws, public intoxication and indecency laws, sanitation laws, etc. These laws serve dual purposes of protecting the public's health and safety on the one hand AND of making it possible for people to live in large groups without killing each other on the other. Both of these functions are important, particularly in pluralistic societies where community standards for acceptable behavior come from many different sources. The nominal reason for anti-smoking laws is public health, particularly for employees (note: my inner libertarian calls bullsh1t on the claim that employees have to be there; they can always choose to work somewhere that has a no-smoking policy!). The real reason members of the public support anti-smoking regulations is, in my experience, that they dislike the reduced use-value of the services they buy (e.g., restaurant meals, bar drinks, show tickets), the costs that smokers inflict on them (e.g., additional dry cleaning bills), and their general crankiness at second-hand smoke. It may be "wrong" for people to support laws based on what they like and dislike, but that's how support for laws is developed in a democracy. If you don't like it, try another form of government. /answering trolls (bad immlass, no biscuit! IHBT!)
• Just as an aside on smoking prohibition: are the folks in this thread who are appalled at laws prohibiting smoking in public places equally bothered about companies like Weyco who are firing smokers even if they don't smoke on the job? Just curious.
• I think one of the interesting things about this thread is the different perspectives we bring to bear here. Sandspider's concern with science and law is quite different from my concern with manners and economic costs imposed on others. We're not going to agree, because I don't care if something is legal if it's wrong and he disputes the effects I cite. Sandpiper, given that your profile says "My biggest complaint about people is that they refuse to take responsibility for their actions", I think you're refusing to take responsibility for your actions.
• Surely anybody would consider firing employees for taking part in perfectly legal activities outside of work time far, far worse than a democratic government passing popularly-supported laws for public health benefits? I mean, how bizarre would the society you live in have to be before the opposite became even conceivable? Sorry, I just thought that was a really weird question.
• immlass is trolling for Libertarians of the "a private entity such as a corporation can hire or fire anyone for any reason at any time" stripe.
• Yeah, I'm interested in seeing whether folks who are up in arms about public regulations are interested in limiting private contracts between employers and employees. I'm hearing comments about prohibition and government conduct that make me wonder. (Note: I think Weyco is way out of line. I have an inner libertarian and and inner liberal, and neither one of them think regulating legal conduct in off-work hours passes muster.)
• OK, I suppose that must be more of a US-type political outlook you're trying to trap there. Sounds terribly odd (to me) to be able to find a contradiction in the possible responses to those issues, but I suppose there are actually people who would think that governments regulating smoking is worse than private companies banning it. These people, I feel, are strange.
• What moneyjane said. And:

  Nope, they'll just damn you to an eternity in hell for encouraging you to be gay

  This is why smokers get so little support. So many of them stink everything up, scatter their detritus on footpaths ("the world is my ashtray!") and whenever anyone has the temerity to suggest it's the tiniest bit obnoxious, they manage make Rush Limbaugh sound reasonable and intelligent with their well thought out arguments and not at all absurd analogies.
• We got our no smoking in bars law here in toronto in June and it's _huge_. I makes such a big difference to be able to go out to nightclubs and not come home reeking of cigarette smoke. Smoking in clubs is a contagious activity - how many people do you know that only smoke when they're drinking? You couldn't have relied on the free market to create smoke-free clubs, but I think ultimately, the bylaw will be good for business because smokers aren't likely to get drunk less, and people who really can't tolerate cigarette smoke will go out more. But a couple observations -- Smoking cigarettes in bars is now illegal and the smoking bylaw is strictly enforced. Marijuana smoking is illegal but tolerated. Result: people only smoke marijuana in clubs these days, not cigarettes. That can't be what the lawmakers had in mind. Bars and clubs found two loopholes -- ventilated smoking rooms and private clubs (in some cases the 'private club' thing is just a ruse to allow smoking, in others it's genuine). I've heard the city plans to close these loopholes, something I disagree with.
• immlass, very good post all in all. I apologize if I seem like I'm trolling, but really it's just that I feel strongly about an issue that other people feel strongly about, and I know that I'm in the minority on my position. It was not intended to be a troll, per se, but I'll admit I didn't stop myself from posting it anyways. As to your main point, I'm less asking where the point actually is but, rather, where the point should be, especially if you want it to remain consistent with your internal beliefs. So, while it's true that the line is at the 51% of the voting population point, should it be? Should people take away other people's rights just because their position is not enjoyed by most? MCroft, I don't disagree that I occasionally have bad manners, especially on this issue. However, I don't feel that this particular set of bad manners should be legislated unless there is provable harm to others coming from it. rogerd and moneyjane, the "damn you to...hell" bit was specifically referencing something above, which I avoided re-writing partially because I didn't want to take up the space repeating myself. The basic gist of it was that I was considering an analogous situation where a majority of the population feels that something that is not necessarily scientifically proven is still felt to be bad for you. Should it be, as immlass points out, that it is wrong just because most of the people say it's wrong? rogerd, I've admitted that I am obnoxious. However, in many cases, obnoxiousness is not illegal, it's just annoying. Imagine if we could make ad hominem attacks illegal, just because they're obnoxious. Even though we would have a better world for it, I'd still oppose it. moneyjane, the downplaying of the risks of ETS is important to me because the risks have been exaggerated or even lied about in order to work the public up into a frenzy so that they'll support anti-smoking legislation. I hated it when Bush lied in order to invade Iraq, and I hate these lies as well. And while if it were a 20% chance of cancer with ETS and a 0% chance without ETS, but it were said to be 70% chance with ETS, I would admit that yes, that is still a significant increase in the chance of cancer, so let's not do that. But what if it were, say, more like a 2 in 100,000 increased chance of getting cancer, when it was represented at being a 1 in 10 increased chance of getting cancer. Is that still too dangerous for you? (I'd give you actual figures, but since nobody else feels like dragging actual data into this discussion, with the exception of polychrome, I'm not going to go through the effort.)
• As for my personal responsibility quote, I stand by that. If I get throat cancer, I'm not going to rail against the world and blame the tobacco industry for what's happened to me. I made the choice, and I stand by it. If I find that there's, shall we say, less fabricated evidence on ETS, some that have been peer reviewed and replicated, then as long as I can smoke in my own home or outdoors, I won't make a fuss. I'm not out to hurt people, but occasionally I will admit to inconveniencing people from time to time. I'm sure that everyone who's complained about my impoliteness does nothing that would ever inconvenience themselves. Because I've already admitted my hypocrisy, I hope you would have done the same. Finally, for moneyjane's example of other unacceptable behavior, for the smack thing, no, because that is a controlled substance, so that would be a poor idea. Flashing in public, I personally wouldn't care about, because a little nudity doesn't really bother me, but it is already illegal. Maybe one day it won't be, but I doubt that will change in the near future. As for taking a dump, even if you could do that without exposing yourself, e. coli is bad stuff, so it's best to keep it in the sanitation system. Urine is exceptionally clean, but it's hard to clean up, and while accidentally spilling your drink is okay, deliberately spilling a drink is usually frowned upon in a public establishment, because it causes extra work for the waitress. Aside from that, I do agree that public elimination is gross, and I would be kinda saddened to see those particular laws go. Do I think there's a contradiction between that and my stance on smoking? Kinda yes but mostly no. Although there are similarities, there is a natural taboo with waste disposal. This is why, for example, we have to change the word for a bathroom every x decades. Although we have words that are euphemisms for the shit-house, after a certain amount of time those words become linked so well with what they are attempting to cover that we have to make a new euphemism. This indicates to me that we have a predisposition for avoiding public display of such things, at least within our culture.
• And thank you, calimehtar, for speaking about the compromise I mentioned above. I would support legislation that demanded a certain amount of filtration and ventilation for indoor smoking areas. Filtration is good stuff, and I heartily endorse it. However, very few people seem interested in such a compromise.

• I'm not out to hurt people, but occasionally I will admit to inconveniencing people from time to time. I'm sure that everyone who's complained about my impoliteness does nothing that would ever inconvenience themselves. Because I've already admitted my hypocrisy, I hope you would have done the same.

  We're not talking about me, we're talking about you. When I write my magnum opiate about how all you right handed bastiches are oppressing me, then we can talk about my delusions. Specifically, I think you're enjoying your smoking at the expense of others reasonable expectation that you will not interfere with their activities. In this, pipe-smoke pollution is a lot like noise pollution. It interferes with my use of goods and services I've paid for (food, drink, my clothes, the band) and it has an obvious, tracable source (you). Whenever you light up in an enclosed public place, you placing economic costs on others without compensating them. Even if it's not illegal, it's irresponsible. I don't want to make you behave like a civilized person, but if I can convince you to do so by treating your aggressively rude behavior as aggressively rude behavior, perhaps you'll eventually decide to stop. If smokers weren't so aggressive about their demands to pollute my space, they might get more sympathy when they brought their "we're being picked on!" complaints up. I'm not surprised that they don't have the public support to fight legal attempts to curb their behavior.
• I thank you for clarifying your views, but I think this is the gist of our differences is this; Should people take away other people's rights just because their position is not enjoyed by most? Smoking is not a right. Being Mirandized is a right; not being refused a job for being Black is a right; not being evicted from your apartment because you're gay is a right. Do you really feel entitled to equating a personal indulgence with real human rights issues people have died fighting for? If so, this is about you, not second hand smoke.
• pipe-smoke pollution is a lot like noise pollution. It interferes with my use of goods and services I've paid for (food, drink, my clothes, the band) and it has an obvious, tracable source (you). Okay, so do you favor the banning of talking loudly in bars as well? Whenever you light up in an enclosed public place, you placing economic costs on others without compensating them. Economy. Always economy! There's more to this than filthy purse-strings, Rutl....sorry. I'm in a production of 1776 right now, so it slips through sometimes. You have a good point here, but I will give the idea some thought. In the meantime, do you have any feelings on the filtration issue?
• Do you really feel entitled to equating a personal indulgence with real human rights issues people have died fighting for? If so, this is about you, not second hand smoke. Smoking makes me happy. Is the pursuit of happiness not one of our rights? I'm not saying the other things aren't very much more urgent, but happiness is important as well. Oh, and homosexuality is not a protected class, at least in some states, so not being evicted from your apartment because you're gay is not currently a right. It should be, but...
• And I know it's fun and all, but could we stop with the personal attacks? It's not like I'm going to leave Monkeyfilter because of it, but I'm really attempting to have a discussion of the issues as I see them and not just call people names.
• Smoking makes me happy. And pissing on people who are eating dinner makes me happy. Now, me pissing on you is entirely harmless, unlike, maybe, cigarette smoke. You're in no danger of getting cancer, or emphysema, or any other disease or condition from me pissing all over you. You will merely be made wet and, depending on what I've been ingesting lately, perhaps stinky. This is to say, all that will happen is that you will be offended. But I really doubt that you'd stand up and support my right to piss on people to the extent that the law should prevent you from taking any action against me, as the law prevents me from slugging a smoker in a restaurant now. Which is the quandary. You think you're indulging in a harmless vice. I think you're pissing all over me, making my clothes stink, ruining the taste of my dinner, and making me cough. When enough people think that smoking is repellent enough that they shouldn't have to put up with it, then lo and behold, they craft laws to not put up with it just as you don't have to put up with any number of harmless but offensive things I might do to you while you're out for dinner.
• Which is pretty much the synthesis of a couple of arguments above. Yes, your clothes will be smelly, but I've found that some people make their clothes smelly just by wearing them. I'd hesitate to suggest that you wash your clothes after wearing them, because that would imply that you don't, but I understand that some articles of clothing can last multiple days without needing a wash. The disease thing we've covered quite enough, I suspect. The actual urination issue I've listed as something that I consider to be a qualitative difference from smoking, and my reasons for it. The dinner issue is one I'm currently considering from MCroft's comments, and it is one that has merit, but I don't know if it's meritorious enough to warrant legislation, and am mulling over. And once again, no mention of whether adequate ventilation and filtration would eliminate the problem. You could just be focusing on my lack of fitness for social acceptability, but I'm hoping we're still on target with the treaty thing.
• "And once again, no mention of whether adequate ventilation and filtration would eliminate the problem." This or this may help.
• Speaking as a non-smoker, I'd like to say: Coughing without covering your mouth needs to be outlawed. Sure, it's okay to do in the privacy of your own home, but when you do it in public you're putting me at risk. As a public health measure, all people should be required to wear biological respiratory masks, because otherwise they might kill someone eating at the same restaurant as them. I don't want to take that risk, and I'm sure you don't either. And if you are willing to take that risk, tough-titty, catering to my selfish ignorance is a much bigger priority than whatever reasons you concoct for not wearing mouth filters.
• Sandspider, you're asking the wrong person about a moral rights perspective on laws. I'm a legal historian by trade, and I'm going to have to say representative democracy is a better method for making community decisions about acceptable social conduct than anything else you'll find in a pluralistic society (community agreement on acceptable conduct is better, but I don't think that's viable in a pluralistic society, cf items like early marriage in immigrant communities). I don't make the perfect the enemy of the good, even when it has results I don't like, such as "oooh, teh gay!". From a libertarian perspective, I am unconvinced that the harm you do me by smoking in public is less than the harm society does you by telling you to smoke at home. You consider it less offensive to smoke at me than to piss on me; I don't consider it sufficiently different for me to agree it shouldn't be regulated. Conversely, I don't think, and doubt most people still following this argument think, that public coughing without a hand over the mouth is a sufficient social problem to require fining or hauling folks to jail. If there is a social consensus about that, and I really have my panties in a wad about it, I'll do something (vote, persuade others to oppose, etc.) In fact, that's what you're doing right now: trying to convince non-smokers that they're unjustly restricting your rights and that technological solutions will solve the problem. On a practical basis, that's no different from me mocking folks scared of teh gay or arguing that their human rights override someone being squicked about teh gay. Aside: I'm not convinced filtration solves the problem, and the burden of requiring filtration is significantly higher than that of simply banning smoking in enclosed places. I applaud restaurants and bars that remodel that way--but until I see on a regular basis that filtration can solve the problem of heavy smoke, I'm not buying it as an overall solution. I agree with Moneyjane: smoking is not such a fundamental right (or so fundamental to your person) that I see public conduct restrictions on it as problematic. I don't think further argument on the topic will be useful.
• aaaiiiee, lost a line in preview! I'm a legal historian by trade should be I'm a legal historian by training and have been a paralegal by trade.
• I loved the comment in moneyjane's link about gale-force winds being required to clear the room. The image of that in my favorite smoky pub makes me smile. But, sure, if you can come up with a system that prevents me (or my food and drink) from being exposed to your smoke, and you pay for it, I wouldn't mind. I don't think you can, though. Assuming that there is a technological solution that would work (which isn't a given), I don't think the ramifications of requiring it make it feasible. If such a system is mandatory, then you're imposing costs on small businesses who will pass it on to customers or else go out of business. If those costs are passed on evenly, then I'm again subsidizing your smoking costs. If they are applied only to you ("Here's your Extra-Value Meal, Smoking Section Edition, $19.95, please"), I'd expect smokers to complain.
• I think kenshin's car analogy was absolutely, completely dead-on. You drive cars, don't you. You could hit me, kill me, with your big, stupid, exhaust-belching, resource-hogging genital extension device, and you surely don't ask whether you can swerve through the intersection and nearly run me down. Are you going to quit? Of course you won't. Because you don't want to, and you don't think anyone should make you do something you don't want to because they don't like it. Oh wait... that's different when you do it. Of course. People with different habits than you are icky, and shouldn't be allowed rights, but you, you're different. Your smoke belches out of your ass instead! That makes it all okay. :D (And no, you don't "need" your fucking car.)
• Clarifying my sarcasm: I am a small-l libertarian. I am fairly pissed off at the hypocrisy and vitriol that flies when this topic comes up. People love to bust out the horrid shock-value words when it comes to smoking, but if they do the same about, say, fat people, they are smacked down for being destructive and dehumanizing. Oh, but this is okay. If you're going to argue your case, argue it with logic, not horrified, chest-clutching auntie rhetoric. They can't ban smokers because you think they're icky. Have a better reason. And watch your hypocrisy; things that you do aren't blameless just because you do them.
• MCroft, what I'm suggesting is the choice. If a filtration system is allowed as an option, and it meets certain guidelines, then a business can decide for itself whether it's a worthwhile investment or not. If we make the decision for them beforehand because we think it either can't be done or isn't worth the trouble, then that hardly seems a fair way to do it. And there are plenty of awfully good air purification systems on the market. Well, I say that before reading moneyjane's post. And moneyjane: very nice. I will read up primarily on the first link, as the second is little more than a press release. My only real concern upon first glance is "The panel also failed to quantify the ETS exposure or risk for workers or patrons either before or after the application of the new technology."
• Wait, are we talking smoking in public places, or ending smoking advertising? Because they are separate things. For one, if the latter puts the tobacco companies out of business, then smokers won't even be able to smoke in their own homes. Total prohibition is a long way from banning it in public enclosed places (which largely has support in urban North America). Frankly, I think the ban on sponsorship is inane. I lost my Benson and Hedges' Symphony of Fire, the coolest annual fireworks festival there was, with the fireworks coordinated to music, and competitions and everything, when the government banned tobacco sponsors from putting their name on stuff. Of course, that's why B&H put up the millions of dollars necessary to delight me. They wanted an in to advertising they were already restricted from. The sad part is, I didn't even realise that B&H sold tobacco until the broohaha. If you'd asked me, the first thing I would have thought of was fireworks. And I even smoked at the time (DuMaurier - everyone knows that everyone smokes either DuMaurier or Players, you find that out from the other kids in high school, who are the only advertising a cigarette company needs.) So, I lost my fireworks because the government had gotten itself in a knot over some rather ineffective advertising.
• you don't "need" your fucking car Rural residents do, but urban people? No they don't. Urban drivers "want" control and convenience at a cost to everyone around them. Do I have a problem with it? No more than with public smoking. Then there is the suburban dream/nightmare and whether people who "want" space for their families should be allowed to inflict urban sprawl on the rest of us. No, nobody "needs" a single-unit house with lawn, backyard and garage. Let's ban suburban living! Next on the list: meat-eaters like myself whose indulgence causes world hunger, environmental degradation, and contamination of food sources for everyone.
• Wurwilf we are actually being pretty restrained. Check this out, for instance. These are the rapid responses to an article the British Medical Journal published, which found that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) was not a significant risk factor for increased mortality. As an aside, the relative risks the authors found aren't that far away from the EPA study, the WHO study and most other ETS studies. So the whole bunfight really boils down to "is a RR of ~1.5 or so meaningful?" Pro-tobacco generally says no, anti-tobacco generally says yes and big tobacco laughs all the way to the bank because it provides a great distraction from actually stopping people smoking in significant numbers.
• argh - Link that should have been included above
• And when I am appointed Benign Dictator for Life, masturbation will be compulsory! Bwahahahahahah!
• Wurwilf, kenshin, are you familiar with New Urbanism? Just wondering about whether you had that as context for your car comparison. I think you misunderstand some of the arguments presented. I haven't argued that smoking in public should be banned because *I* think it's icky. I have argued that if *most people in a community* think it's icky, they should have the right to say "do that at home if you like, but don't bother me with it", which is entirely different. I have small-l libertarian tendencies, but I also recognize that a democratic government is us; we can vote the bastards out if they make laws we don't like. And living with laws we as individuals don't like is the price of living in society. You also dismiss analogous laws about public elimination as a basis for discussion. The point isn't so much that they're icky as that people generally accept the limits that such laws place on their conduct as reasonable. If you concede that laws regulating public conduct are reasonable in extreme cases (not crapping in the park is a low common denominator), the question becomes "what do you accept as legitimate reasons for restricting behavior in the public square?" People of good will can and do disagree strongly about these matters without one side or the other being hypocritical.
• Actually, you're equating "I don't like it" with "it is unsanitary and necessitates lots of publicly funded cleanup," which is a little scary. No matter how icky you may find it, it's just not the same thing. Sorry. It's not. You may be all EWWWW COOOTIIIIEEEESSSS!, but seriously, children. There is a difference. If I'm a vegetarian (I'm not), can I have you banned for eating meat in public because it's JUST LIKE shitting in front of me? Wow, those are harsh, emotional words! Harsh, emotional words make me right, don't they? I'll say it again. Shitting in public! Shitting in public! Voting for somebody I don't like is JUST LIKE shitting in public! Cower at my elaborately reasoned defense based on saying poopy-words!! You don't want to defend shitting in public, do you?!?!? It's really sad. Is that your only reason, your strange fecally-obsessed phobia? Can you make your case any other way? Some relatives of mine never ate out because they thought eating in public was like shitting in public. True story. Oops, looks like you're all shitting in public. We've gotta kill you. "We can, and have the right to, ban people we don't like" I also find scary. That doesn't strike me as terribly libertarian, but everyone's POV is different, I suppose. We have to live with laws we don't like? How about one step before that - living with people you don't like?
• People can barely go to work in the morning without being hypocritical, but hypocrisy is a minor thing, really. I'm not convinced, even living in a democracy, that just because most people support something makes it right. But I am pleased that we have at least gotten to the point where we can discuss the line. I still feel that legislation should be at the point of harm rather than discomfort. I feel that harm should be proven with an acceptable level of significance (and there are acceptable levels pre-defined, without respect to political significance). Yes, there are counter examples that we live with every day. However, if it's something that involves creating or repealing a law, then that should be done very carefully and with a lot of consideration, especially if it's going to involve whole countries at a time. For the US, On a state level, sure, go for it, because states are free to pursue their own political agendas. However, on a national level, that's a different matter entirely, and I want some serious proof of significance before state laws are dictated to them. I am not yet convinced that we are there.
• "The panel also failed to quantify the ETS exposure or risk for workers or patrons either before or after the application of the new technology." Here's the larger context for that quote, sandspider; The panelists asserted that a new and unproved technology, displacement ventilation, offered the potential for up to 90% reductions in ETS levels relative to dilution technology. However, this assertion was not substantiated by any supporting data. Air cleaning was judged to be somewhere between dilution and displacement ventilation in efficacy, depending on the level of maintenance. The panel also failed to quantify the ETS exposure or risk for workers or patrons either before or after the application of the new technology. Panelists observed that building ventilation codes are not routinely enforced. They also noted the lack of recognized standards for acceptable ETS exposure as well as the lack of information on typical exposure levels. However, indoor air quality standards for ETS have been proposed in the scientific literature, and reliable mathematical models exist for predicting pollutant concentrations from indoor smoking. These proposed standards and models permit application of an indoor air quality procedure for determining ventilation rates as set forth in ASHRAE Standard 62. Using this procedure, it is clear that dilution ventilation, air cleaning, or displacement ventilation technology even under moderate smoking conditions cannot control ETS risk to de minimis levels for workers or patrons n hospitality venues without massively impractical increases in ventilation. In other words, the quote was not casting doubt on levels of ETS exposure, but rather this claim; The panelists asserted that a new and unproved technology, displacement ventilation, offered the potential for up to 90% reductions in ETS levels relative to dilution technology.
• Shitting in public! Maybe, Wurwilf, you should reconsider shitting on people in a public forum, given your strong feelings on the topic :)
• Oh, I know it's not necessarily meant to cast doubts on the level of ETS exposure, but I would personally prefer to actually have the exposure risk before and after properly measured. However, as I said, that's just a red-flag for me to need to do further research, as time becomes available, not an end to the discussion. Incidentally, these are technical limitations, even if everything in it is correct. They list three methods, and say that none of them will work acceptably. My proposition initially was, what if it could? What levels would be necessary, and would that be okay anyways, or is secondhand smoke of any amount just too much? So, further on, it does say that, if cost is not an issue, the air can be purified well enough, and that large casinos can do this with no difficulty. So, for the sake of argument, would that be acceptable, if they could implement it, to have proper air filtration? Relevant quotes are: Costs are a major consideration in the restaurant industry, which limits the implementation of high technology solutions such as 100% outside air 1-pass systems. Costs are not a limiting factor in the casino industry for the large casinos, although they are for the small ones. and: In brief, The OSHA/ACGIH workshop concluded that presently available ventilation technology (well-mixed dilution ventilation) was unsatisfactory for controlling worker exposure to ETS.
• So, for the sake of argument, would that be acceptable, if they could implement it, to have proper air filtration? Yes. If they could reduce the risk to that acceptable by the medical establishment...however, my take is this; 1. Few establishments could afford it, including the huge numbers of restaurants and bars where your average worker or patron will encounter ETS. 2. There are massive compliance, technological, and affordability issues to allow smoking and exposure to some levels of toxic exposure VS not allowing smoking meaning minimal expense and no exposure. 3. I'd love it if I could demand the majority pony up and build special "whoring rooms" in every restaurant, bar and casino so I could carry on with my frowned-upon activities as I please, but then again I'm not dragging around a 500 pound bag of "I'm special", so I won't.
• Okay, that's a good start. I consider the compromise to be 100 times better than an outright ban. Why? Because it takes away a persecution from a currently legal activity into one that actually focuses on the key issue. Rather than, "This is bad, so I forbid you from doing it," it is now, "This is bad, but I'll give you an opportunity to make it right." We're an innovative people. If there's an important enough cause, then the technology will likely be made to solve it. In this case, the impetus would be money, because someone who can make an inexpensive but effective filtration unit that can serve the hospitality industry will likely make a good chunk of change from said industry. This, in turn, could filter down to home units that could help allergy sufferers live more comfortably, and car units that would reduce exposure to a pollution that is likely a much greater risk than ETS. If the proposed compromise went through, and filtration could not be made affordable, guess what? You still have your effective ban. Well done. You've given us a chance, we've failed, and you still get your clean indoor air. Okay item #3: I don't know if you live in an area where prostitution is legal, but I do know it's legal in places. With the proper international treaty, that could change. Now, that may or may not affect you. Either you're already breaking the law and it won't change, or it will and you'd have to break the law or change professions. Or move to a country that didn't sign the treaty, I suppose. Incidentally, that particular item seemed suspiciously like a personal attack, implying that I am carrying around a 500 pound bag of "I'm special," whereas you are not. Or perhaps I'm reading too much into it. It would be a shame if that were the case, though, as we were proceeding on such a civilized talk up until that point. Though, to be fair, I am quite special, I'm just not sure I've got 500 pounds worth of it. Oh, and what if the medical community (or a medical community, since there's not necessarily a consensus) decided that, for example, ETS was not particularly harmful? Would it then be okay for people to smoke in public buildings, or would you want to go back to the impolite thing as well? I'm not trying to be a big pain on this, but if you could still smell the smoke, and you didn't like the smell, but it were removed of anything harmful from a medical perspective, would that still be acceptable?
• Plus, you might want to add "secondhand smoke" to your list of Trigger Topics, moneyjane.
• /late, late to this thread... Smoking in a banned area is a breach of respect. Many times I've politely asked someone not to do it in such a place, and so far, always they have complied. So far, so good. Smoke might not cause instant lung cancer, but still is an annoyance. If someone tells me I'm laughing too loud in a restaurant, I'll shut up. That's the basis of social respect. The reek of tobbaco can be so pervasive, so distressing, that it feels like an aggression. Obviously, I'm not a smoker, and that's why it 'feels' so bad to me. If I liked it, guess I'd also feel puzzled at others not enjoying my pleasure. Once did I get to use that classic joke when someone said to me: "Do you mind if I smoke?" "Do you mind if I fart?" I answered. Childish? Yeah. But it helped get the message across. That it was less of a formal social situation helped, too.
• Randomly putting in my two cents, I would like to point out that lung cancer and all that stuff are not the only health problems with smoke; I am asthmatic as well as allergic to smoke (not just tobacco smoke), so there are a very large number of places I can't go without a lot of discomfort. Like near entrances to buildings at my school, without holding my breath. It's true that temporary problems breathing aren't long term serious health issues, but the fact remains-- where there is smoke, there is not me. I can deal with walking around campus, but it's very hard to be anywhere with a lot of people smoking, even outdoors. This is not to say people should stop, that isn't my point. My point is that it's fifty times worse indoors, and if people are smoking indoors it takes a significant commitment to air filtering and circulation to keep it breatheable for me. I'm even willing to pay more at restaurants that want to go to this effort. Anywhere I can go comfortably is a plus. But the discussion doesn't have to go nearly as far as lung cancer before you hit health problems of people around you. Again, not to say you should quit, or particularly not smoke around me. I'm willing to either leave or ask you to stop. But it does hit the issue of living in a courteous sort of society, which is an issue that seems to get glossed over a lot on this sort of issue.
• Mokeyfilter: I'm not dragging around a 500 pound bag of "I'm special"
• I can't believe it. I simply can't believe I misspelled "Monkeyfilter". Can I go home now?
• If there's an important enough cause That's my point; it isn't. That's where the "special" comes in, for smokers in general, who feel their 'right' to smoke' is more important than my not breathing toxic fumes. That's the issue - "specialness", not duelling stats. I find it grossly offensive that a smoker's personal indulgence would be considered more important than my health, end of story. All the rest is window dressing. We know tobacco smoke is carcinogenic. Nobody is going to decide, based on the technical information presented in this thread, that tobacco smoke is not carcinogenic, and that exposure to it is harmless. You can be as carcinogenic-happy as you desire in the privacy of your own home. Eat PCBs for breakfast, lunch, and dinner; wash it down with asbestos martinis; I don't care. What I care about is why smokers think it ok to make it everybody else's problem. This isn't about science so much as basic social skills and the ability to think of others than yourself. Nobody has the right to be a lout. Also, what other legislation would you like to include to force people to be more polite? Not wearing too much cologne? That has many of the same effects as secondhand smoke. How about not driving an ugly car? That's incredibly offensive. Ooh! Not voting for a particular political party. Not being gay! That offends many, many people. Oh, wait, they're doing that already. Well, who needs personal freedom when we could just legislate politeness and non-ickiness...Yes, this issue does bring out my sarcastic side. I guess I need to smoke to be sarcastic. Please. Shit! Did it again! I feel so dirrrrty... I've said my bit.
• I think shandrin nailed it. Even if there are no long term problems with secondhand smoke, there are all sorts of short term effects. I can't go into the staff room at work (and stay in it for a decent amount of time) because it's the place everyone smokes. A coworker has so much trouble, her sinuses clog up and start to run like crazy. It lasts the whole day for her. Cigerette smoke has serious short term effects on health, even if the long term ones are discounted. Why is it only the long term effects that we are willing to consider? Plus, there's a fundamental difference, I think, between activities that merely offend you on a psychological level and those that assault you on a physical one. I think this is less like pissing in public and more like pissing on me in public. If enough people decide that, say, smoking belongs to the latter category, then I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to draw up some restrictions. It's not like people are saying you aren't allowed to smoke at all. (But I'm with you, Sandspider, on the insane restrictions on tobacco ads.)
• As a cigar and pipe smoker, my problem is not with those who dislike smoke (It -is- bad for you, and some people find the odor obnoxious) but those that wish to it away from me in the places that allow me to smoke. If I go to a restaurant that allows me to smoke a cigar (in the smoking section) and people complain about the smoke who are also sitting in the smoking section, I tell them to sod off. I will gladly put it out if the ventilation system is not working and it is drifting into the nonsmoking sections. I also request seats as far from nonsmoking sections as possible for that very reason. I just hate it when people try to turn a -small- area set aside for smokers into a non-smoking area just because they are there. It should be the choice of the establishment whether or not they allow smokers, not the government.
• Damn, those that wish to -take- it away...
• That's about my take on this loto. I feel shitty and guilty enough after succumbing to the demon weed again after giving up for ten years. I don't want to impose my filthy habits (well, not this one) on the unwilling, but don't want to be preached at where I'm clearly within my rights. I'm happy to submit to reasonable community definitions of where those places might be.
• When the "good samaritans" decided they would save us from ourselves,,they started attacking staples of the US economy(tobacco, alcohol, firearms), crippling that employment source. Then they started drug testing, which alot of people who were masters at their jobs(airline industry as an example) who only smoked an occasional joint, found jobs elsewhere. This is the new prohibition not aimed at alcohol alone, but smoking too. It`s real agenda is pot smoking, they want to nip it in the bud while they still have some control lest it become like a 70s dead concert all over the world. The MADD(mad mothers against drunk drivers) campaign that has now(or takes credit for) reducing drunk driving, sees there source of revenue drying uo, so they push for lower BAC and stricter laws(open container laws), and now that is not even enough for them. They want a .0 BAC and have now started requesting preadolescent campaign funding. Once these groups get started and receive financing, it becomes a career and regardless of other peoples rights, they are bound into a system that they must keep afloat fo their own survival. As far as Im concerned, fuck worrying about little piddley stuff like this. My own government has done more damage to me and my own personal enviroment than a thousand smokers for a thousand days. If someones smoke offends you "Just Turn Your Pretty Head and Walk Away"
• What I care about is why smokers think it ok to make it everybody else's problem. So I take this to mean you'll join in my cause to outlaw coughing in public places? That kind of behavior just makes everyone sick. Those coughers think they're special, they'll learn better when it's them catering to us. Because in order to remain consistant with the "protect the public's health" stance you need to side with causes like this. Otherwise it demonstrates that protecting people's health isn't the goal, but just a convenient excuse. If you want a bar to be nonsmoking, then quit giving them your money. If it's a majority that wants the change, the bar will change to keep it's clientelle. If it's not the majority, then it's a minority of a people who want a change the majority has rejected. That minority would be pretty damn selfish to keep trying to force that change— even more so considering that places already exist to cater to this minority.
• Coughing is a tad ridiculous as an analogy. It's less of a problem than smoking; more important, it's involuntary. (If, however, someone went around a restaurant coughing in people's faces intentionally, I suspect that person would find himself kicked out of that restaurant in short order, and rightly so.)
• So, Sandspider, when you're thinking about your position and your statement about people who take responsibility for their own actions or who fail to do so, read this thread and see what the people who side with you are saying. Denial is so much more than just a river in Egypt...
• [Coughing] less of a problem than smoking; Coughing is done by more people, has caused much more health problems and more deaths, and cost the country more in medical costs. ...more important, it's involuntary. The addictive properties of nicotine causes smoking to be just as involuntary, but just as difficult to avoid doing. Find a smoker who hasn't tried and failed to quit and you've found one of the small number that could be considered voluntary. Regardless, for someone who is sincere and honest with their concern for health, I can't see how this would be a factor. They'd insist on biological resporitory masks for cougher. Not just for intentional coughers, but for every one of them, regardless of intent. (If, however, someone went around a restaurant coughing in people's faces intentionally, I suspect that person would find himself kicked out of that restaurant in short order, and rightly so.) This would be analogous to someone going around a restaurant blowing smoke in people's faces intentionally, who would just as rightly kicked out. Also, and this is important, notice how your method of dealing with the person didn't require criminalizing him. You see how ridiculous it looks when someone starts advocating law reform, just to cater to their selfish goals? This is how you sound, and its why you people have always failed to convince a single smoker that she should be criminalized, and its why you will continue to fail.
• Mr. K, as long as you're setting the terms of the debate, why not pretend that we think smokers should be branded for their crimes? Let me give you a starter: "You people will fail to convince a single smoker that she should be branded on the face and neck with the burning embers of her own cigarettes. OK, maybe one or two, but not any more than that!" "We people" is a pretty broad brush. As I've said before in this thread, I'm not interested (at this point) in the law or the science, but the costs you're imposing on the rest of us. Smoking near someone is a material harm, and you're passing the costs on to others. Someone else (and there are plenty of takers in this thread) can argue that you're intentionally or recklessly damaging the health and property of others. There's a good case for that, too, but I'll leave it alone. I'm pretty sure someone has already addressed the cost to taxpayers of the health care of smokers, as well. Law is (amongst other things) a social mechanism used when two sides cannot agree on acceptable behavior and consequences of deviating from the standard. There would be no law if people felt they could achieve redress of grievances without a law. You, personally, may be as polite and considerate as you think you are, but between the social swing against approval of public smoking and the actions of some very aggressive smokers, public opinion is favoring more regulation. I'm opposed to a ban, because I think prohibition doesn't work. But I'm in favor of requiring people to regulate their behavior where it has a negative impact on others. That's a moving target, I understand. I tend to be conservative about applying this rule: I don't think causing moral outrage is an adequate harm to require it. If that's all you think is going on in the case of smoking in enclosed public spaces, then we're only going to talk past each other.
• As I've said before in this thread, I'm not interested (at this point) in the law or the science, but the costs you're imposing on the rest of us. Smoking near someone is a material harm, and you're passing the costs on to others. and Someone else (and there are plenty of takers in this thread) can argue that you're intentionally or recklessly damaging the health and property of others. There's a good case for that, too, but I'll leave it alone. You can't seem to make up your mind here. You start off arguing about the affect on others, then you back off and pretend like you've made no arguement regarding the affect on others. Either stand by a stance, or abondon it, but choose one only. You, personally, may be as polite and considerate as you think you are... You also seem to have mistaken me for a smoker. I'm not. I'm a NONsmoker— It's just that my own personal decision to not smoke doesn't need to become a mandate from the government upon all others. Also, I don't entertain any any notion that I'm polite. I do think that I try, but that's not the same thing at all. If you don't approve of a restaurant allowing smoking, then stop giving them your money. If you really are the majority (like you've stated), then the restaurant will change it's policy to accomodate you. This doesn't require government intervention.
• Okay, MCroft, if you're not interested in talking about the legal or medical aspect of it at this point, in what way am I not taking responsibility for my actions?
• Mr. K, I haven't seen anyone here calling for prohibition of tobacco. The issue wrt banning in bars and restaurants has to do with providing a safe work environment for the employees. It's not a case of a minority imposing its will on a majority.
• The addictive properties of nicotine causes smoking to be just as involuntary, but just as difficult to avoid doing. You miss the point. How many smokers can't hold off long enough to go outside? Again, no one has called for complete prohibition everywhere, but simply restrictions on the activity. Need a cigarette? Go outside. Besides, smokers do, at least, choose to smoke that first cigarette, and if they know what they're getting into (or if they are at an age at which ignorance is not accepted as an excuse), they are responsible for their addictions. They'd insist on biological resporitory masks for cougher. Not just for intentional coughers, but for every one of them, regardless of intent. So everyone should wear one all the time? This is utterly ridiculous. This "solution" is totally out of proportion to the problem. Anyway, people could simply cover their mouths when they cough to reduce the effects. As they should. I can't remember the last time someone didn't. This would be analogous to someone going around a restaurant blowing smoke in people's faces intentionally See, but this is what smokers do when they smoke indoors. Intentional or not, this is what happens, and it's entirely preventable if they just go outside. (There's a question of scale here, too, as the odd cough isn't going to do much to pollute an entire room. A single smoker can.) Also, and this is important, notice how your method of dealing with the person didn't require criminalizing him. This is not the criminalization of smokers. It's placing restrictions on smoking in this or that area by the will of, and for the good of, the majority. Smoke in your house, I don't care. Smoke outside, knock yourself out. But don't do it in public places where it bothers everyone else. I've tried to show that your coughing analogy is a bad one, but if you can come up with a better one, I'd be glad to hear it.
• Uh, I'm responding to a couple different people at once here. Sorry it's so long. Mr. K, I haven't seen anyone here calling for prohibition of tobacco. I haven't brought up prohibition either, but now that it's a topic: The Dept of Homeland Security has used the same argument as you, but regarding national IDs. They make the claim "Look, we aren't making it a law that you must always carry an ID. It's just that we need you to carry ID whenever you are out and about, so we have to make it law." This is very similar to "Look, we aren't calling for prohibition. We just don't want cigarettes used in public places, so we have to make laws against it." It is an attempt prohibition, it's just less honest of an attempt than saying "we want prohibiton." It's backdoor law-making. You miss the point. How many smokers can't hold off long enough to go outside? You're asking why smokers can't just grin and bear it? I'm asking why nonsmokers can't just grin and bear it. It takes zero effort or energy— I know, I'm a nonsmoker, I do it all the time. It's the simplest thing in the world, and it's much more reasonable than askingmandating by law for addicts to not cave in to their addiction. This is utterly ridiculous. This "solution" is totally out of proportion to the problem. Anyway, people could simply cover their mouths when they cough to reduce the effects. As they should. The same goes for the smoking "solution". It's utterly ridiculous and totally out of proportion to the problem. Anyway, people could simply sit in the nonsmoking section to reduce the effects. As they should. Also, as far as the respitory masks solution goes, there are nations that have it. The island nation of Japan expects citizens with sick symptoms to wear masks. They haven't made it law— it's just a social expectation. It's a common courtesy that as an island nation, needs to be done. (notice how their solution doesn't call for criminalizing, it a social ostricism) See, but this is what smokers do when they smoke indoors. Intentional or not, this is what happens, and it's entirely preventable if they just go outside. This is what coughers do when they cough indoors. Intentional or not, and entirely preventable if they just go outside. A single cough WILL pollute an entire room. That's why it's called the common cold, and that's why cancer is not called the common cancer. This is not the criminalization of smokers. It's placing restrictions on smoking in this or that area by the will of, and for the good of, the majority. heh. This is not the criminalization of coughers/gays/short-skirts. It's placing restrictions on coughing/homosexuality/wearing short skirts in this or that area by the will of, and for the good of, the majority. You're being dishonest with yourself when you say that it's not criminalization, or you're failing to understand the meaning of the term. When you place legal restriction against a behavior, you are criminalizing the persons that perform that action. When you put a ban on X, then you've criminalized Xers. Substitute any action in place of the X. Mr. K, I haven't seen anyone here calling for prohibition of tobacco. I haven't brought up prohibition either, but now that it's a topic: The Dept of Homeland Security has used the same argument as you, but regarding national IDs. They make the claim "Look, we aren't making it a law that you must always carry an ID. It's just that we need you to carry ID whenever you are out and about, so we have to make it law." This is very similar to "Look, we aren't calling for prohibition. We just don't want cigarettes used in public places, so we have to make laws against it." It is an attempt prohibition, it's just less honest of an attempt than saying "we want prohibiton." It's backdoor law-making.
• That strawman was so good you had to say it twice?
• Mr. K: I'm a smoker - have been for nigh onto forty years. But, when the anti-smoking tide started in California, I decided that getting angry about it was pretty stupid. It does offend other people. I looked at my addiction in the light of others' disgust and decided that I owed them the courtesy of not imposing it on them. Wasn't all that hard. And, quite frankly, it was much easier on me than fighting a losing battle would have been. I do understand your reaction, but you aren't going to win, here. My advice is to just deal since the tide is running against you. And, for the rest of you who aren't smokers, you need to understand that the smoking thing is wrapped around one's idea of what his or her personality is. That's probably the hardest thing to deal with when the bans first hit. Those of you who do other drugs have grown up with the idea that they're not accepted by the majority of the old guard, but continue to do them and complain that they're not legal. But your dislike of smoking mirrors the "establishment's" dislike of a wide range of pharmacopia. Seems as though we have some common ground here.
• so late, perhaps too late. I think I'm going to link to some rhetorical argumentation sites. The analogies, straw, and just plain panties-in-a-twist are amazing. And I'm talkng about the smokers here, folks. You can't make an analogy that removes the health factor here... if you smoke in a public place, you affect someone else's health. In fact, despite my wavering big-L, little-L leanings, it is offensive that Weyco can fire someone for smoking off-site, but they have the right and the health evidence to do so. (BTW, they do underwriting, so stop with the pseudo-science. They figured out that it *costs them more money* to have smokers, so they gave them time and cessation programs and then a choice.) Smoking raises premiums, and being around second-hand smoke causes damage to those who don't smoke. (Look...no hype!) Should we ban it from restaurants and bars? Well, if restaurants and bars want to set aside a section, and install filters once a level is agreed upon and verified, great. (Hey, that will even create some jobs while it lowers medical incidence and premium... nifty.) This is too late, but the last word here, I think, is that being a gentleman or gentlewoman in today's age is treating others with respect and trying to be a responsible individual in your community. If your home "community" is full of pipe smoke, that's fine. (Just don't be a part of my insurance pool.) If you come to a public place, good manners should propel you to excuse yourself and go outside if you have even the chance of harming someone with your smoke-- much less making them miserable. And yes, cover your mouth when you cough, wash your hands, and stop all this nonsense about rights. I mean, really.
• It's the simplest thing in the world, and it's much more reasonable than askingmandating by law for addicts to not cave in to their addiction. Cave in to addiction, I don't care. Just try not to harm me in the process. I don't see why I should have to leave when it's the smoker's activity that causes me physical harm. This is not the criminalization of coughers/gays/short-skirts. It's placing restrictions on coughing/homosexuality/wearing short skirts in this or that area by the will of, and for the good of, the majority. I've tried to give good reasons why I think the coughing analogy is a bad one. But if you want more, then I'll add this: coughing is largely a physical reflex. People can't always control when and where they cough. Designated "coughing areas" are therefore out of the question. Punishing them for what they can't control is stupid (like subjecting animals to any form of retributive punishment). Smokers can control where they smoke. As for the other cases, as I've said, activities that merely cause psychological discomfort, like homosexuality does for some, ought not be treated exactly like physical discomfort. The reasons should be obvious. I'm not sure we're going to make much progress here, however, so I'll leave it at that. When you put a ban on X, then you've criminalized Xers. Substitute any action in place of the X. I agree. So substitute "people who smoke in public places" for X. Don't say "people who smoke" (i.e. smokers), or don't complain when people point out the hyperbole. Anyway, I'm willing to leave it at that, as I'm not sure we're going to convince one another and so the argument is a bit pointless.
• Cloves to be banned.
• Banning clove cigarettes is surely the answer.
• Anyone know what finally happened with the British pub that declared itself an embassy to dodge the smoking ban?