raveneye

Not among research scientists, they are certainly not under debate. The scientific consensus, as has been pointed out many times, is that second hand smoke is a significan cause of cancer, lung disease, and heart disease.

I doubt that you and a few others in this forum are better informed about the medical issues here than several international panels and the Surgeon General of the United States.

You certainly did not show this. Where is the proof?

Faulty logic. All you need to demonstrate is that secondhand smoke is a health hazard, and that banning it eliminates the health hazard. If it eliminates the health hazard, then it must necessarily eliminate the cost that the government carries to deal with that particular health hazard. And several independent estimates of the costs have indicated that they are indeed “measurable” (your word). So by your standard you should now concede that banning smoking does reduce expensive government.

(1) So you’re saying that banning secondhand smoke reduces the “total freedom” in some population? Let’s see, under a ban: the entire population is “freer” to do business and to work without being exposed to harmful chemicals. A small subset of the population is less free to pollute the air wherever they please. So: the whole population has greater freedom to breathe clean air, while a small subset has less freedom to poison the air.

Or to approach it a different way, we can ask the public which provides greater freedom, freedom from smoke, or freedom to smoke. In every case a vote had been put to the public so far, they voted overwhelmingly in favor of freedom from smoke. In Miami, for instance, the vote was 70% in favor of “freedom from smoke”.

That sounds to me like a resounding vote that the ban increases freedom, in the most meaningful test of the concept that a society can make.

(2) The entire purpose of laws is to reduce freedom, of those engaging in an act that causes harm or injustice. The “freedom” criterion simply doesn’t hold water, unless you are opposed to all laws. Are you opposed to all laws?

Good, so we have dispensed with the "ineffective" argument.

Nobody keeps a blind eye to the effects of alcohol. Where did you arrive at this idea? That’s precisely why alcohol is regulated. The manner in which alcohol is regulated is completely consistent with the manner in which secondhand smoke is regulated. Where is the contradiction?


Really? Many polls have been made to gauge public support of the secondhand smoke bans, and in general the support among conservatives and liberals has been overwhelmingly in favor of the ban. In reality, very few people disagree with me.

We're still enjoying the parade here in Florida, and there's no cancellation in sight. You're welcome to join in the festivities anytime.

Well I wouldn’t be surprised if this were true, given the intellectual stubbornness of the average person, and their inability to confront the real psychological reasons they believe something.

And yet you still have yet to make an argument that is not extremely easy to refute.