Smoking Ban

[Melusine]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: 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.) [/QUOTE]Bullshit indeed. If I breathe in smoke from someone else's cigarettes, my throat gets extremely sore, the membranes of my nose and throat get irritated, it hurts to swallow, my eyes water and sometimes I get a cough. This can last for days after I inhalated the smoke. (and yeah I know you have a problem with smoke yourself) No, I won't die from it but it IS extremely annoying, painful and obnoxious. While second hand smoke might not kill, it DOES give a great amount of people, including but not limited to asthmatics, a lot of grief. So this "expose" in fact doesn't help at all, since it makes it seemingly okay to breathe in second hand smoke.
It's fine to try and prove passive smoking doesn't kill you, but not if you try to "expose the second hand smoke crowd" who have very valid concerns whether it kills you or no.

OT, I don't think it should be made impossible for smokers to smoke anywhere in public, and I think it would be good to have both places for smokers and places for non-smokers.
But I do think that where interests clash, the non-smokers should always be put first. Non-smokers don't bother smokers, but vice versa it CAN be a problem.
We have rules that clubs should be accessible to wheelchairs: they should be accessible to asthmatics and other lung patients too. A smoker can go to a club and nip outside if he/she absolutely HAS to smoke, but someone with asthma cannot visit a place where people smoke and nip outside if s/he HAS to get a breath of fresh air. At least with cafes, you can choose to avoid places with certain smoking policies, but with concerts it's a different matter. So I would not mind if concert halls were forced to go smoke-free.

[ 05-10-2003, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: Melusine ]

[Thorfinn]

Melusine, I know what you are talking about. I have latent asthma, and I can generally tell if any of the people in the three cars in front of me on the freeway are smoking, and can usually tell you which car it is.

And while I agree that a smoker is putting smoke into "your" air, it is just as much "his" air since public property is owned in common. Why should you get to decide how to use property that is no less his than yours?

The best answer I can think of is privatizing the public lands -- sell off the freeways, and all the upkeep expense and accompanying graft and corruption, and let the new owners decide whether to allow smoking. Or whether to allow truck traffic, or red sportscars, or drunks, or travelling salesmen, or senior citizens, or whatever else. Obviously, businesses have a vested interest in keeping their customers happy, since they don't have the option of pointing a gun at their customers and telling them to be happy or else...

[Melusine]

I see what you mean, it *is* everybody's air, but I don't buy the argument when harm to others comes into play. It may very well be everybody's air, but that doesn't mean I can spray tear gas or even a toxic gas into the air right in the middle of a busy street right? Fumes from smoke are toxic gases too.
I see what you mean, legally I cannot make any more claims to the air around me than a smoker can, but IMO, when a person's health is involved, it should make a difference. I can push someone aside if I want to stand in his spot (rude but legal), but not if in doing so I push that person off the edge of a cliff.

[Thorfinn]

Oh, I agree that if he harms you, he owes you restitution. Document your damages and take him to court. Over the long haul, this will discourage people from trying to externalize the costs of their actions.

But the problem is inherent in the notion of commons. Far brighter men than I have argued that it is impossible to correctly allocate any scarce resource without the automatic signals generated by prices within the free market. They showed that it is impossible for commons to be "used" properly, it can only be used as those in political power want to have it used, and those in power will be sure to denigrate any of dissenting opinion, even if they have to make up facts and data to support their vitriol.

If I put my mind to it, I'm pretty sure I can think of an example where the political elite and their accompanying bureaucracy did this.... oh, yes. They did it to smokers...

[Talthyr Malkaviel]

Originally posted by Melusine: I can push someone aside if I want to stand in his spot (rude but legal)

Really? Sounds like assault and battery to me. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Animal]

Personally, as a non smoker, I think a public smoking ban is unnecessary in the majority of cases, with perhaps the exception of certain hospitality industries.

You walk into a bar, sit down, order a drink and light up a cigarette. Okay, you're an adult, you know what smoking does to you and it's your choice. Unfortunately your waitress doesn't have that choice and is forced to inhale second hand smoke. That isn't fair.

Here in BC, WCB attempted to institute a smoking ban in late 2001, early 2002, but it didn't last long. It's interesting to note that the majority supported such legislation. http://www.cleanaircoalitionbc.com/N...000AngReid.pdf

I choose not to smoke, and I also choose not to frequent establishments that allow smoking. That's my choice to do so, but I don't need legislation to tell me that. I will simply not support those business that allow smoking with my money.

[johnny]

What good would a smoking ban REALLY do for our society ?

[wellard]

Originally posted by johnny: What good would a smoking ban REALLY do for our society ?

Allow more of us to sit in a bar with you johnny and buy you a beer [img]tongue.gif[/img]

(this argument is sure to win him over) [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: NYC banned all cigerettes in bars and restaurants,

I know isn't it awesome! Now musicians and waitstaff will live longer lives. It's fantastic. Amazing that they finally did what Sydney did years ago. But then Australia is known for it's healthy people.

[John D Harris]

When I was young this was a free country!!!!!!!!!
Well they can ban what ever they want to ban, I was born under the US Constitution and I'll die under the US Constitution as it stood in 1961 unless there are new legal admements. I sure as pooping would hate to be the first two anti-smoking Nazi's coming through my front door. They'll be introduced to Mr. Remington and his buddies Federal 00 buck shot.