Quote:
|
Originally Posted by raveneye
It's more than a health issue. It's a health issue in which unwilling people have their health compromised, due to behavior that can easily be stopped without any hardship whatsoever. I'm less concerned about banning a behavior that harms others needlessly than banning a behavior that harms only the user in privacy. Drinkers don't force other people to drink, by virtue of being in public. But people are obviously more open to a public smoking ban than an alcohol ban because because public smoking directly infringes on the rights of bystanders, whereas public drinking does not. That should be easy to see.
|
I don't see it that way. If someone gets tanked at a bar and gets on the freeway, the "bystanders" can end up dead. So saying that only the drinker is harmed is not fair, especially if your the in the car he/she drives into.
I would say that people are more open to banning smoking because of simple majorities. Over 60% of people drink alcohol while about 25% of people (in Texas) smoke.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by raveneye
Of course. But we as a society tend to allow people to harm themselves in costly ways. However we generally don't take kindly to people harming innocent bystanders in costly ways.?
|
Is losing a life costly? If you can't see a connection between alcohol related fatalies and a cost to society, I might as well abandon this discussion.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by raveneye
That's hardly a peer-reviewed article. Nor is it remotely unbiased, having been published by smokersinc., a smoker's rights organization. So you don't dispute its conclusions about the economic effects of a ban in restaurants?
|
I didn't say it was peer-reviewed. My point is that many owners say it hurts business. Think of it like this. When a smoking ban goes into effect and a business has an uncovered patio, people could still smoke outside. Smokers will go to this business rather than another. Because of the usually limited number of bars that have patio space, 10% of bars will experience increased sales, while others will lose sales. Usually small, independently owned bars. In Austin, the same thing applies to venues. Some open air venues, will automatically become the most popular with smokers. The smoke ban may have no
aggregate negative effect of sales, but it affects each place individually.
As far as the article you posted. Look up that professor. He has spent his whole life trying to get rid of tobacco. It is not surprising that when he puts some data together, he comes up with the conclusions he was after. Is he not biased?
Studies (even scientific ones) sponsored by tobacco companies are not ipso facto wrong. Biased, yes. But everyone has an agenda. It is best to at least look at both sides.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by raveneye
Freedom for whom? Smokers or non-smokers?
|
Freedom for everyone. Freedom to choose whatever bar you want- be it smoking or smoke free.