Smoking Ban

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by WillowIX: We have several non-smoking bars here in Toronto. It´s not their policy, instead the visitors decided themselves that ir was proper respect towards other guests. [img]smile.gif[/img]

My point exactly.

My pet-peeve is smokers standing right outside the main hospital entry. I´ve even seen some people smoke outside the casualty department. However I do believe all restaurants should be smoke free.

Agreed all around. People who smoke in the casualty ward should be beaten by a very thick willow stick.

But there are still several parents smoking when taking their childrean to the play grounds.

Well, let me bring up a further point based on this. Let us say that the playground is their back yard, and they are smoking w/ kids around. As a doctor, I am sure you get fed up with the idiots who keep bringing their sick kids in expecting you to fix them when what they really need to do is quit smoking around them. I know a pediatrician who gets really about this. Now, he has a fair point. Is it fair enough for us to ban people from smoking in their homes around their kids? Certainly, that second-hand smoke around young children does us more total social harm (even creating asthmatics) than all the smoking in bars. So, isn't the next logical step banning smoking in certain homes?

[ 05-08-2003, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by harleyquinn: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I agree that non-smoking bars are rare -- primarily because many non-smokers DO smoke when drinking.

Well then, they aren't non-smokers. Whether you smoke a little or a lot, you're a smoker. It's like saying your a little pregnant. Either you are or you aren't [img]tongue.gif[/img] (not a slam at you TL, just a peeve of mine). [/QUOTE]NOt true at all, Harley. It is a simplistic view to cut the world in two parts with this simple dividing line. Their are social smokers these days just like there are social drinkers. While insurance companies will likely never follow suit and do this, I think there should be at least three categories: (1) addict (smoker-everyday), (2) social smoker, (3) never ever smokes. Nothing wrong with making categories that actually simulate reality.

[Rokenn]

Smoking is a vile disgusting habit. Your right to pollute your body ends when I'm forced to breath in the by-products of your self-destructive behaviour. Personally I feel it should be outlawed and the executives of the cigerette companies should be tried for crimes against humanity.

On a lighter note, here in San Francisco area there are some bars that have built 'smoking rooms',plexi-glass room all the smokers can pack into, light up and shorten their lives by another 7 minutes. The rooms are vented by a seperate ventaliation system.

[WillowIX]

Well I have no experience with this yet, but I probably will soon. What I do have experience of is smokers waiting for cardiopulmonary transplants. If you don´t stop smoking you don´t get a new lung, period! This policy is of course not official in the pediatrics ward, BUT I can assure you the parents get a real talk to. You can actually hear this talk to from the other end of the hall and the rant often include such words as "dumb, stupid, idiot etc" . And people smoking near the casualty ward first get a warning (read escorted at least 100 yards away from the hospital) and are then monitored by the staff. If it happens again they get a nice escort home, usually by the police. Smoking outside the casualty ward is THE most stupid thing to do!

I don´t know if you can ban smoking at home but what you can do is to catch them during pregnancy and inform them then. And then nag and nag whenever they visit. It´s not that hard to take those 5 steps outside and smoke there instead of inside the house. What really surprises me is that there have been no lawsuits from asthmatics suing their parents.

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: We've had this discussion before, Barry, and I do not want to derail the thread. I used the Communism term as it is commonly referred to -- a political system where the government owns everything. Now, you and I have played out the discussion to point where we both understand that the "pure" communism would be completely voluntary, and government would likely not exist much at all. However, in colloquial, that would be more commonly referred to as "enlightened anarchy" or something like that. My point is that a fundamental distinction you must make in discussing the government's power is whether or not ownership and freedom derives from the people, who own themselves, or from the government, which owns everything including the people. And I did not mean to insult you -- and I hope I fairly represented and understand your belief.

Well, close enough on the definition TL. In truth there would be no political state, whilst there would still be a state as an organising force. If that does not fit with a capitalists view of what Communism should be then, I hate to say it, I think they need to change that view. I'm not asking you to agree with me as a Commie - just to make sure you understand what I'm actually in favour of before you attack it.

Anyway, the discussion on self ownership is a slightly weird one. Its ludicrous to suggest that freedom is only attainable when we can all choose what to do with what we own (e.g. ourselves, in your example). What about the freedom to plant a legitimately owned dagger in someones back? They legitimately own their own back as well, so you would be unable to do that. Ownership of something does not give you the right to use it as you wish, IMO. You could choose to do something with it that might damage the legitimate holdings of another person, which would obviously contradict this principle of freedom or turn it into a state of anarchy. Either you are able to do what you like with your holdings, in which case we arrive at a Hobbsian state of nature where life is nasty, brutish, and short. Or you restrict the right to do anything with your holdings to just things that will not harm the holdings of others - in which case you cannot defend a ban on smoking in public places.

And of course, if we all own ourselves, and we own the products of our labour, then surely our mothers all own us from birth until death? They almost always legitimately acquire sperm in voluntary exchange, and then use their labour to produce a person. Surely that person belongs to them? Ok - I know this is an extremely abstract argument, but its quite a fun one... Its a right ol' spanner in the works for people like Locke and Nozick.

Anyway, no offence taken Timber - I was saying that in jest. The way the phrase "Thats as bad as Communism!" was being used was obviously supposed to slander the other argument by exxageration. Its a bit like saying "You're as smelly as a pig!" and someone coming back with: "Thats an insult against pigs!". Or something along those lines... [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Well, Barry, on topic I noticed you mention that my rights with my property extend only so far as they do not harm your rights with your property (including your body, lungs, and health). Now, I couldn't tell whether you thought that meant you can ban smoking in bars or not, but I'll tell you my take on it.

Yes, my rights end at harming you. But, in a privately-owned smoking establishment, everyone has agreed to the smoke, and the harm that ensues if any. Because they all want to smoke or be with smokers, they agree to not enforce their right to have smoke-free clean air in their lungs.

If they do not want to enter into that agreement, they do not enter into the private establishment. It is NOT their right to put rules on the private establishment and upset the scheme just because they want to go in. They can go to a non-smoking establishment. Ergo, it is not the government's right to pass a law on their behalf.

BTW, in NYC shortly after the ban, a bartender kept telling a patron to put his cigarette out. The patron finally, after the fifth or sixth demand, pulled out a knife and stabbed the bartender in the heart, killing him. NOw, that's horrible. The patron should have targeted the SOURCE of his angst. Which is why I intend to blow up an empty city government building late at night.

[ 05-08-2003, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: BTW, in NYC shortly after the ban, a bartender kept telling a patron to put his cigarette out. The patron finally, after the fifth or sixth demand, pulled out a knife and stabbed the bartender in the heart, killing him. NOw, that's horrible. The patron should have targeted the SOURCE of his angst. Which is why I intend to blow up an empty city government building late at night.

Long live the revolution Timber... [img]graemlins/laugh2.gif[/img]

Yeah, I'm really not sure what to think on all of this. I basically think that smoking shouldn't be banned in private establishments but it should in public ones. In private establishments its the decision of the owner in my mind. However if an owner of a cafe has no non-smoking area then I won't go there myself. And for preference I drink in bars where theres no smoking at the bar itself - mostly just Wetherspoons pubs round here.

But the main point of my post was to point out that I'm really not sure self-ownership arguments are as indestructable as a lot of people seem to think. Self-ownership is a hell of a logical problem when you consider women for example, or the products of peculiar talents. The great example for self-owners justifying laisse-faire capitalism is Nozick's Wilt Chamberlain example - he owns his talent and people choose to give him money in voluntary excahnge to watch him as a result of that. Therefore Wilt is entitled to a larger set of holdings than people who have done equal amounts of work, as the other people have chosen to give him that money. The important thing is not who has a moral claim to the money (as an egalitarian might say), but that the people who legitimately hold the money are able to dispose of it as they see fit.

Now... a liberal might put forward another example - say a man is born with no legs and therefore can't ever have the chance to be as good at basketball as Wilt Chamberlain. This centres on the idea that if you own yourself then you also own entirely abitrary elements of yourself. This may be many things but it is not just by many definitions. Basically self-ownership is fine as long as you are happy with procedural justice, not distributive justice.

Originally posted by Cloudbringer: Uh..MagiK, don't ever visit my house or those of many of my friends and neighbors....we have insurance stipulating we don't allow smoking in our homes! Get a nice discount for that too- less fire hazard, I guess. Cloudy [img]smile.gif[/img] I don't smoke, hate it....I am allergic to cig smoke too [img]smile.gif[/img] so no worries...Im also completely allergic to your cat [img]smile.gif[/img] I think you mentioned kids and bars.. LOL, I was going to add above that the 'pool halls' are more family oriented these days, at least up here, so maybe no smoking policies there means more families go? Just a wild guess, but it could be a partial reason, if nothing else. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 05-08-2003, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Originally posted by harleyquinn: In my mind, there is a BIG difference between offending someone and giving someone else cancer, emphasima (sp?), and other lung diseases.

Harley you are falling into a huge propaganda battle...Penn and Teller did an excellent expose on the crap that the "Second Hand smoke" crowd is selling as fact. The truth is..no one is dying from second hand smoke. (with a very very few extreme specific cases). When pressed for data they give false numbers, false reports and bad info...in short..in the words of P&T they give you Bullshit! (Edit: Bullshit is the name of their show and it is dedicated to exposing people who go to any length to get their way, including just making things up.)

[ 05-08-2003, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Kaltia]

I had the pleasure of going to a concert at the Brixton academy only to discover I couldn't even see the bloody band because of the smoke. Not to mention I ended up coughing so hard I had to leave half-way through. Why? A couple right in front of me who didn't even look like they enjoyed the music were chain-smoking. Gits. I've had a cigerrette stubbed out on my mid-riff by my grandmother (whose cigerette caused a house-fire), leaving a circular scar. I've ended up, because of my asthma, having to go on a nebuliser once I've been in too much smoker's company. IMO, banning it is a good thing. Yeah, smokers have rights, but they also have homes.