Smoking Bans and Simple Ethics

[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 has some spin on the subject that even I had not though of.

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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 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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

Originally posted by Glory


Try wording it this way.

Try wording it this way.

Quote Williams from another article:

Quote:

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]

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

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.

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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 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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Ex-smokers are the most vehement against smoking. Who'd figure?

[EvilYeti]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

EvilYeti,

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

[Glory]

Quote:

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

And here

Quote:

• 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

Quote:

• 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]

Glory,

thankies!

I got some reading to do now.

[Glory]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Dont eat or work at restaurants that allow smoking. Easy.

[WildCat]

Quote:

Originally posted by J Coplen


Yeah, what you say.

Not just me!

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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.