smoking laws

[svero]

What is your feeling on laws that prohibit smoking in public places like restaurants, shopping malls etc.. Interested to hear what people have to say pro and con.

I'm a non smoker - have been all my life, but I don't particularly like anti-smoking laws. I feel for instance, that a restaurant owner should be free to have a smoking section if he wants to. I wont go on though. I'd rather like to hear what other people have to say first.

[Tricky]

Take a look at this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25670) before you get too wound up. A lot has already been said.
-----
edited to add:
And this one (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17467)

[arcticpenguin]

Some people smoke, everybody breathes.

I have been in restaurants where the non-smoking section was a joke. In one instance, a long room was divided lengthwise with a 4 foot high wall topped with plastic plants. This wall served as the dividing line between the smoking and non-smoking sections, so people seated only a couple feet from me were smoking away. In addition, a ceiling fan directly overhead was blowing their smoke down on me.

I think one important issue in recent smoking bans is the effect on the workers. You could claim that the customers choose to be there, but the workers do not really freely choose to be in all that smoke as there is economic pressure. If you claim the workers are voluntary, apply the same reasoning to other workplace dangers - dangerous chemicals, asbestos, nuclear power plants, etc.

[Evolver]

Even before a medical condition kept me away from smokers. I had chosen to not patronize any bar or restaurant that does not have a non-smoking section.
That said, I don't feel the government, local or otherwise should have the right to decide what legal activities are allowed in a business.

Other points on smoking:
Smoking bans tend to congregate smokers by the entrances to buildings. This means that I have to walk through their clouds to get in or out.

As a person who once managed a number of employees in a business, I found that smokers tended to think that they were entitled to take a smoking break anytime their addiction hit. They never notice how unfair this is to non-smokers.

Why do most smokers just throw their butts out of their car windows on the highway? Is it because they don't want their ashtrays to smell as bad as their mouths?

(end of rant)

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Evolver
Why do most smokers just throw their butts out of their car windows on the highway? Is it because they don't want their ashtrays to smell as bad as their mouths?


It's not "most smokers." I don't throw my butts out windows. Nor do most of the smokers I know.

The people who DO throw their butts (or anything else) out windows do so because:

1. They're arrogant louts who think the world is their garbage can.
2. Think it's "cooler" than using the ashtray that came with their sh!tbox.
3. Have no consideration for those of us who ride motorcycles. Burning objects hurt, dammit!

Every time I'm on my bike and see someone throw a butt out the window I make sure to get right next to them and give them the "I'm number 1" signal. Mature? No. But hopefully it will get them to think about throwing burning objects out the window at high speeds where not everyone is in a steel/fiberglass cage.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Cleon

Every time I'm on my bike and see someone throw a butt out the window I make sure to get right next to them and give them the "I'm number 1" signal. Mature? No. But hopefully it will get them to think about throwing burning objects out the window at high speeds where not everyone is in a steel/fiberglass cage.
Do you say anything to help them realize the link between your friendly wave and their actions?

[MoeFaux]

A happy capitalist environment has a lot of private business who run things their own way to create healthy competition.
The government should have no say in what a private business owner wants to allow in his establishment. If the place sucks, people go somewhere else.

I agree with the above post, though. I've worked several jobs with smoking co-workers. Every 15 minutes, they'd leave for another cigarette, while I only got my allotted break time. There were moments where I considered just buying a pack and holding on to a lit cigarette just to take a break.
Hey, but, managers usually notice stuff like that and act accordingly. If they see an employee working hard and another goofing off, they remember. And that's not karma, that's just what's fair.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Evolver
Why do most smokers just throw their butts out of their car windows on the highway? Is it because they don't want their ashtrays to smell as bad as their mouths?I used to work with a man who was one of the kindest, gentlest and most polite men I've ever known. He was a true gentleman. No matter how rude others were to him or how stressed he was, nothing ever made him lose his cool, except... watching smokers discard their butts carelessly. If he saw a smoker flick a butt out of a car window, that activity, for some reason, would really infuriate him.

If he had the opportunity to scold the smoker, he would do it. Most of the time, however, he would simply rant: "That's right, throw it out there for somebody else to clean up, it's not your problem, is it??"

It was the selfishness of smokers that angered him. On one occasion, he noticed that a smoker had burned a hole in the carpet of my office. He promptly called in our maintenance guy to repair the burn, and a short time later, he spearheaded an effort to ban all smoking in the office.

Once smoking was banned in the office, a large all-weather receptacle was placed by the front door, because that's where smokers congregated. Curiously, many smokers would not use the receptacle even though they stood only a foot or two away from it. There were some cigarette butts in the receptacle, but there were several dozen strewn around the general area, too. As you may have guessed, he wasn't happy about this, either. (I have seen this same phenomenon elsewhere. Some smokers literally will not go two feet to put their butts into a proper receptacle.)

On my way to work, there is a corner where I have to stop in order to make a left turn. There are literally hundreds of cigarette butts on the island next to the turning lane. Cigarette butts, by far, account for more waste strewn on that island than any other type. I wish some people wouldn't be such selfish slobs.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
A happy capitalist environment has a lot of private business who run things their own way to create healthy competition.
The government should have no say in what a private business owner wants to allow in his establishment. If the place sucks, people go somewhere else.

I agree with the above post, though. I've worked several jobs with smoking co-workers. Every 15 minutes, they'd leave for another cigarette, while I only got my allotted break time. There were moments where I considered just buying a pack and holding on to a lit cigarette just to take a break.
Hey, but, managers usually notice stuff like that and act accordingly. If they see an employee working hard and another goofing off, they remember. And that's not karma, that's just what's fair.
I thought your use of the bolded word was ironic in this context. I am reporting it to Alanis.

[MoeFaux]

A friend of mine told me a story of how he was riding in a limo with one of the Rolling Stones. I don't remember if it was Mick or Keith.
He was wearing a huge fuzzy jacket that went down to his ankles, and all over it was this odd mix of decorative buttons, as if they were just randomly sewn on. My friend thought nothing of it, just that it was the Stones eccentric style, unil he saw him drop some ash from his cigarette onto his coat.
"Look out, you've dropped some ash onto your coat", he said.
To which the Stone said,
"Oh, *#%@, time to get another button."

[MoeFaux]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

I thought your use of the bolded word was ironic in this context. I am reporting it to Alanis.

Ah, yes. You got me. Please don't make me listen to "jagged little pill" again.

[Cain]

Working with a team of chemists, I am currently creating a spray carcinogenic to humans. More importantly, it will make your clothes smell and eyes water. Whenever I enter a restaurant or bar I plan on spraying the solution into the air at random. On a few chance occasions I may even squirt someone directly in the eye. Please understand that this was not intentional, and definitely try not to construe it as a physical attack. Your eyes will get better shortly and the smell will go away after a much-needed shower. Don't worry, the health affects are marginal -- it would take an ungodly amount of the stuff to give you cancer. Oh, the cough is also only temporary. Joy!

But that's not taking it far enough. I'm going to distribute liters of the stuff over the Internet and resort to hi-tech guerilla tactics. Anyone ever hear of "flash mobs"? Whenever you identify a smoker bothering you personally or an innocent bystander, just send out the message, brother. We will promptly converge on the offender - be all over him like ugly on Chelsea. We'll have to wear masks, of course. The entire spectacle will be as startling as the chemicals we're cramming down his throat! (Feel free to dress as a clowns, mimes, or pirates. We especially need clowns. People are scared of clowns.)

Smoking bans tend to congregate smokers by the entrances to buildings. This means that I have to walk through their clouds to get in or out.

I know of a couple college campuses that have created rules that go into effect this year prohibiting smoking within 25 feet of building entrance or exit. Smokers make it sound as though they're getting hauled off to concentration camps, though. Aw, poor babies. Have a good C-R-Y.

The government should have no say in what a private business owner wants to allow in his establishment. If the place sucks, people go somewhere else.

No say? No say? You can be the clown in regiment. Come dressed as you are. Never mind smoking, are you suggesting the government cannot impose now standard health and safety regulations? And if a diner says "No black people allowed!" well, that's also A-OK. According to the free-market, businesses that discriminate on the basis of race will immediately go bankrupt. Duh! And businesses that "discriminate" against inconsiderate bastard smokers will, uh, thrive or something. And if neither of those outcomes hold true? Big deal- it's a free-market.

"No, I don't mind if you smoke. Mind if I fart?" -- Steve Martin

[Tony]

A business is a private establishment, the (police) state has no place dictating how it should be run.

[Tormac]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
A happy capitalist environment has a lot of private business who run things their own way to create healthy competition.
The government should have no say in what a private business owner wants to allow in his establishment. If the place sucks, people go somewhere else.

I agree with the above post, though. I've worked several jobs with smoking co-workers. Every 15 minutes, they'd leave for another cigarette, while I only got my allotted break time. There were moments where I considered just buying a pack and holding on to a lit cigarette just to take a break.
Hey, but, managers usually notice stuff like that and act accordingly. If they see an employee working hard and another goofing off, they remember. And that's not karma, that's just what's fair.

I'm trying to find the dilbert cartoon where the bald guy with glasses invents the "eargarette", a cigarette for non-smokers that one places in the ear, to allow non-smokers to take a cigarette brake. The eargarette would be a lot safer than startign to smoke just for a brake :).

Does anyone remember when that dilbert came out?

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Tony
A business is a private establishment, the (police) state has no place dictating how it should be run.
How far are you wiling to push that line of reasoning? Suppose a 'private establishment' wished to sell sexual acts with minors, for instance, are you saying that would be none of the government's business?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Tony
A business is a private establishment, the (police) state has no place dictating how it should be run.

No say? So a business which sells heroin to six year olds is fine in your eyes?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


No say? So a business which sells heroin to six year olds is fine in your eyes?

I dont have a problem with it. Freedom entails such things.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
A happy capitalist environment has a lot of private business who run things their own way to create healthy competition.
The government should have no say in what a private business owner wants to allow in his establishment. If the place sucks, people go somewhere else.

Are you Shane Killian's sock puppet?

Seriously, not every town and village can support enough private businesses to create that sort of competition. What if there's only one restaurant in town and it allows smoking throughout?

There's this thing called society that many of us still care about. Businesses are making money out of the community, and I see nothing wrong with that community expecting some sort of standards, enforced through the law if necessary.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by svero
What is your feeling on laws that prohibit smoking in public places like restaurants, shopping malls etc.. Interested to hear what people have to say pro and con.

I'm a non smoker - have been all my life, but I don't particularly like anti-smoking laws. I feel for instance, that a restaurant owner should be free to have a smoking section if he wants to. I wont go on though. I'd rather like to hear what other people have to say first.

I agree. In fact, I'd take it one step further and ban smoking in all public places (including outdoors). People choose to go to a restaurant, but they can't always choose to avoid public areas.

I think a non-smoking section in all restaurants is a good idea, but I'm not sure that making it mandatory is necessary. I bet just about all restaurants would choose to have one on their own.

Jeremy

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Evolver

Why do most smokers just throw their butts out of their car windows on the highway? Is it because they don't want their ashtrays to smell as bad as their mouths?

(end of rant)

This is not true at all. In fact, I saw this car that was parked in our street once. The owner opened up the door, and tipped his full ashtray into the gutter. So, some smokers save up their butts to cause one big pile of litter, rather than many small pieces of it.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Tricky
Take a look at this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25670) before you get too wound up. A lot has already been said.
-----
edited to add:
And this one (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17467)

That's mighty white of you to include my thread in this Tricky (just kidding old pal).

I'm going to stay out of this one, though. I'd like it to fill up with people congratulating one another on how well they justify discrimination, when it is a socially acceptable kind of discrimination. God forbid they should indulge in any socially unacceptable form of discrimination. Did I say the word discrimination enough? OK, one more for the road ... "discrimination".

Have fun patting each other on the back until your arms fall off, folks.

[Cain]

I'm going to stay out of this one, though. I'd like it to fill up with people congratulating one another on how well they justify discrimination, when it is a socially acceptable kind of discrimination. God forbid they should indulge in any socially unacceptable form of discrimination. Did I say the word discrimination enough? OK, one more for the road ... "discrimination".

There is nothing wrong with discrimination per se. Plenty of dining establishments have signs declaring "No shirts, no shoes, no dice." A few will even discriminate against me for not wearing a necktie (and they can go f*ck themselves), but I'm sure you don't give a sh*t about such dress codes (for some reason I can't picture Pepto pointing a finger in outrage, "They're discriminating against poor people!") The over-priced food already discriminates against low-income folks. Fine, fine. There's nothing inherently wrong with discrimination.

The bad type of discrimination is arbitrary discrimination. Refusing to admit a person into a restaurant because she's gay, or because he's black, or some other stupid reason. Now, I fail to see how laws protecting me -- and employees, more importantly -- against your unhealthy, unwanted smoke is arbitrary.

On the other hand, smokers should be adamantly opposed to anyone who tells me stop spraying my special chemical concotion. The consequences of my actions are utterly indistinguishable from smoking. I can claim -- with considerably more justification -- arbitrary discrimination.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Cain


There is nothing wrong with discrimination per se. Plenty of dining establishments have signs declaring "No shirts, no shoes, no dice." A few will even discriminate against me for not wearing a necktie (and they can go f*ck themselves), but I'm sure you don't give a sh*t about such dress codes (for some reason I can't picture Pepto pointing a finger in outrage, "They're discriminating against poor people!") The over-priced food already discriminates against low-income folks. Fine, fine. There's nothing inherently wrong with discrimination.

The bad type of discrimination is arbitrary discrimination. Refusing to admit a person into a restaurant because she's gay, or because he's black, or some other stupid reason. Now, I fail to see how laws protecting me -- and employees, more importantly -- against your unhealthy, unwanted smoke is arbitrary.

On the other hand, smokers should be adamantly opposed to anyone who tells me stop spraying my special chemical concotion. The consequences of my actions are utterly indistinguishable from smoking. I can claim -- with considerably more justification -- arbitrary discrimination.

Notice how you let the business decide who they want to serve, which is something all the pro smokers agree with. The problem comes up when there is a law that says "No shirts, no shoes, no dice."

[Cain]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Notice how you let the business decide who they want to serve, which is something all the pro smokers agree with. The problem comes up when there is a law that says "No shirts, no shoes, no dice."

The primary rationale for anti-smoking laws arises from the need for worker safety. These initiatives enjoy widespread popularity because most people are fed up with cigarette smoking causing their eyes to itch and clothes to stink. Nevertheless, you're missing the point: I have no problem with those signs because they're not completely arbitrary. Remember how we're sorta kinda discussing arbitrary discrimination? I would have a problem with a sign that said "No ******* Allowed."

But let's get back to my hypothetical spray one more time. On what grounds can an owner allow smokers to stink up the joint, yet still prevent me from misting others with my special formula? If you answer, "by virtue of the fact that she's the owner," then you're just an apologist for authoritarian structures and your putatively liberty-based criticisms of state intervention on this issue are as hollow as they are arbitrary.

And isn't that precisely what smokers detest-- the arbitrary discrimination? Uh-huh. Got it.

[Evolver]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


This is not true at all. In fact, I saw this car that was parked in our street once. The owner opened up the door, and tipped his full ashtray into the gutter. So, some smokers save up their butts to cause one big pile of litter, rather than many small pieces of it.

Yep. You're right. Not ALL smokers toss their butts out the window. But why does it seem like every car I get behind on the highway has a driver that does it?

[Evolver]

Originally posted by Cain




But let's get back to my hypothetical spray one more time. On what grounds can an owner allow smokers to stink up the joint, yet still prevent me from misting others with my special formula? If you answer, "by virtue of the fact that she's the owner," then you're just an apologist for authoritarian structures and your putatively liberty-based criticisms of state intervention on this issue are as hollow as they are arbitrary.

And isn't that precisely what smokers detest-- the arbitrary discrimination? Uh-huh. Got it.

In my first post, I made mention that a restaurant owner should be allowed to have whatever legal behavior he wants in his esablishment. If you spray some unwanted substance on patrons, I believe that constitues assault. This would also rule out selling heroin and child prostitutes.

[Evolver]

Originally posted by Evolver


In my first post, I made mention that a restaurant owner should be allowed to have whatever legal behavior he wants in his esablishment. If you spray some unwanted substance on patrons, I believe that constitues assault. This would also rule out selling heroin and child prostitutes.

With the above stated, I still don't eat at restaurants where I have to breathe smoke. Unfortunately, I also can't see most of my favorite bands when they play in nightclubs. That's the price I must pay to stay alive.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by Evolver
If you spray some unwanted substance on patrons, I believe that constitues assault. This would also rule out selling heroin and child prostitutes.

Okay, so he sprays his mystery carcinogen into the air and it drifts onto the patrons. Still assault?

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Evolver
In my first post, I made mention that a restaurant owner should be allowed to have whatever legal behavior he wants in his esablishment. If you spray some unwanted substance on patrons, I believe that constitues assault. This would also rule out selling heroin and child prostitutes.
Which gets right to the point of his thought experiment: those are exactly the effects caused by smoking on others nearby. Does smoking then qualify as assault?

[Evolver]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist


Okay, so he sprays his mystery carcinogen into the air and it drifts onto the patrons. Still assault?

Yup.

[Evolver]

My point is smoking is still a socially acceptable (yet disgusting) habit. Spraying chemicals in the air is not. Restaurants schedule exterminators when the place is closed so that 1) diners will not think the place is infested and 2) diners won't get sprayed with Cain's juice :)
People in department stores who spray unknowing customers with perfumes have been charged with a crime. How is this different?

[toddjh]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
Which gets right to the point of his thought experiment: those are exactly the effects caused by smoking on others nearby. Does smoking then qualify as assault?

While I can see the point of the thought experiment, I think it's a little misleading. It doesn't address the question of intent. People smoke because it gives them pleasure, biologically. The intent of smoking is pretty clear. On the other hand, what's the intent of spraying carcinogens into the air? What would lead a person to do it? I can't think of anything other than a desire to cause harm to others. Intent is a big part of criminal law.

Now, as a civil matter, I think you could make a fair case that a person exposed to a carcinogen, from whatever source, should be entitled to compensation. However, that case is weakened significantly when the "victim" chooses to go to an establishment where he knows he will be exposed to it. This is another area where the thought experiment breaks down, because people can reasonably expect to encounter smoke in a restaurant, but I don't think anyone would expect to get sprayed by some random carcinogen.

In any case, it should still be up to the restaurant owner to decide whether to allow smoking. If someone gets exposed to smoke and doesn't like it, that's strictly between him and the smoker. The restaurant has nothing to do with it.

Jeremy

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by toddjh
While I can see the point of the thought experiment, I think it's a little misleading. It doesn't address the question of intent. People smoke because it gives them pleasure, biologically. The intent of smoking is pretty clear.

On the other hand, it's pretty hard to make a convincing argument in 2003 that you're UNAWARE of the hazards of smoking. "I was just doing it because I like it and I had no idea that it could hurt anyone" might have sounded more legitimate 50 years ago than it does today.


On the other hand, what's the intent of spraying carcinogens into the air? What would lead a person to do it? I can't think of anything other than a desire to cause harm to others. Intent is a big part of criminal law.


Then modify Cain's experiment slightly. Give the carcinogen a pleasant odor. Heck, make it addictive. :)

Is it okay now?

[AfaintcoldcupofTea..]

I prefer that nobody smokes while I am eating my meal. So the law restricting smoking in restaurants is acceptable to me.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by toddjh

This is another area where the thought experiment breaks down, because people can reasonably expect to encounter smoke in a restaurant, but I don't think anyone would expect to get sprayed by some random carcinogen.

Sorry, but the whole point of this discussion is whether it is reasonable or not to expect to be infiltrated with smoke in restaurants, so this argument of yours is question-begging.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
Sorry, but the whole point of this discussion is whether it is reasonable or not to expect to be infiltrated with smoke in restaurants, so this argument of yours is question-begging.

I don't see how. It's a matter of informed consent. A reasonable person going to a restaurant knows there's a good chance he'll be exposed to cigarette smoke. Whether he likes it or not, he knows. He chooses to go anyway, therefore he obviously considers the risk acceptable.

Until people spraying random carcinogens becomes as commonplace as smoking, there's simply no comparison. A person cannot give informed consent about something if he doesn't know to expect it.

Jeremy

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist
On the other hand, it's pretty hard to make a convincing argument in 2003 that you're UNAWARE of the hazards of smoking. "I was just doing it because I like it and I had no idea that it could hurt anyone" might have sounded more legitimate 50 years ago than it does today.

Then modify Cain's experiment slightly. Give the carcinogen a pleasant odor. Heck, make it addictive. :)

Is it okay now?

"Not okay" is a far cry from "bad enough to curtail civil liberties." I don't like smoking, and I think smokers tend to be on the rude side (often without even realizing it). Like I said in an earlier post, I even think smoking should be banned in public so that people going about their business aren't forced to breathe other people's noxious fumes. But if they choose to go to a private establishment that has decided to allow smoking, that's their own business.

Jeremy

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by toddjh
However, that case is weakened significantly when the "victim" chooses to go to an establishment where he knows he will be exposed to it. This is another area where the thought experiment breaks down, because people can reasonably expect to encounter smoke in a restaurant, but I don't think anyone would expect to get sprayed by some random carcinogen.

Jeremy

But the smoker has chosen (by smoking) to be in an environment with carcinogens present. Surely he must therefore "reasonably expect to encounter" carcinogens, and the fact they are from a spray is irrelevant.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
But the smoker has chosen (by smoking) to be in an environment with carcinogens present. Surely he must therefore "reasonably expect to encounter" carcinogens, and the fact they are from a spray is irrelevant.

Hmm? I wasn't talking about a smoker specifically, just any old person.

Jeremy

[Tricky]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


That's mighty white of you to include my thread in this Tricky (just kidding old pal).

No problem, old chum. People just can't get enough of this issue, can they?

Some of 'em have a two-and-a-half posts a day habit.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by Tricky

No problem, old chum. People just can't get enough of this issue, can they?

Some of 'em have a two-and-a-half posts a day habit.

Well, it beats the endless threads about Israel.

[Cain]

Evolver writes:
In my first post, I made mention that a restaurant owner should be allowed to have whatever legal behavior he wants in his esablishment. If you spray some unwanted substance on patrons, I believe that constitues assault. This would also rule out selling heroin and child prostitutes.

Why can't a person blowing their unwanted smoke on me be considered assault? Honestly, I don't even need to create this mystery substance. I could probably spray water and simply inform curious patrons that it causes their clothes to smell and eyes to itch. After one person sniffs suspiciously and scratches her eye-ball, I'm sure an autocatalytic positive feed back loop -- one part placebo effect, one part group dynamics -- will take hold. I'll probably get wrestled to the floor by a mob of hypochondriacs.

My point is smoking is still a socially acceptable (yet disgusting) habit.

Au contraire! anti-smoking movements prove otherwise. If you acknowledge that spraying a substance identical in its effects to smoking should be illegal because it's socially unaccepted, then by identical reasoning you're forced to accept popular new smoking laws. I suppose you could insist on some pre-prescribed super-majority-- which is probably arbitrary anyway. Maybe 95% of people disapprove of a spray, while only 80% disapprove of smoking. Or maybe there's an esoteric utilitarian calculus in operation: smokers derive a positive benefit out of their disgusting habit, where as nobody benefits from a carcinogenic spray, so cost-benefit calculations turn out different. Fair enough, but the moral premise is categorically different than the one conventionally offered.

_________________________

Todd writes:
People smoke because it gives them pleasure, biologically. The intent of smoking is pretty clear. On the other hand, what's the intent of spraying carcinogens into the air? What would lead a person to do it? I can't think of anything other than a desire to cause harm to others. Intent is a big part of criminal law.

I disagree. It's probably true that most people smoke for physical pleasure. Nonetheless, we might also agree a few people -- definitely not a majority -- smoke because it makes them look "cool". Or they're social smokers. And even if their intent is not to harm others, they willfully smoke knowing otherwise. Armed robbers do not usually enter a bank with the intention of killing anyone. Indeed, if they possess minimal intelligence strict measures are taken to reduce the chances of killing anyone (if only out of pure self-interest). Still, they go in knowing murder is a real possibility.

Smokers knowingly harm and annoy others.

A person armed with an imaginary carcinogenic spray probably doesn't have malicious intentions either. She's only trying to make a point; expose hypocrisy.

This is another area where the thought experiment breaks down, because people can reasonably expect to encounter smoke in a restaurant, but I don't think anyone would expect to get sprayed by some random carcinogen.

I think the word "random" gives a misleading impression. Fine. Since the chemical is pure fiction, let's just assume it's widely known. After the initial publicity of a Florida man appearing before a judge for assaulting patrons at the Gator bar off highway 12, the spray's sale on the Internet becomes known to all reasonably informed citizens. Anyone who has opened a newspaper or listened to talk radio has heard someone talk about the stuff. (We know the real-world is far messier. Currently we everyone agrees that we KNOW the exact effects. But in the real world we could expect some groups charging "unknown long term effects" and so on. Maybe there will also be "spray skeptics" who say the chemical does nothing.) This objection in these parapraphs seem to echo evolver's in their appeal to social norms.

Of course, the final paragraph makes your position clear:

In any case, it should still be up to the restaurant owner to decide whether to allow smoking. If someone gets exposed to smoke and doesn't like it, that's strictly between him and the smoker. The restaurant has nothing to do with it.

In order to be consistent with previous objections under nearly identical circumstances, I would be forced to regard the actions of that smoker as "assault."

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Tormac
I'm trying to find the dilbert cartoon where the bald guy with glasses invents the "eargarette", a cigarette for non-smokers that one places in the ear, to allow non-smokers to take a cigarette brake. The eargarette would be a lot safer than startign to smoke just for a brake :).

Does anyone remember when that dilbert came out? By putting such a strange term into Google, a few seconds later I found this:
Eargarette Cartoon (http://members.aol.com/infkthetruth/pics/dilbert_eargarette.jpg).

[Evolver]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cain
[B]



Au contraire! anti-smoking movements prove otherwise. If you acknowledge that spraying a substance identical in its effects to smoking should be illegal because it's socially unaccepted, then by identical reasoning you're forced to accept popular new smoking laws.


Evolver writes:
I get your point. Maybe socially acceptable is not the correct term. The fact that it's legal behavior does not quite cover it either. But the fact is, people have been enjoying smoking with their food for generations. It's not my place to tell them they shouldn't be able to do it. It's not my place to tell restaurant owners to allow it or disallow it. It is my place to find out if a restaurant is smoking or non-smoking before I go, and decide to dine there with that as part of the criteria I use.

[Evolver]

Please be patient with me. While I've been reading messages here for months, I'm brand new to posting, and have not yet gotten the hang of using quotes from other messages.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Evolver

Evolver writes:
I get your point. Maybe socially acceptable is not the correct term. The fact that it's legal behavior does not quite cover it either. But the fact is, people have been enjoying smoking with their food for generations. It's not my place to tell them they shouldn't be able to do it. It's not my place to tell restaurant owners to allow it or disallow it. It is my place to find out if a restaurant is smoking or non-smoking before I go, and decide to dine there with that as part of the criteria I use.
This reduces your argument to one of inertia. This is handled in format debate by declaration of "fiat". Suppose a world in which restaurant smoking is legal exists. I wave my hand, it is so. Now restrict your arguments to whether this world is inferior or superior to the alternate world.

[Evolver]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

This reduces your argument to one of inertia. This is handled in format debate by declaration of "fiat". Suppose a world in which restaurant smoking is legal exists. I wave my hand, it is so. Now restrict your arguments to whether this world is inferior or superior to the alternate world.

That depends... is the alternate world ruled by "W" too?:wink:

[Evolver]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

This reduces your argument to one of inertia. This is handled in format debate by declaration of "fiat". Suppose a world in which restaurant smoking is legal exists. I wave my hand, it is so. Now restrict your arguments to whether this world is inferior or superior to the alternate world.

Smoking IS legal in most towns where I live. However, in most towns, restaurants have to have a non-smoking area.

In fact, a large number of places have become all non-smoking voluntarily. And it doesn't seem to hurt their business.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Evolver


Smoking IS legal in most towns where I live. However, in most towns, restaurants have to have a non-smoking area.

In fact, a large number of places have become all non-smoking voluntarily. And it doesn't seem to hurt their business.

Then why bother wasting time and money making it a law?

[Evolver]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Then why bother wasting time and money making it a law?

Yes, I agree. Why bother?

[asthmatic camel]

I confess, I'm a miserable, disgusting, weak-willed smoker. I regret having started smoking, wouldn't advise anyone else to do so and wish I could quit the habit.

Having said that, I do think that the anti-smoking zealots lack a sense of perspective. For example, when dining at a non-smoking restaurant, I have no difficulty wandering outside for my post-prandial cigarette. Whilst inhaling, I am often glared at by non-smokers who have just arrived in their gas guzzling 4x4s which pump out far greater quantities of toxic fumes than my cigarette ever will. (I cycle or walk everywhere *smug*)

Isn't it time we poor smokers were allowed some pity rather than condemnation ?

Yours wheezily,

AC.

[Cain]

asthmatic camel, while I generally find myself in agreeement with the sentiments expressed they are irrelevant to the central topic (worse, possibly bordering on ad hominem).

Besides, I think there's a significant overlap among the non/anti-SUV and the non/anti-smoking crowds.

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by Cain
asthmatic camel, while I generally find myself in agreeement with the sentiments expressed they are irrelevant to the central topic (worse, possibly bordering on ad hominem).

Besides, I think there's a significant overlap among the non/anti-SUV and the non/anti-smoking crowds.

Any less relevant than an imaginary carcinogen spray ? My point is that I, like most smokers, appreciate that my habit is irritating to others and act accordingly. I do not believe that legislation is required here, merely common courtesy.

Vehicle emissions stink and cause illness; am I asking for a ban on driving ? No. It's one of life's annoyances that I can tolerate.

Birth inevitably leads to suffering and death, perhaps we should legislate against that too.

Wheezy regards,

AC.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel
My point is that I, like most smokers, appreciate that my habit is irritating to others and act accordingly. I do not believe that legislation is required here, merely common courtesy.

Then why is it I only ever come across smokers from the discourteous minority?

My impression is that a lot of smokers simply don't understand non-smokers attitudes. People have often assumed they can smoke in my house when visiting, and been surprised when I object. They often offer to "sit next to the window" or "just have the one" as if that makes it OK.

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


Then why is it I only ever come across smokers from the discourteous minority?

My impression is that a lot of smokers simply don't understand non-smokers attitudes. People have often assumed they can smoke in my house when visiting, and been surprised when I object. They often offer to "sit next to the window" or "just have the one" as if that makes it OK.

I can't speak for all smokers but I always ask for permission to smoke, whether from the owner of the house I'm visiting or from diners at adjoining tables in a restaurant. Perhaps it's a peculiarly Scottish problem.

Yours in an iron lung,

AC.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel


I can't speak for all smokers but I always ask for permission to smoke, whether from the owner of the house I'm visiting or from diners at adjoining tables in a restaurant. Perhaps it's a peculiarly Scottish problem.

Yours in an iron lung,

AC.

Nope happened when I lived in London as well with guests from all over. And I don't think I've ever been asked in a restaurant in France if I mind if someone at an adjoining table smokes.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


Then why is it I only ever come across smokers from the discourteous minority?

My impression is that a lot of smokers simply don't understand non-smokers attitudes. People have often assumed they can smoke in my house when visiting, and been surprised when I object. They often offer to "sit next to the window" or "just have the one" as if that makes it OK.

Fortunately, Australia is now pretty well politically correct. Most smokers assume that when they are in a house where no one smokes inside, (and you can tell pretty quickly if people do or not), then you don't smoke in that house, but go outside for a smoko.

Now, they might bitch amongst each other about it, but they follow the etiquette. My son has a friend whose parents smoke, and are quite indignant about people complaining about them smoking in their own house. I am an asthmatic, so I can't stand going into their house for a start, but I also don't like my son being exposed to the smoke in their house when he goes there for a sleepover.

[Evolver]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel


I can't speak for all smokers but I always ask for permission to smoke, whether from the owner of the house I'm visiting or from diners at adjoining tables in a restaurant. Perhaps it's a peculiarly Scottish problem.

Yours in an iron lung,

AC.

No, it's not a Scottish problem. Here in the good ol' USA, some people will ask, but most will not. At least in public places. Even at Disney World, where smoking is restricted to various leper areas, you can find addicts lighting up in lots of corners. Don't they know Mickey is watching them?:wink:

[Wile E. Coyote]

Most establishments are reluctant to ban smoking completely for fear of losing business. I am glad the government stepped in and said, "Don't worry, we'll make the choice for you." Yoink!

Smoking is really an assault on me. I become sick to my stomach, my eyes burn, and my nose starts to run when I am around it.

Would it be OK for me to mix a little bit of my vodka in with everyone's drinks in a restaurant? I do not think there is a law against giving alcohol to other adults without consent (is there?). They could just stop drinking whatever they have. Hey, I'm drinking! So why shouldn't everyone else?

Smoking is only an acceptable assault on others because of tradition. Is that a good enough reason to allow this assault to carry on?

[BillyTK]

I am a victim of matriarchal totalitarian feminazism as I am not allowed to smoke in my home because my wife makes girly complaints that it's smelly, stains the wallpaper and makes her cough. Even my cats shun me if I have a sneaky one inside when my wife's out (felinazis!).

I feel my fundamental human rights are being violated by an increasingly obtrusive nanny state. Hell, I don't b*tch if people don't exercise this right, nor do I get abusive if they don't have a light or a cigarette for me to scrounge, and I don't complain when drivers get abusive because I don't have the stamina to cross the road before the green man disappears (okay, so I don't actually have enough breath to).

People should have the right to live their lives as they wish without government constantly encroaching on them. So if restaurant owners want my business, well they can find me in ward 14, in the bed at the end with the ventilator.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Wile E. Coyote


Smoking is really an assault on me. I become sick to my stomach, my eyes burn, and my nose starts to run when I am around it.




Then why don’t you leave? You have that right you know, or have you too, been lobotomized by the police state?

[MoeFaux]

Just to mix it up a little...
Did anyone see P&T's "Bullsh*t" about second hand smoke?

I'd also like to take this opportunity to say, isn't my smokin' parrot avatar adorable?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
Just to mix it up a little...
Did anyone see P&T's "Bullsh*t" about second hand smoke?

I'd also like to take this opportunity to say, isn't my smokin' parrot avatar adorable?

Heck yeah. One of the best shows on TV -- I hope ShowTime will air more episodes -- and that episode in particular was good. I generally enjoy P&T's work, saw them in Vegas, great act.