PDA

View Full Version : Smoking Bans and Simple Ethics


corplinx
8th December 2003, 04:08 PM
In my ethics classes we learned about a simple principle called reciprocity. It ties in with a baloney detection term we call inconsistency. This ties into the smoking ban in private establishments debate nicely.

Yes we have had these smoking ban threads before but I thought this article by Dr. Walter E. Williams (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/03/harm.html) has some spin on the subject that even I had not though of.

Quote:
If you owned a restaurant, and did not allow smoking, wouldn't you find it offensive if a law were enacted requiring you to permit smoking? I'm guessing you'd deem such a law tyranny. After all, you'd probably conclude, it's your restaurant and if you don't want smoking it's your right. Similarly, I'd deem it just as offensive if smoking were allowed in my restaurant and a law was enacted banning smoking in restaurants.

Glory
8th December 2003, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by corplinx
In my ethics classes we learned about a simple principle called reciprocity. It ties in with a baloney detection term we call inconsistency. This ties into the smoking ban in private establishments debate nicely.

Yes we have had these smoking ban threads before but I thought this article by Dr. Walter E. Williams (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/03/harm.html) has some spin on the subject that even I had not though of.

Quote:


All things being equal I'd agree but things aren't equal. Try wording it this way. If I owned a restaurant which did not allow patrons to poison other patrons and the staff of the restaurant I would find it offensive if a law were passed which required me to allow patrons to poison other people in the restaurant. I would find it equally offensive if I owned a restaurant in which poisoning was allowed and a law were passed which makes it illegal to poison other patrons.

Smoking cigarettes is harmful to innocent bystanders and particularly so in enclosed spaces. So, these laws are as reasonable as any laws prohibiting the purposeful or reckless endangerment of others.

Glory

corplinx
8th December 2003, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by Glory

Smoking cigarettes is harmful to innocent bystanders and particularly so in enclosed spaces. So, these laws are as reasonable as any laws prohibiting the purposeful or reckless endangerment of others.

Glory

Thank you for demonstrating something called rationalization.

corplinx
8th December 2003, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by Glory


Try wording it this way.

Try wording it this way.

Quote Williams from another article:

If the owner wishes his restaurant to be smoke-free, it is his right. Whether a smoker is harmed or inconvenienced by not being allowed to smoke in his restaurant is irrelevant. Similarly, if a restaurant owner wishes to permit smoking, it is his right and whether a nonsmoker is harmed or annoyed is also irrelevant. In the interest of minimizing possible harm either way, it might be appropriate for restaurant owners, by way of a sign or other notice, to inform prospective customers of their respective smoking policy. That way customers can decide whether to enter upon the premises.

EvilYeti
8th December 2003, 04:49 PM
I'll support lifting any smoking ban as soon as someone can explain to me how having smoke blown in my face isn't assault.

Tony
8th December 2003, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by EvilYeti
I'll support lifting any smoking ban as soon as someone can explain to me how having smoke blown in my face isn't assault.

Who blows smoke in your face? It could mean one of two things, either they want to phuck you, or they want to kick your ass.

corplinx
8th December 2003, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by EvilYeti
I'll support lifting any smoking ban as soon as someone can explain to me how having smoke blown in my face isn't assault.

I guess we should ban driving in places in with falling rocks. Yes, we put up a "warning falling rocks" sign but you know the danger and drive on the road anyway you might get hit by a rock.

Mind you, thats not even good analogy since a private restaurant should be regulated less than a public road.

If simple ethics isn't good enough for you to oppose smoking bans in private restaurants then my guess is argueing with you won't be successful despite the arguement.

The people who support bans have this attitude of:
yes it is unethical
yes it is totalitarian
yes the scientific basis for it is flimsy
......but i hate smoke!

Remember that to truely protect freedom you must support it even when it is used in ways offensive to you. If you say you believe in free speech and you want to ban flag burning you are inconsistent. You may hate smoke but you should vigorously defend the right of the restaurant owner to choose whether or not its allowed on his premises.

EvilYeti
8th December 2003, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by Tony

Who blows smoke in your face? It could mean one of two things, either they want to phuck you, or they want to kick your ass.

If you are in a crowded bar, i.e. standing room only, it's inevitable. The smoke has to go into someones face.

So is it assault or not?

corplinx
8th December 2003, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by EvilYeti


If you are in a crowded bar, i.e. standing room only, it's inevitable. The smoke has to go into someones face.

So is it assault or not?

Is it assault if you run onto a busy highway at rush hour and get hit by a car?

Duh.

Grammatron
8th December 2003, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by EvilYeti
I'll support lifting any smoking ban as soon as someone can explain to me how having smoke blown in my face isn't assault.

Is it assault if someone exhales in your direction? The reason I am asking is because it's about as harmful.

MoeFaux
8th December 2003, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by EvilYeti


If you are in a crowded bar, i.e. standing room only, it's inevitable. The smoke has to go into someones face.

So is it assault or not?

Yeti, come on, it's not assault. That's like saying, "I've been assaulted" when you hear a swear word. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's assault. You just deal with it and go on.
Now, if someone tied you down forcefully, and THEN blew smoke in your face, that's assault. But when you're going somewhere willingly, it's just not.

EvilYeti
8th December 2003, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by corplinx

Remember that to truely protect freedom you must support it even when it is used in ways offensive to you. If you say you believe in free speech and you want to ban flag burning you are inconsistent. You may hate smoke but you should vigorously defend the right of the restaurant owner to choose whether or not its allowed on his premises.

But I want to be free to breathe clean air!

If I want to breathe clean air, and you infringe on that right by smoking, how does that support my freedom?

If one smoker pollutes the air of one hundred fresh air breathers, does that strike you as ethical? Sounds pretty totalitarian to me, one man forcing his will onto a hundred others without their consent. And completely inconsistient with freedom.

As usual, this isn't about freedom. It's about freedom for the chosen few, that you dictate.


Remember that to truely protect freedom you must support it even when it is used in ways offensive to you. If you say you believe in free speech and you want to ban flag burning you are inconsistent. You may hate smoke but you should vigorously defend the right of the restaurant owner to choose whether or not its allowed on his premises.


So smokers should support my freedom to breathe clean air by not smoking in my presence. Since they are too selfish and stupid to respect my freedom, laws had to be passed to FORCE them to respect my freedom. Even though it's offensive to them. Thanks for proving my point!

arcticpenguin
8th December 2003, 05:34 PM
If you owned a restaurant, and did not allow smoking, wouldn't you find it offensive if a law were enacted requiring you to permit smoking? I'm guessing you'd deem such a law tyranny. After all, you'd probably conclude, it's your restaurant and if you don't want smoking it's your right. Similarly, I'd deem it just as offensive if smoking were allowed in my restaurant and a law was enacted banning smoking in restaurants.
If you owned a coal mine, and wished to hire 12 year old boys to work there at a wage of 10 cents a day, and some guvmint agency told you you couldn't run your mine your way, wouldn't you call that tyranny?

Grammatron
8th December 2003, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by EvilYeti


But I want to be free to breathe clean air!

If I want to breathe clean air, and you infringe on that right by smoking, how does that support my freedom?

If one smoker pollutes the air of one hundred fresh air breathers, does that strike you as ethical? Sounds pretty totalitarian to me, one man forcing his will onto a hundred others without their consent. And completely inconsistient with freedom.

As usual, this isn't about freedom. It's about freedom for the chosen few, that you dictate.


Remember that to truely protect freedom you must support it even when it is used in ways offensive to you. If you say you believe in free speech and you want to ban flag burning you are inconsistent. You may hate smoke but you should vigorously defend the right of the restaurant owner to choose whether or not its allowed on his premises.


So smokers should support my freedom to breathe clean air by not smoking in my presence. Since they are too selfish and stupid to respect my freedom, laws had to be passed to FORCE them to respect my freedom. Even though it's offensive to them. Thanks for proving my point!

You are right, everybody should stop driving and flying in airplanes. How dare they impose not-so-clean air onto me!

Glory
8th December 2003, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by corplinx


Try wording it this way.

Quote Williams from another article:



People have to work in the restaurant as well. Being willing to be poisoned is not a reasonable job requirement.

Glory

Luciana
8th December 2003, 05:45 PM
I don't smoke. But I refuse to get worked up because of it. It's just a matter of ethics (don't blow smoke on my face) and tolerance (each of us are guilty of inconveniencing others at some point).

Car exhausts bother me much more. It stinks and pollutes the air. Clean air??? That's utopia, at least in large cities.

I have a coworker who loves to complain about other people's cigarettes. He drives 80Km to and from work everyday. Tell me, who is contributing more to air pollution, him or the smoker? I don't know, really, I wish I knew, but something tells me he should not throw stones in someone's glass roof.

If I'm to get all worked up because of smoke from cigars, I also demand, for example, strict regulations on personal hygiene, as some people just start to stink at some point during the day. What about noise pollution? Why don't some people talk lower and stop honking their horns? We can't find a limit in some situations. I certainly don't want the government to regulate these things, even though they bother me.

Glory
8th December 2003, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by MoeFaux


Yeti, come on, it's not assault. That's like saying, "I've been assaulted" when you hear a swear word. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's assault. You just deal with it and go on.
Now, if someone tied you down forcefully, and THEN blew smoke in your face, that's assault. But when you're going somewhere willingly, it's just not.

Swear words doesn't cause cancer or emphysema or heart disease. Swear words don't kill. Cigarette smoke does and it doesn't confine its killing to the one who has chosen to smoke. Walking into a restaurant does not make you fair game for someone's poison.

Glory

WildCat
8th December 2003, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by arcticpenguin

If you owned a coal mine, and wished to hire 12 year old boys to work there at a wage of 10 cents a day, and some guvmint agency told you you couldn't run your mine your way, wouldn't you call that tyranny?
Good luck finding a 12 yr. old boy to work for 10 cents a day. Good luck finding grown men to work for 100X that. According to this (http://www.msha.gov/REGS/FEDREG/PROPOSED/1997PROP/97-33935.HTM) coal miners in the US averaged $26/hr in 1997. So if you're claiming that coal miners would be making 10 centa a day were it not for minimum wage laws you're dreaming.

WildCat
8th December 2003, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by Glory


People have to work in the restaurant as well. Being willing to be poisoned is not a reasonable job requirement.

Glory
Any evidence that 2nd hand smoke amounts to poisoning? Or affects the average persons health in any way?

WildCat
8th December 2003, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by EvilYeti


If you are in a crowded bar, i.e. standing room only, it's inevitable. The smoke has to go into someones face.

So is it assault or not?
What about perfume and cologne? Hair spray? Scented candles? Bad breath? Scented laundry detergent? Perhaps these should be illegal also?

Glory
8th December 2003, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by Grammatron


You are right, everybody should stop driving and flying in airplanes. How dare they impose not-so-clean air onto me!

There is a demonstrable benefit to driving and flying in planes to the majority of people in the world. There is no such benefit to smoking cigarettes. In fact, there is no demonstrable benefit to smoking what so ever.

Glory

Glory
8th December 2003, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by WildCat

What about perfume and cologne? Hair spray? Scented candles? Bad breath? Scented laundry detergent? Perhaps these should be illegal also?

If they cause cancer and heart disease and birth defects and asthma yes, they should.

Glory

J Coplen
8th December 2003, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by WildCat

Any evidence that 2nd hand smoke amounts to poisoning? Or affects the average persons health in any way?

Yeah, what you say. :)

Luciana
8th December 2003, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by Glory
There is a demonstrable benefit to driving and flying in planes to the majority of people in the world. There is no such benefit to smoking cigarettes. In fact, there is no demonstrable benefit to smoking what so ever.


Playing devil's advocate...

Cigarretes give pleasure to people. True, most people now realize they must quit smoking for health reasons, but they have started for some reason, they were not forced. And some people just like it, end of story.

And why should the benefits of flying be greater than those of people who choose to smoke? Each to his own. There should be respect for those who like flying and for those who like smoking, for whatever reasons in both cases.

Again: I don't like smoke either! But I can't understand the indignation of the anti-cigarette crowd.

J Coplen
8th December 2003, 06:18 PM
Ex-smokers are the most vehement against smoking. Who'd figure?

EvilYeti
8th December 2003, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by WildCat

What about perfume and cologne? Hair spray? Scented candles? Bad breath? Scented laundry detergent? Perhaps these should be illegal also?

You forgot public flatulence.

EvilYeti
8th December 2003, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by J Coplen
Ex-smokers are the most vehement against smoking. Who'd figure?

Probably because we know all the excuses that smokers use are just bullsh!t, as we used to make them ourselves.

Smokers are doing no more than selfishly feeding a destructive habit to the detriment of those around them. No need to encourage that, or allow them to inconvienence others.

J Coplen
8th December 2003, 06:27 PM
EvilYeti,

You're right. I am working on quitting smoking. Not very easy.

Glory
8th December 2003, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by WildCat

Any evidence that 2nd hand smoke amounts to poisoning? Or affects the average persons health in any way?

Yes, the World Health Organisation, the AMA, and virtually every other major medical organisation in the world agree that passive smoke poses a a substantial risk to the general population and that this risk is the direct result of it's being toxic.

Discovery Health (http://health.discovery.com/newsbreak/focus/sids.html)

And here (http://www.nsra-adnf.ca/news_info.php?cPath=23&news_id=104)

• Consultation Report
World Health Organization
Executive Summary
The Consultation concluded that ETS is a real and substantial threat to child health, causing death and suffering throughout the world. ETS exposure causes a wide variety of adverse health effects in children, including lower respiratory tract infections such as pneumonia and bronchitis, coughing and wheezing, worsening of asthma, and middle ear disease. Childrens' exposure to environmental tobacco smoke may also contribute to cardiovascular disease in adulthood and to neurobehavioural impairment.
The Consultation also concluded that maternal smoking during pregnancy is a major cause of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and other well-documented health effects, including reduced birth weight and decreased lung function. In addition, the Consultation noted that ETS exposure among nonsmoking pregnant women can cause a decrease in birth weight and that infant exposure to ETS may contribute to the risk of SIDS.
And
• Department of Health, UK (1998)
Conclusions:

Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is a cause of lung cancer and, in those with long term exposure, the increased risk is in the order of 20-30%.

Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is a cause of ischaemic heart disease and, if current published estimates of magnitude of relative risk are validated, such exposure represents a substantial public health hazard.

Glory

J Coplen
8th December 2003, 06:32 PM
Glory,

thankies! :)

I got some reading to do now.

Glory
8th December 2003, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by Luciana Nery


Playing devil's advocate...

Cigarretes give pleasure to people. True, most people now realize they must quit smoking for health reasons, but they have started for some reason, they were not forced. And some people just like it, end of story.

And why should the benefits of flying be greater than those of people who choose to smoke? Each to his own. There should be respect for those who like flying and for those who like smoking, for whatever reasons in both cases.

Again: I don't like smoke either! But I can't understand the indignation of the anti-cigarette crowd.

No disrespect. If people want to smoke they can do it to death as far as I am concerned so long as they don't subject me or my child or other innoocents to the risks of their pleasure.

Equating smoking with flying is not worth refuting. They are not comparable in risks to health or benefits.

Glory

EvilYeti
8th December 2003, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by J Coplen
EvilYeti,

You're right. I am working on quitting smoking. Not very easy.

Good for you. I had the best luck by rationing my cigs then gradually cutting down. Also, until you have quit for good avoid your jerkoff friends who keep offering you smokes!

Luciana
8th December 2003, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by Glory

No disrespect. If people want to smoke they can do it to death as far as I am concerned so long as they don't subject me or my child or other innoocents to the risks of their pleasure.

Cool.

Equating smoking with flying is not worth refuting. They are not comparable in risks to health or benefits.


I didn't equate anything. But flying is also a source of pollution, as is driving. I believe you're moving the goalposts. Is pollution ok as long as it's worth it, in your scale of values? Should tourism - flying and driving by pleasure - be stopped?

Why sort out smoking?? I really don't get it. What a stupid cause. I guess it was chosen because it's such an easy target. Anyway. Why not prohibit alcohol? Drunk people endanger other people's lives all the time. They also talk loud/pick up fights/vomit, etc.

I'm speaking in terms of tolerance. We all inconvenience one another at some point. And I find easier to tolerate than get all worked up because of these issues.

Jude
8th December 2003, 06:56 PM
Dont eat or work at restaurants that allow smoking. Easy.

WildCat
8th December 2003, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by J Coplen


Yeah, what you say. :)
Not just me! (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20020822-114157-5819r)
People might not LIKE smoke. They might find it unpleasant. But it's a huge jump to say it's actually harming their bodies, as though they were coal miners, soon to be diagnosed with Black Lung Disease. In fact, we have two studies that measured Environmental Tobacco Smoke -- the scientific name for it -- and came to the conclusion that, first of all, the smoke inhaled from the air is chemically and physically different from the smoke inhaled from the end of the cigarette, and, secondly, people who work eight hours a day in heavy-smoking environments had the following CE's (Cigarette Equivalents):

Sydney: 0.2

Prague: 1.4

Barcelona: 4.3

That's cigarettes PER YEAR. The worst case they could find had the bartender adding to his cancer risk at the rate of 4.3 cigarettes per year


Also: (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9776409&dopt=Abstract)
CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure.
Weak evidence? Nice spin, sounds better than "no significant risk".

And please read this study, the largest ever conducted. (http://193.78.190.200/43/1057.pdf)
Conclusions The results do not support a causal
relation between environmental tobacco smoke and
tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule
out a small effect. The association between exposure
to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart
disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker
than generally believed.

See also:
http://www.ornl.gov/Press_Releases/...0000203-00.html

WildCat
8th December 2003, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by Glory


Yes, the World Health Organisation, the AMA, and virtually every other major medical organisation in the world agree that passive smoke poses a a substantial risk to the general population and that this risk is the direct result of it's being toxic.
Glory
Nice junk science! A 30% increased risk? Just where are all these bodies then considering that active smoking results in a 75% increased risk?

Edited to clarify the above: How could breathing 2nd hand smoke, at concentrations hundreds of times less than actively smoking, elevate the risk of cancer so much? It just doesn't pass the smell test.

BTW, I don't smoke and never have. I just don't like to see junk science driving public policy to the extent that it has on this issue.

Glory
8th December 2003, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by Jude
Dont eat or work at restaurants that allow smoking. Easy.

More jobs that are unavailable to vast numbers of people who, inexplicably, don't feel that they should have to risk their long term health to serve drinks.

Glory

Grammatron
8th December 2003, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by Glory


More jobs that are unavailable to vast numbers of people who, inexplicably, don't feel that they should have to risk their long term health to serve drinks.

Glory

But as WildCat just showed there is no proven health risk.

Jude
8th December 2003, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by Glory


More jobs that are unavailable to vast numbers of people who, inexplicably, don't feel that they should have to risk their long term health to serve drinks.

Glory

Tough cookies.

corplinx
8th December 2003, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by arcticpenguin

If you owned a coal mine, and wished to hire 12 year old boys to work there at a wage of 10 cents a day, and some guvmint agency told you you couldn't run your mine your way, wouldn't you call that tyranny?

We are talking about repricocity and consistency. Don't dodge the subject and create a strawman.

EvilYeti
8th December 2003, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by corplinx


We are talking about repricocity and consistency. Don't dodge the subject and create a strawman.

Ok, why don't you address how smokers don't infringe on non-smokers right to breathe clean air? Is freedom something that is afforded to tobacco users only in corplinx-land?

Why the stark and obvious inconsistency and lack of reciprocity?

Glory
8th December 2003, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by WildCat

Nice junk science! A 30% increased risk? Just where are all these bodies then considering that active smoking results in a 75% increased risk?

Edited to clarify the above: How could breathing 2nd hand smoke, at concentrations hundreds of times less than actively smoking, elevate the risk of cancer so much? It just doesn't pass the smell test.

BTW, I don't smoke and never have. I just don't like to see junk science driving public policy to the extent that it has on this issue.

I can keep posting links like this and you will keep saying they aren't good enough.

Do you like this one (http://www.oehha.org/air/environmental_tobacco/netsexec.html) better?

corplinx
8th December 2003, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by Glory


More jobs that are unavailable to vast numbers of people who, inexplicably, don't feel that they should have to risk their long term health to serve drinks.

Glory

What are you talking about? Currently outside of New York City and California smoking bans are not the norm. Restaurants in these areas are not hurting for employees. Studies show the air inside these restaurants is generally better than air outside. Most modern restaurants have clearly defined sections and high ceilings.

What I don't get is the need for people who support smoking bans to keep misportraying reality to fit their outlook.

Aside from your smoky bar or nightclub, there isn't a smoke problem with restaurants. And nightclubs and bars are all about drinking, smoking, and having a good time.

corplinx
8th December 2003, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by EvilYeti


Ok, why don't you address how smokers don't infringe on non-smokers right to breathe clean air?


They don't. End of conversation.

ssibal
8th December 2003, 08:27 PM
If smoke bothers you that much then do not go to or work at the place. Unless whatever place was non-smoking and suddenly allowed smoking, there is no good reason to complain. If you say it is unhealthy, then you should not have stepped into that 'unhealthy' environment. The case is usually not of owners making a 'healthy' place 'unhealthy,' it is of people willingly entering an 'unhealthy' environment.

Glory
8th December 2003, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by Jude


Tough cookies.

Not for me. For the people who want to smoke in restaurants and bars in my neck of the woods.:p

Glory

Glory
8th December 2003, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by ssibal
If smoke bothers you that much then do not go to or work at the place. Unless whatever place was non-smoking and suddenly allowed smoking, there is no good reason to complain. If you say it is unhealthy, then you should not have stepped into that 'unhealthy' environment. The case is usually not of owners making a 'healthy' place 'unhealthy,' it is of people willingly entering an 'unhealthy' environment.

That infringes on my right to make a living where I want to. No matter how you look at it, as soon as they light up outside their own homes or cars, they infringe on the rights of others.

Glory

EvilYeti
8th December 2003, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by corplinx

They don't. End of conversation.

Ah, you are insane. This explains much.

End of conversation, indeed!

Grammatron
8th December 2003, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by Glory


I can keep posting links like this and you will keep saying they aren't good enough.

Do you like this one (http://www.oehha.org/air/environmental_tobacco/netsexec.html) better?

The EPA reported has been discredited so much it's not even funny any more. I don't want to waste my time so here's the very first relevant site I found, please read it.

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html

corplinx
8th December 2003, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by EvilYeti


Ah, you are insane. This explains much.

End of conversation, indeed!

No, you are just blind by your hatred of smoking. You have freedom of association. You don't have to walk into a bar with smokers in it and associate with them. Their smoking does not in any way infringe on your self-proclaimed "right to breathe clean air".

Yeti, you are a sharp guy on some things, this ain't one of em.

ssibal
8th December 2003, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by Glory


That infringes on my right to make a living where I want to. No matter how you look at it, as soon as they light up outside their own homes or cars, they infringe on the rights of others.

Glory

They no more infringe on your rights than people who cough, sneeze, and do not wash their hands in public. But, I thought we were talking about private places (i.e. bars, restaurants....etc).

corplinx
8th December 2003, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by ssibal


They no more infringe on your rights than people who cough, sneeze, and do not wash their hands in public.

You mean like people who spread flu and kill kids this holiday season? Already its claimed over 10 lives. And yes, its spread by people breathing.

ssibal
8th December 2003, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by corplinx


You mean like people who spread flu and kill kids this holiday season? Already its claimed over 10 lives. And yes, its spread by people breathing.

Yes, lets ban people!

corplinx
8th December 2003, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by Glory


That infringes on my right to make a living where I want to.

I am sorry, but there is no such right. Imagine if you applied for waitress jobs at non-smoking only restaurants and were turned down for every job. This would infringe on your so-called "right to make a living where I want to".

Here's what rights your do have in my neck of the woods:
the right to seek work
the right to take a job offered you
the right to quit without notice

and finally, due to something called repricocity the employer has a the right to fire you without notice

Your "right to make a living where I want to" could only be recipricol if the employers in your area could force you to work for them so they can have an establishment there.

corplinx
8th December 2003, 08:49 PM
This is really sad folks, I demonstrated how these bans fail the simplest of ethical tests and the opposition consists of:

1. a "right" to not breathe cigarette smoke

This is technically derivative of your private property rights since you dont have to let smokers in your house.
This is upheld by your basic rights to behave as you want as long as its not illegal. In other words, you dont have to smoke.
This is finally bolstered by your right of association. You are not forced to associate in bars and restaurants with smokers.

In other words, this arguement is rubbish.

2. the right to work where I want in the profession I choose

Well, I would say there is no such right. I would say this arguement is grasping at straws.

Glory
8th December 2003, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by corplinx


What are you talking about? Currently outside of New York City and California smoking bans are not the norm. Restaurants in these areas are not hurting for employees. Studies show the air inside these restaurants is generally better than air outside. Most modern restaurants have clearly defined sections and high ceilings.

What I don't get is the need for people who support smoking bans to keep misportraying reality to fit their outlook.

Aside from your smoky bar or nightclub, there isn't a smoke problem with restaurants. And nightclubs and bars are all about drinking, smoking, and having a good time.

For some of us nightclubs and bars are about drinking and having a good time.

Glory

EvilYeti
8th December 2003, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by corplinx

No, you are just blind by your hatred of smoking. You have freedom of association. You don't have to walk into a bar with smokers in it and associate with them. Their smoking does not in any way infringe on your self-proclaimed "right to breathe clean air".

And the smokers are free to have a cigarette outdoors now, instead of in my face. Whats the difference?
Why can't you see that this is a stalement between two groups, smokers and non? That their individual freedoms are mutually exclusive?
In such cases that ONLY thing you can do is make a judgment call. Unfortunately for the smokers, they are a minority group feeding an unhealthy addiction, so they lose out. The majority is more free as a result, so net freedom is increased.

Yeti, you are a sharp guy on some things, this ain't one of em.

Smoking bans simply tie into my core political philosophy of rewarding healthy behavior and punishing destructive behavior.

Why should it be the other way around?

Jude
8th December 2003, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by EvilYeti


Smoking bans simply tie into my core political philosophy of rewarding healthy behavior and punishing destructive behavior.

Why should it be the other way around?

And I suppose you'll be the one to decide which behavior is good and which isn't?

BTox
8th December 2003, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by WildCat


Weak evidence? Nice spin, sounds better than "no significant risk".

And please read this study, the largest ever conducted. (http://193.78.190.200/43/1057.pdf)




Another study funded by tobacco companies that shows cigarette smoke without negative health effects, what a surprise. :rolleyes:

LawnOven
8th December 2003, 09:22 PM
Who's seen the Penn and Teller: Bullsh!t episode on second-hand smoke?

It answered the question pretty well in my mind. From the show:



Even if you accept the EPA's own data:

Lung cancer Deaths

Exposed to secondhand smoke (living and working around it on a regular basis):

12.5 out 1,000,000 people

Not exposed to secondhand smoke:

10 out of 1,000,000 people


Statistically of no significance (accourding to the show).

with a little math

0.00125%

vs.

0.00100%


chance of dying of lung cancer. Seems pretty insignificant to me.

Also noted was that the EPA's report was thrown out by a federal court.

So what is the arguement then? That 2 and a half thousandths of a percentage point is a significant health risk?

corplinx
8th December 2003, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by BTox


Another study funded by tobacco companies that shows cigarette smoke without negative health effects, what a surprise. :rolleyes:

This inevitably happens. The pro-ban people talk about health effects. The anti-ban people reject the studies instead of saying "its irrelevant". Then the discussion becomes a quagmire of the pro people being asked to prove a negative. "Prove it doesnt hurt people".

The health effects are irrelevant since you have freedom of association.

I started this thread and I don't want it hijacked by the "health effects" tangent by pro or anti people. Not to pick on you because I quoted you.

BTox
8th December 2003, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by corplinx


The health effects are irrelevant since you have freedom of association.

I started this thread and I don't want it hijacked by the "health effects" tangent by pro or anti people. Not to pick on you because I quoted you.

I suppose in the context of your question you are right. In any event, I believe cigarettes should be banned as a dangerous drug, which would make a smoking ban a moot point.

LawnOven
8th December 2003, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by EvilYeti


Smoking bans simply tie into my core political philosophy of rewarding healthy behavior and punishing destructive behavior.

Why should it be the other way around?

ummm... Bullsh!t?

Health benefits of Nicotine.

link 1 (http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20031112-074000-2189r.htm)


link 2 (http://www.jrussellshealth.com/smokbens.html)

So smoking isn't purely destructive.

How exactly does this information fit into your philosophy

LawnOven
8th December 2003, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by BTox


I suppose in the context of your question you are right. In any event, I believe cigarettes should be banned as a dangerous drug, which would make a smoking ban a moot point.

So you’re a proponent of the drug war? No strawman intended, but that seems to be what you are suggesting...

BTox
8th December 2003, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by LawnOven


ummm... Bullsh!t?

Health benefits of Nicotine.

link 1 (http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20031112-074000-2189r.htm)


link 2 (http://www.jrussellshealth.com/smokbens.html)

So smoking isn't purely destructive.

How exactly does this information fit into your philosophy

Bullsh$t is a perfect characterization. If cigarettes only delivered nicotine, without all the additional toxins and carcinogens, you'd have a point.

BTox
8th December 2003, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by LawnOven


So you’re a proponent of the drug war? No strawman intended, but that seems to be what you are suggesting...

I am a proponent of classifying cigarettes as drugs, which they are, as they deliver that wonderful nicotine you just posted links about. FDA classifies nicotine as a drug, and regulates all products delivering active doses - except cigarettes. Once classified as a drug, they then have to pass safety testing - adios, cigs.

LawnOven
8th December 2003, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by BTox


Bullsh$t is a perfect characterization. If cigarettes only delivered nicotine, without all the additional toxins and carcinogens, you'd have a point.

*sigh* My question was to Evilyeti in regards to his apperent belief that cigarette are purely bad, his political philosophy and how the information that they aren't just bad for you fit into it all.

I said "So smoking isn't purely destructive."

I don't see how your statement has any relavence to that issue.

Of course cigarettes are bad for you how convient for you to ignore that there are infact some health benefits too.

edited for clarification

LawnOven
8th December 2003, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by BTox


I am a proponent of classifying cigarettes as drugs, which they are, as they deliver that wonderful nicotine you just posted links about. FDA classifies nicotine as a drug, and regulates all products delivering active doses - except cigarettes. Once classified as a drug, they then have to pass safety testing - adios, cigs.

Umm... so that's a yes then? You didn't really answer my question... it's a simple yes or no.

peptoabysmal
8th December 2003, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by Luciana Nery


Cool.

Equating smoking with flying is not worth refuting. They are not comparable in risks to health or benefits.


I didn't equate anything. But flying is also a source of pollution, as is driving. I believe you're moving the goalposts. Is pollution ok as long as it's worth it, in your scale of values? Should tourism - flying and driving by pleasure - be stopped?

Why sort out smoking?? I really don't get it. What a stupid cause. I guess it was chosen because it's such an easy target. Anyway. Why not prohibit alcohol? Drunk people endanger other people's lives all the time. They also talk loud/pick up fights/vomit, etc.

I'm speaking in terms of tolerance. We all inconvenience one another at some point. And I find easier to tolerate than get all worked up because of these issues.

Smokers have given a face to the frustration some people feel in other areas of their lives. These folk have no power in any other area of their life, so they choose to pick on the people who are now socially acceptable to pick on.

Don't misunderstand me; I live in a state where I can't even smoke in my own house (slight exaggeration), let alone an indoor public place. I have no desire to go back to the days when everyone could smoke in public buildings. Now lawmakers are targeting public outdoor sites!

I can be walking outdoors on the opposide side of the street from someone and smoking a cigarette and hear that fake little cough and get the "stink eye".

You want to know what it feels like to be a 21st century n*gger? Take up smoking and come to California, land of the free thinkers.

peptoabysmal
8th December 2003, 10:13 PM
I just thought of one other little thing that is rarely covered in these smoking threads.

Air filtration and circulation.

I remember when many night clubs had an awesome filtration and airflow system, usually including a huge negative ion discharge type of filter that can even remove viruses from the air. People next to you couldn't even tell you were smoking. I suppose such a thing is expensive to install and maintain.

I can tell you that in the days when smoking was allowed on airplanes, the air quality on the planes was IMO better than it is now. You hardly got sick from travel in those days. Now, when I have to hop a jet, I can count on getting some bug and being sick for at least half my stay. I almost never get sick any other time. I would swear that now that the airline doesn't have to worry about filtering smoke, they use only half the filters or something to cut costs.

WildCat
8th December 2003, 10:32 PM
This inevitably happens. The pro-ban people talk about health effects. The anti-ban people reject the studies instead of saying "its irrelevant". Then the discussion becomes a quagmire of the pro people being asked to prove a negative. "Prove it doesnt hurt people".

The health effects are irrelevant since you have freedom of association.

I started this thread and I don't want it hijacked by the "health effects" tangent by pro or anti people. Not to pick on you because I quoted you.
The two really are mutually intertwined though. If ETS really is significantly harmful then the smoking bans would be justified, since you don't have the right to harm others.

But the evidence that it is just isn't there. But the issue is so politicized that science gets thrown out the window.

A cursory reading of the "evidence" that ETS causes disease (cancer, heart disease, etc.) reveals more dogma than facts. The concentrations of carcinogens in the air, even in a smoke-filled bar, are hundreds of times diluted from what the smoker breathes into their lungs. All the studies that purport to show it is harmful tend to be of a few types. Some study a very small number of individuals, thus rendering the results meaningless when extrapolated to a large # of people. Others , such as the debunked EPA study, cherry pick the data. Then there are the meta studies, which pool data from previous studies (usually flawed) that are picked because they reach the desired conclusion. So obviously combining their data in a "new" study will confirm the flawed conclusion.

No large-scale study has demonstrated a significant risk from ETS.

Therefore the gov't has no business telling a private business what to do as far as allowing their patrons to smoke.

corplinx
8th December 2003, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by WildCat

If ETS really is significantly harmful then the smoking bans would be justified, since you don't have the right to harm others.


Not at all since you have the freedom not to associate with smokers.

Glory
9th December 2003, 12:12 AM
Originally posted by corplinx


Not at all since you have the freedom not to associate with smokers.

And everyone in the quad has the freedom to not associate with the gunman in the bell tower.

Way to shift the entire burden of responsibility onto everyone else.

Glory

Glory
9th December 2003, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by LawnOven


*sigh* My question was to Evilyeti in regards to his apperent belief that cigarette are purely bad, his political philosophy and how the information that they aren't just bad for you fit into it all.

I said "So smoking isn't purely destructive."

I don't see how your statement has any relavence to that issue.

Of course cigarettes are bad for you how convient for you to ignore that there are infact some health benefits too.

edited for clarification

Whatever benefits nicotine may have, smoking it ruins them. That's like using cyanide as a headache remedy. You'll never have a headache again but...

Glory

EvilYeti
9th December 2003, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by LawnOven

Of course cigarettes are bad for you how convient for you to ignore that there are infact some health benefits too.

edited for clarification

Oh I'm well aware of that research, the problem is that trading Parkinson's for cancer isn't a particulary compelling argument.

Of course, it may also be the case that smokers die before they are old enough to develop dementia.

Glory
9th December 2003, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by ssibal


They no more infringe on your rights than people who cough, sneeze, and do not wash their hands in public. But, I thought we were talking about private places (i.e. bars, restaurants....etc).

This is a false analogy. Smoking is not similar to sneezing, coughing or poor hygiene. The first two are unavoidable and usualy harmless. The last is closer as such a person is showing similar disregard for other's wellbeing but enforcing bans and requiring behaviour are different animals. One is practical, the other is not.

Glory

Glory
9th December 2003, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by corplinx


You mean like people who spread flu and kill kids this holiday season? Already its claimed over 10 lives. And yes, its spread by people breathing.

Another false analogy. Unwittingly spreading germs is not similar to knowingly spewing toxic smoke on any one unfortunate enough to have you get near them.

Glory

Glory
9th December 2003, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by corplinx


I am sorry, but there is no such right. Imagine if you applied for waitress jobs at non-smoking only restaurants and were turned down for every job. This would infringe on your so-called "right to make a living where I want to".

Here's what rights your do have in my neck of the woods:
the right to seek work
the right to take a job offered you
the right to quit without notice

and finally, due to something called repricocity the employer has a the right to fire you without notice

Your "right to make a living where I want to" could only be recipricol if the employers in your area could force you to work for them so they can have an establishment there.

I have the right not to be forced out of a job by toxins being spewed into the air which are not the result of the work being performed on the premises.

Glory

Glory
9th December 2003, 12:46 AM
Originally posted by corplinx
This is really sad folks, I demonstrated how these bans fail the simplest of ethical tests and the opposition consists of:

1. a "right" to not breathe cigarette smoke

This is technically derivative of your private property rights since you dont have to let smokers in your house.
This is upheld by your basic rights to behave as you want as long as its not illegal. In other words, you dont have to smoke.
This is finally bolstered by your right of association. You are not forced to associate in bars and restaurants with smokers.

In other words, this arguement is rubbish.

2. the right to work where I want in the profession I choose

Well, I would say there is no such right. I would say this arguement is grasping at straws.

The only thing you have demonstrated is that you only care about yourself and your wants and desires.

Glory

El Greco
9th December 2003, 01:23 AM
It's not easy to quantify the harm being done to passive smokers, but for people working in rooms with a lot of smoke I would expect it to be quite high. There is a lot of pure BS around the net, and citing it doesn't really prove anything. If you believe http://www.forces.org for example, then smoking is actually beneficial and perhaps we should all start smoking. So, let's not become ridiculous and just focus on the social aspect of all this.

I don't really mind people smoking. I am an ex-smoker, haven't touched for 3 years and it feels great. Macro-economically speaking, smokers will work and contribute to society by paying insurance and taxes, but on average they will not reap as many benefits from their work as non-smokers because they will get seriously ill around the age they should receive a pension. This is a proven fact.

A smoker can't be compared to a 18-year old idiot who rides a motorcycle and speeds at 220km/h without a helmet, because the latter has payed zero taxes, yet the society will have to support him for life if he gets disabled.

I also choose not to go to clubs or restaurants where smoke is disturbing. Funny, almost all smokers don't like such places themselves. After I quit, I've had girlfriends who were smoking and it's not so pleasant I must admit. It made me want to find previous girlfriends who were not smoking when I was a heavy smoker, say how sorry I am, and ask them how could they put up with me. Now, even if a girlfriend of mine is a smoker, she's not allowed to have a cigarette in my house, when we eat or whenever it annoys me.

States cannot renounce money from smoke and alcohol, so I don't see any changes soon. But as I said I don't really mind, you can smoke 5 packs a day for all I care. It's so good to have people around who smoke, drink and gamble... guess how much we would have to pay without them :D

WildCat
9th December 2003, 06:53 AM
Originally posted by BTox


I am a proponent of classifying cigarettes as drugs, which they are, as they deliver that wonderful nicotine you just posted links about. FDA classifies nicotine as a drug, and regulates all products delivering active doses - except cigarettes. Once classified as a drug, they then have to pass safety testing - adios, cigs.
That's a very slippery slope to travel on. Why not regulate alcohol as a drug also? Caffeine?

Thanz
9th December 2003, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by corplinx
This is really sad folks, I demonstrated how these bans fail the simplest of ethical tests
Actually, you haven't. In the very first reply it was pointed out to you that you were not comparing equivalent circumstances, and you wrote that off as "rationaliztion". It is not a rationalization - it is the plain truth.

If your wife committed adultery, and you didn't want to stone her to death, wouldn't you find it offensive if a law were enacted requiring you to stone her to death? I'm guessing you'd deem such a law tyranny. After all, you'd probably conclude, it's your family and if you don't want stoning it's your right. Similarly, I'd deem it just as offensive if stoning were allowed in my family and a law was enacted banning stoning for adultery.

Have I just shown that laws banning stoning for adultery are offensive or unethical?

LawnOven
9th December 2003, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by Glory

That's like using cyanide as a headache remedy. You'll never have a headache again but...

Glory

This is a false analogy. Why are anti-smoking people continually so intellectually dishonest. The benefits of nicotine to your mind are very real. You must concede this or else, I guess it's pointless discussing this with any of you. I admit that cigarettes are bad for your health, I'm merely pointing out that there are benefits to your general health aswell. Why is that so f*cking hard to understand?


Whatever benefits nicotine may have, smoking it ruins them.


This statement has little meaning really; it is at best a matter of opinion. It's what you place a greater value on, your mental health or your phyisical.

LawnOven
9th December 2003, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by EvilYeti


Oh I'm well aware of that research, the problem is that trading Parkinson's for cancer isn't a particulary compelling argument.


That's fine, if you believe that, it's just not a very skeptical stand point I suppose. Still you have to admit that smoking is not so simply "a destructive behavior". Like most things in life there's good and bad attached to it. Making it hard for me to believe that smoking fits very well into your political philosopy. Maybe it's just a little inconsistant?

Of course, it may also be the case that smokers die before they are old enough to develop dementia.

I dunno about this, but it seems like they would have been aware of that possibility and factored it into the various studies that have been done. Do you know of anywhere were there is arguement that this research is flawed? Otherwise you're just sort of guessing.

LawnOven
9th December 2003, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by WildCat

That's a very slippery slope to travel on. Why not regulate alcohol as a drug also? Caffeine?


Slippery slope indeed. BTox has yet to answer my question...

LawnOven
9th December 2003, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by Glory


The only thing you have demonstrated is that you only care about yourself and your wants and desires.

Glory

You know, not that it's really any of my buisness, but you are being pretty unfair here, since you have yet to proove that smoking is the great social evil that you make it out to be.

Glory
9th December 2003, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by LawnOven


This is a false analogy. Why are anti-smoking people continually so intellectually dishonest. The benefits of nicotine to your mind are very real. You must concede this or else, I guess it's pointless discussing this with any of you. I admit that cigarettes are bad for your health, I'm merely pointing out that there are benefits to your general health aswell. Why is that so f*cking hard to understand?

The benefits of nicotine, which are sketchy at best, are vastly outweighed by the harm done by smoking cigarettes. This is not an oppinion. It is fact. Cigarettes are deadly. Death is an unacceptable side effect as for as most of us are concerned.

Glory

Glory
9th December 2003, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by LawnOven


You know, not that it's really any of my buisness, but you are being pretty unfair here, since you have yet to proove that smoking is the great social evil that you make it out to be.

He, and you, grasps at straws and stretches truth beyond recognition in order to judtify exposing innocent people to deadly toxins and being incredibly annoying at the same time. I can not imagine a more selfish philosophy.

I don't have to prove what has been proven a hundred times over by others more qualified than I.

Glory

corplinx
9th December 2003, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by Thanz

Actually, you haven't. In the very first reply it was pointed out to you that you were not comparing equivalent circumstances, and you wrote that off as "rationaliztion". It is not a rationalization - it is the plain truth.

Your opinion that smoking is bad doesn't make the reciprocity of the statement false. So yes it is a rationalization.

LawnOven
9th December 2003, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by Glory


The benefits of nicotine, which are sketchy at best, This is not an oppinion.
Glory [/B]

Sketchy? who says? you haha. proove sketchy. There have been over 10 studies done which have shown benefits.

are vastly outweighed by the harm done by smoking cigarettes.

again, this is sort of like, you know, an opinion not a fact.

It is fact. Cigarettes are deadly.


Yeah, in the long run, continued excessive usage has a pretty good chance of being responsible for the smokers death. Just like alot of life pleasures, overkill will kill you; amazing. But you have yet to proove that it's bad for other people, the EPA's own data doesn't even show that, they fit the data to the conclusion which they wished to reach.

like I said 2.5 thousandths of a percent!

Death is an unacceptable side effect as for as most of us are concerned.

Then don't smoke. Easy.

Thanz
9th December 2003, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by corplinx


Your opinion that smoking is bad doesn't make the reciprocity of the statement false. So yes it is a rationalization.
You didn't answer my question. Have I shown that laws banning stoning for adultery are offensive or unethical?

LawnOven
9th December 2003, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by Glory


He, and you, grasps at straws and stretches truth beyond recognition in order to judtify exposing innocent people to deadly toxins and being incredibly annoying at the same time. I can not imagine a more selfish philosophy.

I don't have to prove what has been proven a hundred times over by others more qualified than I.

Glory


Now, come on, you're being dishonest again, where exactly have I stretched the truth? Deadly toxins? If that is really your concern you should probably spend more of your time b*tching about car emmisions.

You make much to big a deal out of 2.5 thousandths of a percent.

You're questioning my character rather unfairly.

netrox
9th December 2003, 01:59 PM
Smoking.... I was a smoker for nine years and yes, I do support the ban for the following reasons:

1. Second hand smoking is offensive. I don't appreciate inhaling smoke while I'm eating. Smoking easily kills my appetite.

2. Second hand smoking increases the risk of heart disease and respiratoy problems.

3. Second hand smoking can aggravate health problems in people with health problems.

4. Smokers make everything smell nasty. I don't like going home with smoke on my clothes.

5. Bartenders are at high risk of developing chronic illnesses associated with smoking indoors.

Now, to the studies showing health problems associated with smoking, keep in mind that in Japan, the rate of lung cancer is very low even though the smoking rate is very high (much higher than USA). Why? It is their diet. Green tea (rich source of polyphenols) and fish (rich source of omega-3 acids) help their body defend free radicals well. In other words, the more edible plants you eat, the more protection you gain. Americans don't eat well so in that case, smoking ban is a good idea.

Smoking itself doesn't have any measurable health benefits. If you want a dose of nicotine, just chew nicotine gum or wear the patch. It works well without offending non-smokers. Nicotine can delay some progression of diseases but speeds up some progression of diseases, notably heart disease.

As for air pollution caused by cars, it is ALSO a problem that we must deal with. Thankfully, major car manufacturers are working hard to reduce emissions. Ford will release Escape Hybrid SUV by late summer.

-jeff

Glory
9th December 2003, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by LawnOven



Now, come on, you're being dishonest again, where exactly have I stretched the truth? Deadly toxins? If that is really your concern you should probably spend more of your time b*tching about car emmisions.

You make much to big a deal out of 2.5 thousandths of a percent.

You're questioning my character rather unfairly.

Don't pay attention to this wrong because there are other wrongs being committed? You got that off of the barn floor.

I make a big deal when any person dies or suffers or needlessly. How many people have to die before you will consider something to be a problem? How many deaths do you consider acceptable?

"We only killed one person. What's the big deal?"
-Smoker's rights advocate

Glory

LawnOven
9th December 2003, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Glory


Don't pay attention to this wrong because there are other wrongs being committed? You got that off of the barn floor.

I make a big deal when any person dies or suffers or needlessly. How many people have to die before you will consider something to be a problem? How many deaths do you consider acceptable?

"We only killed one person. What's the big deal?"
-Smoker's rights advocate

Glory

Ok, you have insulted me once again. Fine, but it doesn't really help your arguement you fascist (see, nothing).

The findings of that report are too statistically insignificant proove anything, even that one person has died directly due to second hand smoking.

EvilYeti
9th December 2003, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by Jude


And I suppose you'll be the one to decide which behavior is good and which isn't?

Yup, you are a quick learner!

BTox
9th December 2003, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by WildCat

That's a very slippery slope to travel on. Why not regulate alcohol as a drug also? Caffeine?

Slippery slope seems to be the excuse against any regulation. Alcohol, unlike tobacco, has health benefits with moderate consumption. Caffeine hasn't been shown to be harmful. Both are approved food additives, nicotine is not.

BTox
9th December 2003, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by LawnOven



Slippery slope indeed. BTox has yet to answer my question...

Perhaps if you provided your definition of "the drug war", and its relevance to banning a dangerous drug like tobacco, I would answer your question.

BTox
9th December 2003, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by LawnOven


Sketchy? who says? you haha. proove sketchy. There have been over 10 studies done which have shown benefits.



You've seen studies that show the health benefits of smoking cigarettes? Please provide links. The only link that worked in your previous post suggested a health benefit for pure nicotine, not smoking. If you cannot see the relevance of that difference...

Glory
9th December 2003, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by LawnOven


Ok, you have insulted me once again. Fine, but it doesn't really help your arguement you fascist (see, nothing).

The findings of that report are too statistically insignificant proove anything, even that one person has died directly due to second hand smoking.

The findings of the reports don't matter to you. You keep rejecting all the ones that don't support your position and pushing the ones that do while ignoring the obvious problems with those reports. Big shock!


No, my comments were a restatement of your arguments. That I should ignore this issue and concentrate on something else, a classic distraction ploy, and that the risks are small so we should ignore them. I pointed out that a small risk for no benefit is unacceptable and that it is not a small risk to the person who is hurt by passive smoke.

Glory

LawnOven
9th December 2003, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by Glory


The findings of the reports don't matter to you. You keep rejecting all the ones that don't support your position and pushing the ones that do while ignoring the obvious problems with those reports. Big shock!




Um, what? I could say the exact same thing to you. So I will:

The findings of the reports don't matter to you. You keep rejecting all the ones that don't support your position and pushing the ones that do while ignoring the obvious problems with those reports. Big shock!



No, my comments were a restatement of your arguments. That I should ignore this issue and concentrate on something else, a classic distraction ploy, and that the risks are small so we should ignore them. I pointed out that a small risk for no benefit is unacceptable and that it is not a small risk to the person who is hurt by passive smoke.


Well maybe you misunderstood me then. All I was suggesting was that, maybe time would be better spent fighting something which clearly causes adverse health effects to innocent bystanders (such as car emmisions). The EPA's report which is what everyone uses to back up thier fight against second hand smoke hasn't done that.

Further it's a bit hypocritical on your part to be driving around in your car, and turning on your lights, while telling me I'm being selfish because I think people should be allowed to smoke. I'm sure you do more damage to my lungs on a daily basis than a whole room full of smokers, but I don't call you selfish, because I'm not a hypocrite.

"A classic destraction ploy", you give me too much credit. :)
I'm not a smoker by the way. I think somewhere along the way you assumed I was, and you know what assuming does.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

LawnOven
9th December 2003, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by BTox


You've seen studies that show the health benefits of smoking cigarettes? Please provide links. The only link that worked in your previous post suggested a health benefit for pure nicotine, not smoking. If you cannot see the relevance of that difference...

They both work. Tobacco, is one way to get nicotine so... the nicotine in that tobacco provides health benefits. Red meat is bad for you too; lots of fat, but there's also lots of good protein in there, good and bad, that's life.

LawnOven
9th December 2003, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by BTox


Perhaps if you provided your definition of "the drug war", and its relevance to banning a dangerous drug like tobacco, I would answer your question.

Haha, no dice, if you aren't aware of what the drug war is then it doesn't really matter I suppose.

Glory
9th December 2003, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by LawnOven


Um, what? I could say the exact same thing to you. So I will:

The findings of the reports don't matter to you. You keep rejecting all the ones that don't support your position and pushing the ones that do while ignoring the obvious problems with those reports. Big shock!

So we can sling findings at each other until the cows come home and accomplish nothing.

Well maybe you misunderstood me then. All I was suggesting was that, maybe time would be better spent fighting something which clearly causes adverse health effects to innocent bystanders (such as car emmisions). The EPA's report which is what everyone uses to back up thier fight against second hand smoke hasn't done that.

The EPA's report is one of many and I thought we had established that talking about the reports was getting us nowhere. There are many things causing health risks. If you would like to discuss them I suggest you start a new thread. The issue is not car emmisions. The issue is the smoking ban and the effects of passive smoke.

If we assume that you are correct in your assessment of the studies conducted on the effects of passive smoke you still have a problem. You are commiting a falacy by arguing from ignorance. If the ill effects of passive smoke are not proven, that does not indicate that they are not actual. It simply means they are not proven. I think they are amply proven but that is neither here nor there. I am not willing to risk my life and the lives of others on the possibility that passive smoke is not harmful. There is no benefit to passive smoke which offsets the potential harm and we have very good reason to believe that passive smoke is very harmful. It has known toxins in it. Several known toxins which have been shown to be harmful when ingested or inhaled individually. People die from smoke inhalation in burning buildings. Fire fighters are at increased risk of breathing disorders such as emphysema because of the cumulative effects of breathing smoke. Why would breathing cigarette smoke be any less harmful than any other smoke?

Further it's a bit hypocritical on your part to be driving around in your car, and turning on your lights, while telling me I'm being selfish because I think people should be allowed to smoke. I'm sure you do more damage to my lungs on a daily basis than a whole room full of smokers, but I don't call you selfish, because I'm not a hypocrite.

If that makes you feel better, okay. If I had a choice about how to live in this society I would choose a cleaner option than the most common methods of energy generation. Unfortunately, I don't have a choice. Life in this society requires electricity and I am stuck with the methods providers use as they have a monopoly in this area.

I'm not a smoker by the way. I think somewhere along the way you assumed I was, and you know what assuming does.

While that does come as a surprise, I never made any such assumtion. You assumed I did.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Okay.

Glory

BTox
9th December 2003, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by LawnOven


They both work.

Cite studies please.

Originally posted by LawnOven
Red meat is bad for you too; lots of fat, but there's also lots of good protein in there, good and bad, that's life.

Another poor analogy. Red meat is not bad for you. All foods are beneficial at moderate consumption levels. Contrast with no safe level of cigarette consumption.

BTox
9th December 2003, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by LawnOven


Haha, no dice, if you aren't aware of what the drug war is then it doesn't really matter I suppose.

I know what it is, I want to hear what relevance it has. Obviously none to this discussion. Thanks!

Rat
9th December 2003, 05:07 PM
Firstly, to get it out of the way, I am a smoker. I intend to give up soon, for a mix of health and financial reasons.

The economy (I don't know whether anyone's brought it up seriously) is not an issue. If I smoke, as has already been pointed out, I will pay the majority of my disposable income in tax, which will support healthcare, and I will die young, rather than having a tiresome and economically ravaging old age, paid for by social security. (Yes, I do pay for a pension, perhaps optimistically).

I am not a scientist (as such), but I do not believe that SHS is a serious health risk. I do not drive, yet my walk to work up a busy city street leaves me out of breath. A similar walk in the country does not. The latter sentence is to clarify that it is not my smoking that wears me out (though, admittedly, it contributes). Air pollution comes from more than one front.

As a matter of courtesy, I would not dream of asking to smoke in the homes of non-smokers. I try not to smoke close to non-smokers. If I sit in the pub opposite a non-smoker, I will observe the drift of the smoke, and exhale upwards. None of this is because of health concerns, as such, but because I don't want to make them uncomfortable.

When I go to the pub over the road, the staff all smoke. They cannot smoke behind the bar, because of EU rules. If people wish not to smoke, there is another pub down the road. I choose pubs from the atmosphere and the music and the company. I don't complain, and ask for a ban on dance music, if it is not to my taste.

Cheers,
Rat.

corplinx
9th December 2003, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by netrox
Smoking.... I was a smoker for nine years and yes, I do support the ban for the following reasons:

1. Second hand smoking is offensive. I don't appreciate inhaling smoke while I'm eating. Smoking easily kills my appetite.

2. Second hand smoking increases the risk of heart disease and respiratoy problems.

3. Second hand smoking can aggravate health problems in people with health problems.

4. Smokers make everything smell nasty. I don't like going home with smoke on my clothes.

5. Bartenders are at high risk of developing chronic illnesses associated with smoking indoors.


You can voluntarily avoid second hand smoke. In other words, your reasons amount to fascism. You want the bar owner to do right by you and not what he wills.

Rat
9th December 2003, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by Thanz
Have I just shown that laws banning stoning for adultery are offensive or unethical?
No.

Cheers,
Rat.:)

Rat
9th December 2003, 05:24 PM
I regularly travel by train. Mobile phones annoy me intensely. I believe that my better half are the last two people in this country without them.

Here, trains often have a 'quiet coach' in which mobile phones and other unnecessary noise are prohibited. We sit in this coach. Mobile phones ring constantly. I cannot concentrate on what I am doing. My blood pressure elevates. I become annoyed. When the announcement comes at the commencement of the journey, advising us of destinations, bar openings, and the disallowment of phones in coach A, there comes often a chorus of jeers at the last, and people turn on their phones, when they weren't on before.

If I were to smoke in (any part of) a train, I would be thrown off at the next stop with no refund.

This seems to me a lack of proportion. And not on my part.

Two wrongs may not make a right; but this formula, over pi....

Cheers,
Rat.

ssibal
9th December 2003, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Glory


This is a false analogy. Smoking is not similar to sneezing, coughing or poor hygiene. The first two are unavoidable and usualy harmless. The last is closer as such a person is showing similar disregard for other's wellbeing but enforcing bans and requiring behaviour are different animals. One is practical, the other is not.

Glory

You miss the point, people cough, sneeze, and do not wash in public all the time. Are they violating your rights? And all three are as avoidable as not smoking. You can cover your mouth when you cough or sneeze (wear a mask if you have to) and you can wash your hands.

Glory
9th December 2003, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by ssibal


You miss the point, people cough, sneeze, and do not wash in public all the time. Are they violating your rights? And all three are as avoidable as not smoking. You can cover your mouth when you cough or sneeze (wear a mask if you have to) and you can wash your hands.

So you now add the modifier, "without covering their mouths" to your original example.

In that case, yes, they are violating my rights but a ban on such behaviour is not reasonably enforceable.

However, this is still a false analogy. A vast majority of the time, sneezing and coughing poses no health risk and I can take simple precautions to avoid the risks posed by someone else's failure to wash up. Passive smoke always poses a health risk to me. I'll tell you I am asthmatic before you regale us again with your statistics showing that the risk from passive smoke is negligible. Passive smoke poses a risk to me, personally, 100 % of the time I am exposed.

Glory

BillyTK
10th December 2003, 06:16 AM
Originally posted by arcticpenguin

If you owned a coal mine, and wished to hire 12 year old boys to work there at a wage of 10 cents a day, and some guvmint agency told you you couldn't run your mine your way, wouldn't you call that tyranny?
You'd have to if your principle is that any form of gubmint intrusion is tyranny, regardless of the outcome. I'm guessing this is what Dr. Williams is hinting at in the article Corplinx linked to when he says:
The totalitarian method to resolve the conflict is through political power and guns. In other words, the group with the greatest power to organize government's brute force decides whether there'll be smoking or no smoking in restaurants.[/b]
which is kind of falsely dichotomous, and trying to argue that the principle (of non-interference by the gubmint) is more important than the beneficial outcome of such a law is where the real rationalisation comes in. It also leads to a bit of a paradox in that a fundamental aspect of property rights is the government's role in guaranteeing those property rights (unless you're a market anarchist, in which case: go and read John Locke!), but if the government is bound by non-interference then it can't make that guarantee, and we're back to Hobb's state of nature, or rule of force...

BillyTK
10th December 2003, 07:00 AM
Originally posted by corplinx
This is really sad folks, I demonstrated how these bans fail the simplest of ethical tests and the opposition consists of:

1. a "right" to not breathe cigarette smoke

This is technically derivative of your private property rights since you dont have to let smokers in your house.
This is upheld by your basic rights to behave as you want as long as its not illegal. In other words, you dont have to smoke.
This is finally bolstered by your right of association. You are not forced to associate in bars and restaurants with smokers.

In other words, this arguement is rubbish.
No it's not. You don't take into account that your property rights descend from the axiom that you are a sovereign individual; your body is your property, and you are free to nurture or abuse it as you wish (legal impositions not withstanding), but other may only do similar with your permission. Just as someone who lights up a big stinky bonfire or builds a big stinky pig sty next to your house could be guilty of interfering with your property rights, then so could someone who lights up a cigarette nexts to you. I don't think anyone would disagree that secondhand smoke, regardless of the actual/alleged health implications is unpleasant in a number of physical ways, and that your body is indeed being polluted.

You might argue that the two situations are not exactly equivalent because you could ask the smoker to put the cigarette out, or ask them move away from you, or even move away from that person yourself, but you can take all of these actions within the house scenario. If you wish to argue that having to move house because of your stinky neighbour is any less reasonable than moving away from soemone who is smoking, I'd be interested to read it.

2. the right to work where I want in the profession I choose

Well, I would say there is no such right. I would say this arguement is grasping at straws.
And you would be wrong on both counts. An equal axiom of your property rights is that by mixing your labour with the material world you produce goods which you own, and you can transfer your ownership rights to that good in return for whatever compensation you find beneficial, and is agreeable to the purchaser. From that, you have the right to sell your labour directly, in whatsoever manner you choose to whomever you choose.

The only limit to this right is where it interferes with another person's right to purchase others labours and/or goods, or sell theirs. Basically, the the right to work where you want in the profession you choose doesn't extend the right to force someone to employ you in the profession you want (and conversely, the right to buy someone's labout doesn't give you the right to force them to sell their labour to you).

ssibal
10th December 2003, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by Glory


So you now add the modifier, "without covering their mouths" to your original example.

It was assumed, from my experience most people do not cover their mouths when coughing or sneezing.

In that case, yes, they are violating my rights but a ban on such behaviour is not reasonably enforceable.

In public probably not, but in private yes it is reasonably enforcable. Would you support forcing private companies to make everyone wear masks just so that people who cough and sneeze will not violate your rights? That is as ridiculous as forcing them to not let people smoke. Nobody is forcing you to go to or work at those places so why should you force them to do something?

However, this is still a false analogy. A vast majority of the time, sneezing and coughing poses no health risk and I can take simple precautions to avoid the risks posed by someone else's failure to wash up.

The same can be said about second hand smoke.

Passive smoke always poses a health risk to me. I'll tell you I am asthmatic before you regale us again with your statistics showing that the risk from passive smoke is negligible. Passive smoke poses a risk to me, personally, 100 % of the time I am exposed.

And coughing and sneezing poses a risk 100% of the time to someone with a weakened immune system. Are we going to force everyone to wear masks to accommodate for their condition? Once again, if it was unavoidable to enter these places that allow smoking then you would have a point, but it is not. You do not have to go to or work at those places.

Glory
10th December 2003, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by ssibal




And coughing and sneezing poses a risk 100% of the time to someone with a weakened immune system. Are we going to force everyone to wear masks to accommodate for their condition? Once again, if it was unavoidable to enter these places that allow smoking then you would have a point, but it is not. You do not have to go to or work at those places.

False analogy. Coughing, sneezing and breathing are unavoidable acts committed by every one. Smoking is not. I can't choose not to cough. You can choose not smoke. Coughing, sneezing , breathing, and hosting bacteria and viruses are part of living. Smoking is not.

Also, I cannot do anything reasonable to protect myself from smoke. It goes into the air. It makes its way through cracks and into nook and cranny. It gets in my hair, my eyes, my mouth, on my skin, in my clothes just because someone is smoking in the same room with me or even in the same building sometimes. There are no protections from contaqminated air short of gas masks and haz/mat suits. That is not reasonable.

You can keep repeating yourself. It isn't going to change anything. You don't have a right to bother other people with noise, odors, obscene behaviour or smoke. I don't really care how you feel about it or wether you think it is right or consistent with the spirit of freedom. The law is against you in several ways.

Glory