shakran:


clearly if you can avoid all cigarette smoke you will never die.
clearly if you avoid all contaminants, you will never die or age.
time will not happen in the same way for you, if you can eliminate contaminants.

i assume your interior space is free of contaminants--empty, white, pure, filtered air, filtered light, all food taste-tested--and so outside should be as well--it is your god given right to move smoothly through contaminant free spaces.
this right has unlimited extension.
your god-given right to move through contaminant free spaces is absolute.
it overrides all others because it is yours.
and what is yours is most important.

now the rest of us, we all know this inwardly, but we are Evil and because we are Evil we do things to fuck with you. that is why smokers smoke: to fuck with you, to tamper with your absolute right to move in all directions through a contaminant free space.
why?
because we resent your absolute centrality in the universe.
we are petty foul lesser beings who resent your absolute right to move in all directions at any time through an absolutely pure space.
we are closer to mud.
we are half-formed beings who still bear unpleasant traces of the material world.
we are not yet fully spirit, not yet fully realized beings. not yet pure form which has a god given right to move in all directions through contaminant-free space.
we are ourselves contamination.

What in the HELL are you talking about? I never said I'd be immortal if not for Pan's smoking. If you really read that into what I said you need some remedial reading comprehension classes.

Ahh. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Apparently it's your god given right to contaminate those spaces by smoking and it overrides all others because it's yours and what is yours is most important. I get it now.


either this is brilliant satire in which you champion my side of the debate by showing how absurd arguments against it are, or you're insane. Which is it?

read through your posts, shakran.
there is a hysteria about contamination running through them.
look for yourself: read them as if they had been put up by someone else, and you'll see.


i am not going anywhere near the issue of reading comprehension.
but i sometimes marvel at the powers of projection and displacement.
there is satire, but i dont think you understand it.
which is funny, given that the central target in what i posted was narcissism.

roland barthes called that kind of thing "deaf and blind criticism"---the argument is as yours is: "i dont get it therefore you are an idiot"

there is a strange loop in this, and i am not sure you want to go into it.
but whatever.
i have other things to do.
carry on.

Don't be dense, i've repeatedly said that these bans have a large amount of support. This is actually a case of the public deciding what is in it's best interest. It's a shame you find yourself on the losing side of this position, but thems the breaks. Now i guess you know how the public urinators feel.

Pan, these aren't rights. You should stop calling them rights. Especially since you can't back up your assertion that these are rights. And as far as civility goes, you're the only one in this thread who resorted to the text equivalent of yelling.

As long as we're talking about made-up rights, let me be the first to claim that every person has the right to spend an evening at a bar without smelling like smoke; smokers want to take away that right; smokers just want to exert power over others; this is the beginning of the end of all freedom everywhere.

See how ridiculous that is?

Get over yourself. Smoking bans are not the beginning of the descent into totalitarianism. That's ridiculous. You do your position no service when you say things that make you come across as hysterical.

I smoke outside all the time. Guess what, i'm fine. I like it, even when it's 25 degrees F. I would suggest that you smoke outside.

I'm thinking more and more that this debate is about people rationalizing their disgust with inconvenient laws by coming up with really shaky, inconsistent arguments as to why those laws are bad.

For instance you have the "These laws violate my rights" argument, which completely ignores the fact that unless you make up your own definition of the word right you actually have no right to smoke. No, it's not like censorship because the constitution actually mentions something about freedom of speech; it doesn't mention tobacco products.

There's also the "business owners should be able to do whatever they want" argument, which is also ridiculous. Has anyone heard of regulatory agencies? The government? They're the people who tell businesses what they can't do and they've been doing it for a long time. It's nothing new, and to claim that this instance of regulation is somehow more heinous or "wrong" than every other instance smacks of inconsistency.

There's the "if you don't like smoke why don't you go somewhere else" argument to which it is way too easy to respond "if you don't like smoking bans why don't you move to somewhere where they don't have them". Both statements are really nothing more than a fancy way of saying "Fuck you". Really, though, it's not that simple. Like i said above, there weren't any smoke-free bars in my city before the ban, i couldn't simply "go somewhere else" unless that somewhere else was to the liquor store and then home. This never seems to get addressed when i bring it up, though.

You usually make slightly more sense than this roachboy. You're slipping. I don't have a hysteria about contamination. That's like accusing me of having a hysteria with cleanliness because i wash my hands after handling raw meat. Cigarette smoke is bad for me. I don't want cigarette smoke near me because of that. That's not hysteria, it's intelligence.

like i said, you dont want to walk into the strange loop, the one that shows you cannot process irony when it is directed at you, the one that functions to demonstrate the narcissism that is being mocked. the more you write, the tighter you pull you bring down the mockery around you.
it is like one of those finger traps.
let it go.

----

seriously, i am a smoker and i have already repeated a couple times that smoking bans are not to me a big deal--fine, whatever--but i tend to accept the logic of worker health protection as the driver for them and think the generalization to a question of general "public health" to be shaky at best.


i dont find the liberal (in the js mill sense) discourse of rights to be relevant or interesting in this context. consequently, i dont find arguments based on that premise to be either interesting or relevant. all that the premise does is provide a pretext to formalize what we already know about from the debate itself--that there is a differend (the space defined by the ways in which parties on the opposite side of a debate talk by each other)---what is worse for both positions is that they end up like those mutually exclusive but formally correct arguments over scarce resources in hobbes...they make the issue undecidable. and with that, people resort to bluster. straw men. bullshit, in short. so it is a stupid avenue to take in this kind of context.

again, the argument that i find compelling in support of smoking bans is that of worker health, and that pertains to the folk who work restos or pubs.

as for the anxieties about contamination that use this questions as a pretext to be expressed--i think they're funny and more than a little pathetic.

Real mature and showing how flimsy your argument is when you have to use the highlighted portion to attack.

Your refusal to talk to me like a person with respect shows exactly the superior stutus you are taking.

"We must control what others do, because they do not know how to do for themselves."

Excuse me, they are rights. For too long we have mislabelled rights as "priveleges" so that they can be taken away and/or played with.

And where exactly did I claim I had the right to smoke anywhere????? No, I stated I am more than happy to smoke in designated areas INSIDE the venue I am in. Those areas around here are already made.... separate rooms, with separate ventilations. I have the right to enjoy my dinner the same as you, I may prefer to smoke while I eat..... that is my right.

Just as it is a business owners right to serve whom he wants how he wants. Of course when I say that your side had to take it to silly juvenile extremes like "masterbating in food..." which again shows your mentality of "we are superior.... we know better so fuckin shut up and conform or we'll keep villifying you and using more juvenile attacks on you."



I think they are the start. I find most of your side's arguments very immature and as stated above, juvenile.


Lady Sage and I smoke outside of our house because we have a parrot that is very expensive and we don't want to hurt it.

I have no problem smoking outside.... I do it at work and school. I am arguing the fact that restaurant, bars and other places that historically have allowed smoking be allowed to have the owners decide what they want to do.

Ah, but then again the Constitution doesn't say anything about universal healthcare (which I have seen you for), minimum wage, guaranteeing education, etc.

As for censorship, nowhere does the Constitution say we have the right to have Tom Sawyer in our library, or Howard Stern on the radio or internet access..... show me in the Constitution where it truly gives us those rights.

I'm running late for class (have to grab a cigarette also)..... I'll finish tonight when I get home from work.... around 12:30 EST.

By the way, this is a good debate until you have to use juvenile examples to try to prove your point.... then you lose and show how weak your position is.

dude, you smoke while you eat? holy shit, that's hardcore.

I'm a smoker and I'm all for smoking bans as long as it's a public health issue. If it's because I stink, or you're offended by the smell, or you think I don't know any better then you can bite my shiny, metal ass.

I'm even okay with them jumping on business owners about this. After all, we expect the government to protect the health of the average worker, right? I mean, there is a reasonable expectation of safety in the workplace, isn't there?

I'm a smoker. I know the dangers that entails and I choose to do it anyway. I smoke in my home, in the parking lot outside and occasionally in the car. As long as I can continue to do such, I'm with the anti-smokers. I don't have a "right" to smoke, but I do have a reasonable expectation to be able to enjoy a perfectly legal something...whatever that something happens to be. If it'll make the anti-smokers happy and help curb the blistering hate from their eyes, then "Viva la revolution!"

Nah, I got it all the first time. The problem's on your side.

Such may very well be the cost of feeding your family in some cases. It's just too bad that the evil employer gave you a 'feeding your family' option that was far from perfect, it would've been much better if you had no 'feeding your family' option at all and your family died hungry and cancer-free - because there's no other employment option in this fantasy scenario of yours, right?

No, it isn't. For the government to protect its citizens from such choices - if they even exist, I'm skeptical in this day and age - is for the government to violate property rights. The government shouldn't do this unless there's a preexisting rights violation to justify it.

Actually, this ad hominem attack doesn't even apply to me, as I am neither a business owner nor a smoker.

What I am saying is that I don't understand the idea that people have a right to jobs. They don't, unless they're under contract. The government may act sometimes like there is such a right, but that hardly justifies the idea.

Absurd. Of course it's private property. It's also used by the public, but only because the owner allows the public to use it.

Let me be clear here: I'm absolutely fine with a 'public place' - per your definition - serving rotting meat, making ratburgers, and jizzing up the pasta. It's none of the government's business if they conduct such business.

What is the government's business is that the 'public place' isn't deceptive or significantly incomplete in portraying these things. The government's actual job should be enforcing honesty. Make the businesses explicitly and clearly advertize that they're not using alfredo sauce on the noodles.

A business that offers such blatantly disgusting food isn't likely to attract very much of the public anyway. (Unless it's fast food, of course - we should probably ban that stuff as well.)

But a fair amount of the population is willing to tolerate filthy filthy cigarette smoke in exchange for food or wages. The government has no business breaking up such a voluntary agreement.

quick question: not toungue in cheek - what's the difference in the way that businesses, or buildings zoned for business, are taxed. do they receive additional tax breaks / incentives, or are they taxed at different rates?

i'm pretty sure that a private business falls under a number of different regulations than a private home, foolthemall. i guess you would disagree with those distinctions?

What i said wasn't meant to be an attack. Smoking bans exist in a lot of places, including, apparently, where you live. In that sense you have already lost. And my maturity has nothing to do with this, though it does make for a handy way to ignore what i was actually saying.

Yep, that's kind've the foundation of our legal system.

Well, with that broad definition, every law that's now on the books deprives us a right. In which case your appeal to your rights doesn't really mean all that much. Public urination laws take a way my right to piss in the street. Murder laws take away my right to kill people without repurcussion. I guess if that's how you want to characterize a right, than it doesn't really matter to me that we've all lost the right to smoke in indoor public places. I would much rather have the right to eat out and go to a bar without having to deal with smoke than the right to smoke in a bar or a club or a restaurant.


All i was doing with that paragraph was transposing the framework of your argument onto my argument. Obviously it seemed just as absurd to you as it does to me. And it's not your right to smoke inside any more than it is my right to piss in the middle of the street.

I never said anything about masturbating in food. My side? I didn't know that i was speaking for anyone other than myself. In fact, i'm not speaking for anyone other than myself. If you want to call me names, you should call me names for something that i actually said, not something that someone whom you falsely associate with me did.

Well, i think that you're perhaps a little to self important when it comes to your habits. That's fine if you find "my side's" arguments juvenile. It doesn't really matter to me, at this point, how you perceive my arguments because it's pretty clear to me that you're not really having a conversation with me. What you're actually doing is arguing with whatever i represent to you, which is apparently some vague nebulous notion of what people who favor smoking bans think.

I've never asserted that any of these things are rights, so the constitution is irrelevant. The reasons those things aren't reality is that there isn't enough support for them to happen. That's one of the shitty things about living in a democracy is that you have to live with the decisions of people who disagree with you about things you think are important.

You're right, libraries, satellite radio and the internet aren't rights. Though we do have the right to most forms of free expression, a right which complements our library and internet priveliges.

It would be a better debate if you could get past your first impression of my examples and actually address them.

Personally there is exactly ONE good jazz club in Cleveland, it is a smoking establishment. If I wish to enjoy live jazz I have to put my health at risk (I'm asthmatic) because someone else can't control their vice long enough to go through an hour set without partaking. I'm a casual drinker who never has more than 2 drinks if I am driving (I'm 6'2 230lbs, so well below any limit) and I have never been an angry drunk, so my vice has never endangered others. I understand that some people have become addicted and are not able to stop, hell my brother had nodules in his lungs, quit from fear then started up again 9 months later! I would just rather that people keep their bad habits to themselves. If they are unwilling or unable to do so for themselves I am perfectly willing (and just did) vote to enforce my right not to be negatively impacted by their inconsideration.

It is not automatically OK for an employer to endanger the health of his employees just because there may be other options. And in all likelihood there really aren't other options -at least none that have the earnings potential of being a (good) waiter who gets good tips. Remember that economic thread in here with the picture of THOUSANDS of people lining up for 200 jobs at a candy store? That shows you that jobs aren't easy to come by these days.





If it's not the government's job to protect us then I suppose you support getting rid of all government health, safety, and food inspectors?


I don't know where you got that. I never said they have a right to a job. They don't. But when they do have a job they have a right to perform the duties expected of them without being exposed to harmful conditions. That's why OSHA goes apeshit when someone has to use caustic chemicals and isn't given proper protective equipment. Because that person has the right to expect his employer to make sure he won't get hurt on the job.


Private property that the owner invites the public to access operates under very different rules than regular private property. If it's accessible to the public it has to have certain safety features in place- - -good fire escapes, fire suppression if it's a certain size, etc. The government can, will, and should regulate the conditions in that building so that the general public, when they enter that building, is not exposed to needless danger.

Well. . .That's crazy. Sorry, but it is.



Why? They're not allowed to protect the citizens according to your argument, why should they be allowed to enforce honesty. And that doesn't even address the fact that the government enforcing honesty would be somewhat like George Carlin enforcing FCC swearing regulations ;)

See, this is where you guys either don't understand our position, or are purposely misinterpreting it. We should not ban fast food. Some have called for a ban on fast food and junk food and they're idiots. If you eat a big mac, it's not going to hurt me in any way even if you do it right next to me in a tiny room. If you smoke a cigarette, it will hurt me.


Tell me why you feel you have the right, and are justified, in hurting everyone around you.

If you know that those things are going on and you go in there whos fault is that? You know if a bar has a non smoking policy or not. Most of those other things you mentioned are done behind the scenes where the consumer can not see nor make an educated decision to use the service/establishment.

The establishment owner is not pumping smoke into the air. He simply allows his customers to smoke if they want to. They are not trying to hurt you like you try to make it seem. No one is running around with a cigarette blowing smoke in your face saying "I hope you get cancer". YOU go there YOU get the cancer maybe. You see there was no "they" in that sentence where YOU get cancer. Which is what you anti smokers are worried about isn't it? The YOU factor.

You don't have to coexist in the bar that a guy bought and set up and let people smoke in. Just like I don't have to coexist with you on this forum but I choose to. If I don't like something here I'll leave. I'm not going to try and change forum rules every where because you annoy me and it may raise my blood pressure and some day lead to a heart attack.

All of these anti smoking arguments are saying that it is ok to tell the "establishment owner" to not allow his customers to not do something that will hurt you if you choose to let it hurt you. Seems akin to big brother to me. No one is saying it's ok to hurt non smokers. It's not ok to hurt other people. By going into the bar people aren't hurting you, you are hurting your self.

So choose to not go. It's not the owners fault you don't smoke. Just like me telling a gay bar owner that he needs to change his bar to straight only because I'm not gay makes no sense. He shouldn't be forced to cater to you or any specific group if he doesn't want to.

This thread, and specifically the link posted above (whyquit.com) has actually encouraged me to stop smoking.
Not that I care about others that much, because I usually smoke away from public doorways, always outside, and never stand next to others when I smoke.

I'm not a heavy smoker at all, and have started very recently, but it's really not doing anything good for me, and I'd rather not have to smell bad, be less athletic (bike rides are sooo much harder when you smoke).

I just hope that I'll be able to "NEVER TAKE ANOTHER PUFF!" like the site says.

As for why people hate smokers, there are lots of scenarios where I can understand it. Whenever I've been to a nice restaurant, with top quality food, I've always hated smelling smoke when the restaurant allowed it. It ruined it all, the wine, the taste of the food, and the pleasant atmosphere.

Also, many smokers are inconsiderate. All my smoker friends would always put out their cigarettes on the floor, and leave the butts there, and it's not the greatest sight when you're walking around the street.

I don't think cigarettes should be illegal, but I think smokers should be more courteous and considerate.
The fact is, non-smokers do not bother other people with bad smell or endanger their lives, so I think smokers should try their best at doing the same.

So because you didn't like the smoke the restaurant the owner should by law not be able to allow it? Becuase you didn't like it you get to tell him what to do? I know you didn't say that but that is what is happening around the country.


Socially acceptable to use stereotypes now?

The law can't enforce courtesy.

GL with the quittting. Smoking is definetly not something anyone should do. Quit now every puff just makes you more addicted!

We're forgetting a basic concept of our system of government here. Less than 25% of the American public are smokers (source, CDC survey 2003). That means the majority of us are not.

What makes you guys think that 25% of the people get to decide for the other 75%? More than 3/4s of us do not smoke, and therefore presumably would prefer you not smoke in buildings we are in. In short, you're in the minority.

That's incredibly weak.

And businesses who dump noxious chemicals into the river aren't trying to hurt the environment either. They're just trying to get rid of waste without paying for it. What's your point? Whether you're trying to or not, you are.

No, they're saying "I really don't give a crap if you get cancer"

Yes. The vast majority of us are antismokers and WE (that's plural too, quit acting like it's only one of us) are tired of YOU harming us because you have an unfortunate habit.

Hell I think we're being pretty nice about it. We're saying smoke outside, not inside. We're not trying to ban your drug (like most other addictive, harmful drugs are already). We're just telling you to take your drug away from us.

Depends on the distinction. The inability of the property owner to decide whether there's smoke on his property? No, I don't agree with that one.

It is if the employee agrees to it.

Nah. They're still good for ensuring that the place of business is exactly as the owner claims it is.

Apologies, but this position seems just as odd to me. Would you support the right of the owners to fire anyone who complains about harmful conditions? Since they don't have a right to that job? That's a compromise I could actually get behind, but I somehow doubt you're similarly receptive.

The right you're suggesting exists, in the absence of the right to a job, is both nonsensical and useless. Unless, of course, people have the right to a job once they have the job, is that it?

Well, I agree that the general public should be ensured easy, safe exit from the building. And really, fire precautions make sense as a whole, because fires can lead to external costs. Give me an external cost and I'll back legally mandated prevention.

Well. . .That's a useless comment. Sorry, but it is. You'll excuse me if I don't take your word for it.

They're not allowed to protect the citizens from voluntary choices. Being deceived is not a voluntary choice.

Will me eating jizz pizza - hypothetically, you understand - hurt you in any way if I do it next to you in a tiny room? Because that's what the 'ban fast food' idea was in response to.

Not everyone. Just everyone who assented to the harm by stepping foot on property that allows smoking. See, it doesn't sound so crazy when you state it in an honest way.

foolthemall,

from my perspective, i think that while i find your position interesting, i just don't think its going to fly. it sounds like you're not on board with public nuissance laws, the enforcement of public safety codes and regulations, etc. while i can see where you're coming from, i just don't see your positions as pragmatic. in your society, is literacy required? is there an absolute, enforceable common language? are children always supervised? is the landowner / business owner responsible for people who don't understand the dangers they are walking into? can a sign be posted in a legally correct, but potentially misleading manner?

as i understand, our society basically takes the position that the risk of having practical misunderstandings or accidental exposures to these materials / safety situation is such that if you're going to have a publicly accessible business / property, there are some safety considerations that you simply have to avoid. period. you can't put fugi sticks in your front yard at work, with a sign that says "what out for sharp shit laden sticks." i mean, someone could have avoided your booby trapped property. you put up a very clear sign. but they didnt' see it. they were preoccupied. they were on medication for the first time. they don't read. they step on sharp sticks of shit, and i'm thinking you're going to have a little legal problem.

No, actually, it's not. That's why we have OSHA. OSHA regs do not have a clause saying "unless the employee is cool with it."


well most states are what's known as "at-will" employment which means the employee can quit or be terminated for any reason or no reason at all. However, there are also whistleblower laws which protect workers who call attention to the violations of their employers.

You might wanna read up on your law there. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 P.L 91-596 "assures safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women throughout the Nation."

It gives workers the right to notify their employer or OSHA about workplace hazards.

It gives them the right to request an OSHA inspection of their workplace

It gives them the right to protection from employer discrimination if they exercise their other rights.

It gives them the right to see OSHA citations issued to their employer.

And it requires the employer to correct violations found by OSHA.

If you don't believe me, go to work. There should be a poster in the breakroom (or somewhere public) outlining these rights. If there's not, that too is an OSHA violation.

Cool! what about the public health drain from people who have gotten sick from inhaling cigarette smoke? Hell if we take your promise to its logical conclusion you'll be supporting a ban on cigarettes pretty soon. ;)

Of course they are. You've heard of the "war on drugs?"

Well the point about masturbating into the pasta was that it creates a general heatlh concern - -i.e. maybe YOU will hypothetically eat it and enjoy it, but YOU are not the only one eating it.

If you really want to eat it, and you're bringing your own (so it doesn't contaminate my regular pasta) I really don't care. That's your choice.



Again, we get to the workplace safety issue. Workers cannot choose whether or not to be exposed to that cigarette smoke. You might have a case if the employer made gas masks available to his employees so they don't have to breathe that crap in, but we both know that would be silly even if it did happen.

I've been looking into a few things here and I have to say, I'm getting more and more convinced that the real argument for about half the people on this thread have now is, "how much control over our lives should government have." While the other half are still arguing, "smoking is bad for me so I don't do it and you shouldn't be able to make me." While the parallels are there, the issues really aren't connected. Smoking in this case is more of an example of how government is trying to control our lives rather than the issue of concern, for some, and I suppose I am becoming one of those.

Smoking is horrible. If you can, STOP.

See my perfume example above, non smokers do stink and make people sick. They just don't see that smelling themselves up is actually causing harm to others. The response to my question proves the non-smoker's argument in this case is right. Other people will never actually be courteous and respectful of others needs without external controls to the issue. You know there is a significant number of people that develop illnesses ranging from a skin rash to asthma attacks due to this entirely unnecessary practice, yet unless some actually DIES from it, there is no need to expect people to stop swimming around in that crud. Hurting people doesn't count apparently as harming them.

I am a subscriber to the harm principle which is basically that no part of my freedoms should ever be curtailed unless not curtailing my ability to practice my freedoms would harm another person. This means that yes, I do believe that laws not specifically designed to protect should not exist. Cities that lower the speed limit on low traffic wide roads for the sole purpose of gathering more revenue for the city by encouraging breaking that unreasonable and often unexpected speed limit, without need, piss me off. Laws should be for protection ONLY.

This is where we come into conflict. Whose rights do we protect and whose safety do we ensure? We have to protect everyone. Smoking bans on public places must be in place because smoking is dangerous, being in an enclosed area with a smoker is dangerous, and therefore laws need to be in place to protect against that danger.

Now to the more complex problem, are privately owned restaraunts and bars public? Not really. They are, by definition, privately owned. There is an expectation that a large portion of the public population will be present there, but they are in fact PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY. Publicly accessible does not mean the same as public property.

It is typically believed that working is not a right. It is good for society to have our citizens working, but it is not a right. If my smoking is not a right and therefore there should be no laws in place to protect me from unreasonable bans on that right, then the same MUST be said of workers, because frankly their right to work is not any more guaranteed than my right to smoke, though it is more widely valued.

I hold by my statement that we must take care how much we allow the government to control behaviors. We will be instruments of our own loss of liberties.

I do want to note here that my stance changes if we are discussing whether or not it is better for the public to limit where I can smoke. I am discussing here only the extent of governmental controls over behavior that I am comfortable with. I KNOW it is better for the public at large if I don't smoke in public. Even before the bans went into place I did not sit in the smoking section of restaraunts. I tried to stay away from those areas where people were forced to walk very close to me in order to get into an establishment. I think it is very important that we, as citizens, try to respect each others needs and wants, even when we don't share those wants.

Pardon. I'm arguing 'ought', not 'is'. It ought to be that way.

I'm fine with whistleblower laws as far as blowing the whistle on deception or activities with external costs.

'Ought', not 'is'.

You're going to have to elaborate on this one.

'Ought', not 'is'. I'm against the war on drugs.

If you really don't want to eat it, do as I'd do and don't seek out the business offering it.

There is no magic number of repetitions that will turn this into a true statement.

Workers can choose. They can leave. They can seek other employment.

There. is. no. force.

I am on board, with the caveat that these codes only apply to places and nuisances that are actually public. To borrow the phrasing of another poster, 'accessible to the public' doesn't cut it.

You could increase the mandated steps to make potential patrons aware as the dangers increase. As a preexisting example, many bars and adult stores ask for ID. People could be notified at the door(s) of the dangers in the building. Parental permission could be required for kids wishing to enter an establishment with smokers. I'm not seeing an insurmountable obstacle here.

See above. I don't have a problem with the government requiring significantly more warning - A LOT MORE - for a yard filled with fugi sticks. Probably to the point where it's not worth it to have a yard filled with fugi sticks, though only because fugi sticks should require a great deal of warnings/precautions.

Smoking? That's a lot more feasible as far as warnings go.

I can argue from the "ought" perspective too. I "ought" to be able to enjoy a meal at a restaurant without some dimwit exposing me to carcinogens. The majority of Americans, who are non smokers, "ought" to be able to dictate that they want publicly accessible places to be smoke free, even if the petulant minority doesn't like it.



Employee gets sick from inhaling too much cigarette smoke. Restaurant employees generally don't have much, if any, health insurance, so he has to go to the public hospital and get treatment that's paid for by the taxpayers. There's your external cost.




The external cost is the drain on public healthcare dollars from people who are sick because of their smoking habit.


So am I. The only drugs that should be illegal are the ones that effect more than the user when they are used as intended. Example, snorting cocaine only hurts the person snorting it. Smoking marijuana effects everyone around the doper. And as the legalize-it crowd loves to point out, cigarette smoke is a lot worse than pot.


If you really want to smoke, do as I would and go somewhere where you won't bother everyone else with your habit.


Correct, because it's already true. The hope is that if we repeat it in just the right way, you'll figure that out ;)


You make this sound so easy. Take someone on the very low end of the economic ladder and tell him "hey quit your job right now, then go find another" - - because finding another while you're a waiter is very difficult since so much of your time is taken up at the restaurant - and finding a job period can be difficult. If your only qualification is that you've been a waiter for 10 years, that's not exactly gonna get you into very many jobs other than more waiter jobs. It's very easy to dismiss the working poor as being victims of their own laziness, but that concept does not fit the facts.

Well yeah, actually it does cut it. If the public is invited to be somewhere, that place needs to be a safe place for the public to be.


Or we could just make the environment safe to begin with and not have to worry about it. Again, you're in the less-than-25% minority and you are trying to dictate against the wishes of the majority.

I think yesterday's nationwide voting on various gay marriage bans is atrocious but I'm apparently in the minority. I have to accept that and move on, even though that really IS a human rights issue, whereas yours is a minority convenience issue. You don't want to get up and walk all the way to the door to have a cigarette. You're not BANNED from having a cigarette. You can smoke all you want. Just not where you will harm others.

Analog called it at the beginning. This argument is a bunch of smokers who want to smoke in public despite knowing they are hurting everyone around them with their habit. It's not only an indefensible argument, it's inexcusable as well.

""You make it seem like smokers are trying to impose on you. Anti smokers are imposing on smokers. Not the other way around. Power in numbers does not embue such power that those superior numbers make choices for private property owners that run a business on their property if their particular choice does not force harm upon the public while not disrupting their daily lives outside said property. At least not in America.""


""Incredibly weak retort. Are you saying this qoute is false? This qoute from my post hardly makes sense taken out of context.""


""They are spilling their chemicals out onto goverment land that everyone uses. By law the land they are polluting is just as much yours as it is theirs. How you can look at this chemical dumping situation and at smoking on private property and make a comparision is beyond me.""


""I assume you took the "Blow their smoke in your face" part from this qoute out because it's never happened that someone blew smoke in your face and said "I hope you get cancer". You make the smoker an indifferent figure in this arguement. What happened to the hostile smoker that followed you around giving you cancer?""

""I also assume that you think smokers imply this "I really don't give a crap if you get cancer" when you go around them and they don't immedietly put out their cigarette.""



""Again I don't smoke.You is a generalization. What people want me to do on my property makes no difference. I don't care how many people stand on my lawn and say they want it their way. What I do on my property is my decision not yours. You can partake or not, up to you. By being around smokers you are harming your self they aren't harming you.""


""Smokers don't want to smoke around you. You want to be around smokers in privately owned public places. This is the argument you keep avoiding. You are forcing your self unto them in their space. Anti-smokers and Non-smokers are different. For example: you are an Anti-smoker I am a Non-Smoker please try to keep this in mind.""

Changing gears.

""Hey let's qoute some more single sentences out of the middle of a paragraph shakran, qouting people's arguements out of context is fun for debate! Watch.""

I can smoke in my home if I please!

""See it's stupidly easy to make an airtight argument in this way. I am completly right on my point but you were never arguing my right to smoke in my home so my retort is false as much of your counter arguments are false in this same way.""


Shakran you seem firm on this subject yet you still don't have any arguments with an ounce of validity for any three of my main points. Which are:

1. Business owners should have the right to choose if smoking tobacco goes on on their property.

2. Anti-smokers and Non-Smokers have the ability to stay away from smokers indoors in non privately owned buildings.

3. Anti-smokers and Non-Smokers are not forced to enter buildings where smoking is allowed.

""Because these three arguments are true: the smoking ban is a law that is unjustified and takes away ones right to choose for him self, this includes you my freind shakran.""

""Shakran you can dance all day with chemicals in rivers and grammar corrections all while mis qouting me. All you're doing is drawing attention (maybe your own attention) away from the truth. Which is that you have no argument for the smoking ban. While I have kept firm to my points you have jumped ship on many of yours. Your points become increasingly indirect and vague.""

it looks to me like this all hinges on the private/public portion of the business owner's location. i'm looking into this now, perhaps an attourney can answer it lickedly split like, but it seems that a private business run in an area zoned for commercial real estate, where the public is explicitly invited to enter, is considered more of a hybrid entity between a private residential area, and a public government building or park area. in conjunction with this, these businesses have to conform to certain public regulations and safety codes. not by means of disclosure, but by means of eliminating certain hazards. this isn't about someone telling granny that she can't smoke in her house while she knits sweaters to sell on ebay. i don't understand what's so mystifying about the public interest when it involves the production of airborn carcinogens and biological materials that clog the airways and lungs of passersby. i think the worker safety aspect may be the strongest, easiest place to see this; but i think you can make a legal argument based solely on public health nuissance.

i just hope that i can go down to my local tobacconist / bar that sells actual beer and ale, have myself a pipe and a pale ale in the company of likeminded people who have specifically chosen that environement. i'm thinking that license for public use of tobacco products should enable that.

wash, rinse, repeat.

Making a place have a license would be fine IMO.

It's a moot point here in Ohio now. The voters spoke overwhelmingly and smoking lost.

What I find interesting is that issue 18 in Cleveland passed (it adds a 40 cent per pack tax to support the museums), however, you are not allowed to smoke anywhere in public now.

Plus, Issue 5 (makes smoking illegal in any workplace) sets up a "clean air fund" that adds a "not yet determined tax" to packs.

So it proves my point, to non-smokers they truly cannot live without the taxes, they want the taxes they leech off the taxes, but don't "pollute" their air.

So let's say we smokers start quitting or buying on the black market, from the internet, Indian reservations etc. What's going to happen to these places that need our money? Something else will have to be taxed the way cigarettes are to make up for the lost revenue. What will it be? Coffee? I can't stand the smell of coffee, how many road ragers are hopped up on caffeine? Why do I have to smell the noxious fumes of coffee? Fast food? I don't like McDonald's or the others, the smell pollutes the air in the neighborhoods with a stench brought by their deep fryers that have been said to create carcinogens.... and they subject primarily high school employees to this.

Now, the businessman in me sees this as a huge money making chance. I open a smoking club costs members $50/year to get in, I allow smoking and I make sure we are a happening club. And I make it a hot nightclub and I get non-smokers wanting in but I deny them, I'm sure lawsuits will ensue for discrimination. Or I allow non-smokers to join and they start suing because I allow smoking, in, imagine this.... "a smoker's club".

Oh wait, Issue 5 made sure that can't happen because it's still a workplace and even if all my employees are smokers, it's illegal. So I use club members and reduce their membership rates and pay them under the table.

So why don't we just make these evil things illegal? You don't want them anywhere, we are pariahs, you use our taxes and raise them but refuse to find some form of middle ground to cohabilitate.

You can't make them illegal and when the numbers of smokers decrease to where the tax revenue is seriously hurt, see how fast the tide on smoking changes. The medical healthcare industry alone makes BILLIONS upon BILLIONS on smokers, do you really think they are going to allow you to stop smoking?

But today, it is a moot point. It's cool.... but in the end you just gave up rights of business owners and people. Whether you recognize or admit it, you did. And these power hungry people won't stop at smoking, power hungry people never stop. Once they get a taste of that power and see how and what blueprint to use to take rights away..... they are going to keep going, because in the end this was all about having power over someone else....

Congratulations, just hope and pray you aren't next.

No, that's telling private property owners what they ought to do with their property when the public has the option of not accepting the invitation to use their private property. And you aren't justified in doing that.

Frankly, that's only an external cost because the government made it one. Reductio ad absurdum, there again goes the road down to banning fast food. Let's stick with natural direct external costs, not indirect artificial ones. Otherwise, the government would have a way to justify banning any unhealthy activity. Understand the distinction?

Not when the harm is confined to private property. Which is what a restaurant is.

1. Again, I don't really want to smoke. I've never smoked.

2. Nah, that's okay, I prefer the 'leave my private property if you don't like it' option.

[quote]Correct, because it's already true. The hope is that if we repeat it in just the right way, you'll figure that out ;)

It's not true. It's blatantly obvious that there's no force and that there is a choice.

It may not be easy. At all. But it is a choice. There's no force.

No, the public does not need to be safe wherever it chooses to go. That would pretty much empty out Detroit. The public does need to be aware of risks associated with any particular location. The public should be able to make an informed choice. Beyond that, let them do what they want to.

The majority has no business telling me what to do with my property when none of their rights are forcibly violated by my actions. It may have the means, but it does not have any moral justification.

It's both. It's a matter of convenience and a matter of rights. If there's no involuntary violation of your rights, then you have no business dictating an alternate course of action. It may be trivial in your view, it's still none of your business.

What's indefensible is the notion that private property accessible to the public is somehow public property. It's neither indefensible nor inexcusable to insist upon the right to partake in harmful activities on your own property.

You've shown so far that you can only get a semblance of a defense for your position when you (A) falsely classify restaurants as public property and (B) falsely claim that employees have no choice in the matter.

[QUOTE=FoolThemAll]
Frankly, that's only an external cost because the government made it one. Reductio ad absurdum, there again goes the road down to banning fast food. Let's stick with natural direct external costs, not indirect artificial ones. Otherwise, the government would have a way to justify banning any unhealthy activity. Understand the distinction?[/QOUTE]

Oh you mean like wearing a helmet or a seat belt?

pan,

i'm going to back up roach's comment from earlier. roll your own, and yes you can get filters to roll in if you want. if your local tobacco store doesn't carry bins or preweighed ounces of rolling cigarette tobacco, I'd suggest seeing if they carry Samson or American Spirit. You'll save money.

I agree that restricting your ability to smoke in public while raising taxes is pretty crappy.

https://www.lilbrown.com/Rolling-Tob...-STOKKEBYE.htm

stokkebye tobacco is really pretty good and you can usually find it for about 20 bucks a vat at a tobacco shop and less if you order online from places like the above...i like tobacco stores and also need papers (i loose them all the time) so i go that way. it is about 20% the price of prepackaged cigarettes (depending on how much you smoke)--they last quite a while and the canisters keep it moist, and it does not have the accelerants and preservatives and other chemical crap that manufactured cigarettes do. just tobacco, which is not great healthwise of course, but certainly is not as bad for you as tobacco plus that other junk.

american spirit is much too harsh for me--it makes me feel like i am running steel wool on my throat.

i used to smoke gauloises lighter tobacco but gauloises no longer exports to the states.

and you can get filters.
and it still sucks trying to quit.

Never had stokkebye, i used to have a wonderful pipe shop that carried a great selection of all tobacco products, but cigarette tobacco was among them. I've got a humidor for my cigars, and i just keep the cigarette smoke in their as well. works out pretty nicely. there is nothing, nothing, like a whipass pale ale and a good smoke. it may be a weakness, it may be wrong, but if loving the smoke is wrong, i don't wanna be right...(insert arsenio hall in coming to america)

yeah, if you smoke gallois...that shit is tree bark. cous-cous, strong coffee and algerians come to mind.

complete agreement on the difference between processed tobacco and what you can get in tobacco shops. it's not healthy, but at least its tobacco, not "tobacco product." ick.

Though this thread now has many points on it, and some of them are valid – many are off topic fluff – so I thought I’d drop my 2 cents in at this point.

Going back to the original poster’s question, rather than continuing the discussion of smoking bans (which is where most of you immediately veered – like a NASCAR crowd following the smoke) let’s move to the question of why smoking is such an interesting discussion to have.

The discussion is interesting because it touches on American political philosophy, which is “Do what I say, at the point this gun.”

Now, I know most of you won’t get that, but I’ll try s’plain this.

What is a law? A law is an edict by government. Laws demand something of those affected by it. It could be an action people have to take, or the lack thereof. Governments choose to back up laws with enforcement. Enforcement is the gun, and I mean that literally. Think about where our laws ultimately get their power from…the barrel of a gun. Sure, that’s not the first thing that’s pulled out, but hang with me here – you’ll learn something philosophical and practical about the system we live in.

To relate this back to smoking, I’ll use the theoretical breaking of our recently passed Ohio statewide smoking ban.

Let’s say I go to a bar and light up a smoke. There are two possibilities:
There will be civil disobedience, and the bar’s responsible parties will not ask me to put it out.

or,

The bar’s responsible parties will ask me to put it out, or move to the allowed area.

My choices are:
Put it out or move, or
Continue smoking.

Depending on how far I’m willing to take this, ultimately, men with guns will come and enhance my compliance with various laws I’m held responsible to.

The same forces come into play with all of our laws. You will first be subject to whatever penalties come in paper form; maybe a fine, something like that. Keep in mind, all these laws end up at the same method of enforcement: Men and Women with Guns.

Play that as far out as you want…you can go to jail…and if you don’t obey that, and try to escape, men with guns. Please don’t disagree with me on this point, because it’s not arguable. It’s fact. If you can’t see it, think it through. Men with guns are the ultimate tool our society has to force your compliance. Enough disobedience, in any area, brings the gun.

While you’re considering this, note carefully I didn’t pass a value judgment on this method; I said that’s how it is. I didn’t say if it’s right or wrong.


Now that we’ve thought about the nature of laws, let’s all compare how we think about “laws” in the abstract to what their real nature is. Examine what you’ve always thought a law to be. Most of us imagine laws functioning in a strange sort of abstract kind of way. We seldom imagine that passing something like a smoking ban really does mean we’re saying (as a society):
“You, other citizen, will not do this. If you do that, ultimately, men with guns will MAKE you stop.”

Now let’s re-examine the smoking discussion and why it, like most of our current discourse, is so non-productive.

Non smokers have not taken a reasonable line on smoking. They have said “You will not do this, because we say so.”

There have been no enactments of any of the reasonable compromises I’ve heard suggested. One suggestion I’ve read, I think in here, was that of a “smoking license” administered much like a liquor license. Reasonable people might talk about how this has ups and downs for both sides of the issue. Reasonable people might work through their differences and find a way to live together, one step closer to harmony.

Maybe a “smoking license” wouldn’t be the ultimate answer; it could be some totally brilliant compromise that I’m unable to think of. My point is, that this debate (and American debate at this time in history) is not reasonable.

The majority of you are participating in that totally inane and absurd, point-by-point deconstruction of opposing arguments. That is not debate. Very few TFP members are participating in reasonable debate. That goes for this thread, and many others.

Non-smokers, the obvious majority, are abusing their philosophical and moral responsibilities by refusing to consider the wants or needs of their fellow Americans. (This is where you post about smokers not respecting your rights, as if two separate wrongs make a right.)

This is not how a healthy society functions. This is bad. And we are all part of it.
We MUST change.

We must ask each other why we’re not looking for a compromise. We must ask why we don’t even bother. We must ask why we’re so willing to point the gun. We must ask why we’re so willing to aim it at our fellow citizens.

We must ask:
Why won’t we let smokers make their own choices?
Why are we so willing to strip yet more rights from individuals?
Why aren’t we talking about ways this could work for everyone?
Why aren’t we willing to come together?

What is wrong with you, America?

so, who is john galt?

pigglet, I don't believe I originally posted what you've got there. About dogs and such. I don't have dogs, nor do I watch jeapordy.

You're obviously correct supposing where my philsophical influence comes from.

I don't know who he is, but I'd give fair money to a bet he's been born and is wandering our culture. His adversaries sure are.

billege,

that was my version of a snip, leading to a quick pointless, mildly rhetorical question ;)

We must ask:
Why won’t we let smokers make their own choices?

Feel free to make your own choice, just don't inflict them on me.

Why are we so willing to strip yet more rights from individuals?

Why would anyone consider the "right" to smoke more important than the right not to smoke? Historical acceptance of smoking doesn't make it any more acceptable.

Why aren’t we talking about ways this could work for everyone?

Go outside to smoke. It's hard to fathom why this isn't an acceptable alternative.

Why aren’t we willing to come together?

Because your idea of compromise, isn't.

If I'd wanted a post, displaying the unyeilding "debate" we have on this topic. I could not have asked for a better one.

We speak at each other. Our words fall dead to the floor between us.
They fall unheard and unremarked.

Nice, a call for unity hidden in a bunch of poorly supported reasons why nonsmokers are wrong and bad americans.

Look, i don't care if we have to smoke outside. To me it's worth it. I haven't been deprived of my rights as a smoker, because smoking isn't a right. I have got a new "right", the right to go out to a bar and not have to constantly inhale smoke the whole time.

The fact that such a holy fuss has been made about this issue to me is silly. It doesn't fucking matter. I have a lot of rights that are much more important to me than ones that only amount to being matters of convenience, especially when i see the wisdom of their revocation.

This isn't the beginning of the end for american civil liberties. If you think it is, i recommend you go outside and have a cigarette and think about how insignificant a ban on smoking in bars/restaurants is. Smoking has been banned in hospitals for decades, and lo and behold, our american way of life has not crumbled. I imagine that you see the wisdom of banning smoking in hospitals(at least i hope you do). Banning smoking in private businesses that are open to the public is an extension of that idea.

I'd rather smoke outside than have submit myself to the bloodshot eyes and to the reek of smoke every time i fancy a trip to the bar. If you think that i'm stepping on your toes as then i suppose i am. I don't fucking care, consider your toes stepped on. I'll do it again if i have to, because really, making people smoke outside isn't a fucking big deal to me.

Don't blame the nonsmokers. Blame the fact that smoking isn't a healthy habit and that smokers don't seem to have much along the lines of political organization.

Sir, you are missing the point. Non smokers are not simply "wrong" nor bad Americans. Not that I'm suprised at least one person took that from my post.

The debate is the subject of this thread, not which side is right or wrong. That seems awfully hard to grasp for most people.

There is no debate. There is both sides refusing to find an accomodation that works.

Seems like the accommodation that works for the majority of people has already been found, the people who don't like it just have to figure out how to deal with it.

first off: pigglet---you are probably thinking of the gauloises filterless pre-rolled guys that taste like newspaper wrapped up in other newspaper that i was once told i had to smoke if i wanted to be down with the prolos.
this during a period when i thought it might be fun to become a new person. i decided to become "french leftist circa late april early may 1968".
you know, as a human being.
i was about 19.
i thought it justified growing a moustache and running away from home.

gradually i realized (a) my sort of stepmother, who told me the above, was obviously insane (b) that the cigarettes tasted like newspaper rolled up inside other newspaper and then rubbed on a street and (c) no matter how hard i tried, no matter how long i worked, i would still remain an infinite distance from being "french leftist circa late april-early may 1968."

so i became a situationist.
this was easier because mostly what i had to do to advance ther revolution was drink alot, and i figured now THERE is a mode of praxis i can get behind.

so i engaged in praxis of the type i could get behind for a while.
i threw myself out of my own group a few times because that was the other thing that situationists did alot and it didnt seem to ever matter that there were no people in the group.
this too seemed like a viable form of praxis to me.

then one day, after i had thrown myself out of my own group again, i realized that i had been drinking for a very long time and that the revolution still had not arrived.

what's keeping it? i wondered.

so i found stokkebye and made up roachboy.

so ends "the life of roachboy" brought to you by all the tobacco companies on earth

and now a message from our sponsors: smoking---it's what revolutionaries do when they're thinking about something else.
smoking.
no radical threat to the common weal should be without it.
buy yours now and make capitalism tremble.

The public has the option of not accepting their invitation to use their property when they aren't up to fire codes, or have asbestos, or dangerous animals improperly confined. By your logic, government should not regulate ANYTHING a business does because the public doesn't have to go in there.


What? Are you trying to give me the choice between clean air and socialized medicine?

You've lost me there. The external cost is the cost of the workers who get sick because of other people smoking. The cost of fast food is the individual who eats too much of it and gets sick.

Let's stop chopping arguments up into very specific versions of un-reality to suit your point.

Yes. Do you? I'm saying they should have the authority to ban activities that YOU do that are unhealthy to OTHERS. Activities that YOU do that are harmful only to YOU, the government should not touch.

You're acting like a restaurant and a house are legally the same type of property. It is privately owned property in which the public is invited to do business, and therefore it is held to different standards than the house. There's been lots of legal precedent to this. For example, in California even though malls are private property, mall owners are not allowed to kick the media out of the mall because it is considered a public place under law.


Yeah, I get it. The you is a generalized you.

We'll just have to disagree there.

No, some people do not have that choice. Period. It's like the people who were furious over the people that didn't leave New Orleans when Katrina hit. Those people didn't have a choice. They couldn't leave because they didn't have enough money to do it.

I disagree with you still, but this line was really funny :D

So as long as I tell you that guns are dangerous, I can shoot you?


You are attempting to violate their right to life by introducing a carcinogen into their lungs.

You do not have the right, legally defined or otherwise, to smoke. You have not been stopped from smoking before, but that does not mean it is your right.

You're right. That's why I'm not trying to get the government to ban smoking entirely. Only near others in public places.



publicly accessible is not the same thing as public property, but it is also not the same thing as purely private property.

You're right. It's indefensible and inexcusable to do it on property that is NOT yours.


Uh, no, I didn't. Just because you can't grasp the difference between public property and publicly accessible property does not mean I have classified anything falsely.

That's not false. You just don't want to believe it.

Those arguing in this thread for the right of the business owner to have the say in whether or not they will allow smoking, are making public health take a back seat to the right of the business owner. That's simply a laughable suggestion. I'm kind of surprised this "conversation" has gone on for 4 pages now... talking "at" each other, indeed. :)

Billege, you are right. I started responding to this thread because the original question is one that I have been known to fuss about with my family for years. Then I became side tracked with other matters. Why is it ok to belittle and put down smokers with such ferocity? Smoking bans don't directly affect me, with only a few exceptions, since I have never smoked indoors anyways, but it does affect me when people are rude, hateful, condescending, and just down right mean to me just because I smoke.

For example, my son's teacher said, "When you walk in here, you smell like cigarette smoke and it's disgusting." Now I know I've been around people that stink. I've been around people that I just really wanted to introduce to Ivory soap and offer them the usage of my water hose for an hour to let them rinse some of the stink off. Do I actually do that? no, it would be very rude. So why is it not considered rude to say something like that to a smoker? Not only is that considered ok, when done to a smoker, but even commendable by some people, because she is speaking out against this horrible activity. How can incivility to anyone be considered acceptable? And what is it about smokers that makes it ok?

as for the rest of the arguments, that truly now I can admit don't resemble much of an actual debate, the fact is that the majority of people favor curtailing the rights of smokers little by little. It ALWAYS begins with logical, justifiable, bans. Then it leads to "you can't smoke in your own car in the parking lot of publicly accessible places."

I do have one problem with smoking in hospitals. One of the businesses around here that I cannot smoke in my own damn car in the parking lot is the hospital.

A long time ago...

In a galaxy far far away...

People were forced to go into bars and inhale tabacco smoke.

Not at all, as I stated here in Canton owners built rooms with seperate ventilation. And again no one forced anyone to patronize those places. So, there was no putting public health "in the back seat". The owners made a compromise that was fair, that cost them, in some cases, serious money.

Again, it is all a moot point because here in Ohio they have gone wayyyyy too far in that any business with just 1 employee cannot have smoking. So if I own a tobacco store and since I can't work it all the time, I have to hire someone, I can't allow anyone to smoke in there. As I stated above, if I want to open a private smoking club, I can't because I hire 1 employee, smoking becomes illegal in my business.

When you can't even allow private smoking clubs...... you have severe power and control issues. It ain't about public health, it ain't about "not liking..." IT'S 1000% ALL ABOUT POWER AND CONTROL OVER SOMEONE ELSE.

Did it occur to you that perhaps she is concerned about your son's health and that is why she made that statement? If you don't smoke around your son, she doesn't know that.

And for the record, smokers do stink. That is one of the reasons I insisted on my boyfriend quitting when we first started dating. The smell would get on his clothes, in his hair, and on his hands in addition to his mouth, and it just made me feel sick. Even now I have friends that smoke, and when I get a whiff of that smell on them, it makes my stomach turn.

The fact of the matter is--if smokers want to smoke in public places, they're going to have to put up with me throwing up in, on, or around them. Is that okay?

No, actually, it isn't. I'm revolted when someone hawks out a huge loogie in public and then goes about (his, usually) business as though nothing happened. I hate with the power of one thousand suns being stuck in an elevator with a woman who has doused herself in perfume, or a man who went nuts with the aftershave.

But, I don't say anything, because it would be rude.

Well, quite honestly, that is what you are going to have to put up with if you want to smoke in the same bar as I am in.

Really.

There's probably not much more either of us can say, shakran, but a few more things:

Already gave fire codes as a reasoned exception. Not sure about ANYTHING - give me a particular thing and I'll tell you - but certainly a lot more than you'd allow. Dangerous animals? We had one of those, we had to put him down when he escaped through the front door and attacked another dog. (The current one, Max, is much more mild and friendly.)

You lost me here.

Heh.

Which is an external cost if the obese person in question can't pay for his/her hospital care. The same artificial, indirect, external cost in your scenario of a worker sick due to cigarettes.

Soon as you stop beating your wife. ;) I explained the distinction, explain your objection.

Invited by the business owner. Owner should decide standards. I'm aware that it isn't this way currently.

Bad faith. It might be a very very very hard choice, but it's a choice nonetheless.

Can you provide me with a single example wherein the worker was physically unable to leave the job?

:) It's my hometown, I know what I'm talking about.

Looks like a bad analogy to me. So long as you tell me that guns are dangerous, you can let me handle your gun. So long as you tell me that trespassers will be shot, you can shoot me if trespassing. (Generally... that situation opens up a whole 'nother can of worms, couple of threads on that right now.)

Implicit assent. No violation.

Couldn't disagree more, actually. I believe I have the right to do pretty much anything as long as it doesn't forcibly - key word in this debate, forcibly - intrude on the rights of others. That includes at least smoking in the privacy of my own home.

Yep... impasse #1: we can't agree on what counts as a public place. Maybe that could be phrased in a better way, but we get the essential disagreement here.

Eh... I can basically agree with this statement, but then we'll quibble over what it means for private property to be impurely private and what that means in terms of owner's extent of power and we'll end up right back where we started. Suffice it to say, on this particular issue, I consider 'publicly accessible' effectively the same as 'purely private'.

Well, sure. Unless you have the owner's permission.

Impasse #2: we can't agree on what counts as choice.

Well, to put it another way, I disagree that we're talking about public health - we're actually talking about the health of that segment of the public that accepted an invitation to an unhealthy place. But hey, I'm glad I could bring a smile to your face.

Riiight. It's a good thing that you avoided that pitfall!

wow...........after reading all this.........i need a smoke.


but!!!!!


i am going to go outside in my yard and smoke,because i don't want my house smelling of smoke nor do i want my kids to have to inhale that shit.

as for bars and restaurants.........no problem going out to smoke......i'd rather not be in a big 'ol smokey room either.


it's not much but.........that's all i have to add.


carry on folks and good luck in the discussion.

pan, after all the pro/anti arguments are over, you have hit the nail on the head. The majority claims they only want to be protected against second hand smoke but the reality is they vote to take away peoples ability to have any establishments created where they can smoke. They don't want people to smoke even in places they would never go to.

To be fair, there's also the "employees don't have much of a choice with jobs this scarce" argument, though I'd ultimately reject that argument for reasons given in previous posts.

All this shit about unhealthy air and causing harm to innocent bystanders, and no one gives two half-shits about the billions of oil powered engines which spew CO2 into the air which makes me and millions of other people sick and cancerous. Why isn't there a fervor against car users who made my dear old granddad develop a tumor on his spine? Who made little Sophie stay home from school when she came down with a fever? Who made me gag and nauseated after walking three blocks to the Quik-stop?

Oh, it's because it's the American way of life. We built this country on oil, right. We also built this country on tobacco. This is hypocrisy! WHY is it we concentrate so heavily on smoking, which in reality affects a very miniscule fraction of public health compared to gasoline and diesel? WHY aren't we enacting laws requiring billions of tax money to be spent researching alternative fuels and converting existing engines? WHY???

I think that if there's anything this thread has demonstrated, it's that it's a lot easier to cling to your position if you pretend that the other person is being unreasonable.

For instance, it's really easy to claim that ban-haters don't like bans because it's inconvenient for them to go outside to smoke and all the trumped up excuses they come up with for hating bans is just a rationalization to make them feel better. I don't know how many of my fellow smokers immediately become libertarians when the topic of smoking bans comes up.

Really, though, the whole "smoking banners are just control freaks" position requires a certain amount of willful ignorance, and that's fine. This isn't a discussion about something that might happen, it's a bitchfest about something that already did happen. I understand the need to vent, the need to villify the other guy, even the complete lack of ability to empathize with the other guy's position because when it comes to this particular subject that's really the only recourse you have. Frankly it's all irrelevant.

I can go to a bar whenever i want and not be subjected to smoke and that's great. It also means that i have to go outside to smoke and that's fine. Call me a control freak if you want, but as far as i'm concerned it's a win-win situation.

How does having establishments that do not allow smoking and others that do, so there is a choice, not empathize with the other guy's position no matter what their position is?

Also, you can go outside to smoke now, but if the majority has their way you may eventually have to go to the next city, county or state.

One reason and only one reason: Smoking affects everybody. I don't give a fuck if your smoking kills you, kills your family, depletes your family savings, beat your spouse after a night of smoking. When you smoke around me, you're making me smoke too and I don't want that.

Well, i guess i haven't really seen a strategy for what you describe beyond "letting the market handle it". The market has been handling it for a long time and the ratio of smoking to nonsmoking establishments, especially bars, was huge. It's not like the bans are permanent. I'm sure if you were to come up with a strategy that everyone can agree on and organized your efforts you could modify the bans.

Sez you. I don't subscribe to the slippery slope in this situation. If it does happen, though, that sucks for you if you smoke. As a smoker myself, i'd probably just quit.

Given that the smokers/owners lost something and gained nothing, your verdict doesn't really make any sense.

As a smoker, I personally don't mind the bans on INDOOR facilities, but once I take my smoke outside, you have no right to complain. I miss sitting after a meal and having a cig and a drink, so when possible, I choose to sit in the outdoor patio that a restaurant may have. If there is a non-smoker sitting a table away from me, I'm sorry, but you'll just have to deal with it. Cigarettes have been around for ages, have been a part of many peoples daily lives, and always will be, me having a smoke outdoors, where the second hand smoke is not as confined is about the best I'll do for you.

A non-smoking aquaintance of mine with a two year old, once asked me to butt out while our kids were at the park and we were on the bench watching. Not because it offended HER, but because she didn't want her son to see someone smoking. Uh, no. She will not be able to protect her son from ever seeing or being around a smoker, and neiither will you (non-smokers complaining about people smoking outdoors nearby) ever be able to shield yourself from all of the environmental hazards around you.

Don't sit there are bitch about insurance premiums going up and you have to pay more blah blah blah, you think that alcoholics don't contribute? With their increasing medical costs for liver disease, treatment centres, etc.

Smoking is the one addiction that there is no treatment centre for. I'm not sure about the states, but as far as I know, in canada, (correct me if i'm wrong) an employer cannot fire you if you are going to get treatment for an addiction, b/c as it's an addiction, you cannot be held fully responsible. For all addictions except smoking. Maybe if society were to make it easier to quit, there'd be less smokers, and less people for you to bitch about, but until then, you will always have to deal with the unpleasentries of smoke. If it bothers you, lets say while you're standing at a bus stop, politely ask the person to move, chances are they would without argument.

What a petty thing to only complain of the smell and have that be a major "pillar" to your arguments. Are you exempt from all of the other offensive odours such as B.O. or strong perfumes? What do you do to deal with those, and why can't you apply that to those smelling of smoke?

And while you have to accept that smoking will always be around and bother you, I guess I have to accept that there will always be people like you who were born to complain and challenge anything.


** not directed to any one person: kept general to the non-smoking complainers.

I smoked when I was young. Nothing serious but it was a several times nightly thing. Somewhere along the line I got tired of the stench. I still completely love the smell of tobacco, just not tobacco smoke. It's a bit like the smell of tequila if you just had a tough night with it.

As for being surprised at others' revulsion, that only makes sense to me as a form of denial. Or maybe as frustration with a difficult situation. But if I were to walk around in public launching 5-10 minute fragrant farts, and do it 10-30 tmes every day, I'd expect to generate a certain amount of animosity toward my cause. (more or less depending on my line-of-fire consideration)

That depends on your perspective. I smoke and i don't really feel like i lost all that much. The net gain is definitely positive. Whether business owners lost or gained depends on the business. I know many are doing better business, some are probably doing worse.

My point in all of this is still the same, all I've heard so far in response is a very typical response. Somewhere along the way it has been decided that basic civility does not apply to smokers. Can anyone explain to me how that is anything BUT rude and obnoxious behavior? Wrap it up in words like, "concern" and "but I don't like the smell" and still, it's just rude. BO smells just as much, probably more, I dont know because as a smoker I don't really smell the smokey smell much, but you just don't say to someone with BO, "you stink" and then justify your actions as anything but rudeness. If your going to be ill-mannered, at least admit to what you are.

This is not some theory that I have that someday might happen. It is happening NOW. There was a time when only those companies that had to comply with minimum wage laws had to ban smoking on premise, now its all places where work is performed.

I have a friend who OWNS HIS OWN TRUCK and drives it across country delivering stuff. I'll admit I don't know much about his business. I do know that while he was in California he got a ticket for smoking in his OWN TRUCK, no passangers, because he was doing business at the time. Tell me how that protects the nonsmoker from inhaling my carcinogens? tell me, is that not a sign that we are indeed moving further away from protecting the innocent to vilifying people who aren't hurting anyone but themselves?

I repeat, I can get a ticket for smoking in my own vehicle here in redneck acres.

Protect the innocent I was all for, but I would dearly love to hear some real justification for the act of villifying me when I'm not hurting anybody but myself.

I still don't see one person advocating for smoking bans, say they think cigarettes should be illegal. NOT ONE.

They all say "it's your choice, to smoke just not in public." They'll even go so far as to defend the government fining people smoking in their own cars and homes. But they NEVER once say make it illegal.

Know why?

2 reasons:

Because they want to be able deny they truly want control and power

and

they know they cannot live without the taxes generated.

Christ, well, I don't think it should be banned. If you want to get all rational then yes I believe regulating tobacco as a drug would save society plenty. It might even open up the possibility of justice for the big-tobacco pricks, though surely the bosses would skate while the workers and other small guys would bear the brunt.

And I'm not sure where it would stop. It'd be one step beyond helmet laws. What other hazardous or valueless activities can we do without? Fast food? Reality television?

I agree the taxes are a form of addict penalty, not unlike state lottos.

With all that, my compassion stops where I inhale the stuff. Keep it to yourself and I'm buying the next beer.

You're right pan, you've got smoking ban supporters all figured out.:rolleyes: It certainly has nothing to do with the foul smell and the links to adverse health effects. Perhaps you should follow you're own advice concerning childish accusations and stop flinging this nonsense.

I do think that you should be able to smoke in your car, provided there aren't any children in it at the time.

I don't care about the taxes collected from smokers, except if they're going to be used to pay for the extra drain that smokers put on health care. Beyond the point where you pay for the collective strain your habit places on society you can have the money back for all i care.

I also don't feel the need to control your behavior beyond the point where you expose random people to carcinogens in confined spaces. Even if i did want to control your behavior, your ignoring reality if you think that every sociological system ever isn't predicated on the coerced control of its member's behavior. This includes our legal system, the tfp, your relationship with your family and friends. If you think that controlling other people's behavior is inherently a bad thing then you might be happier finding an island where you can be alone.

I don't understand the large amount of debate here.

If you want to smoke on your own property, then more power to you. However, as far as public property is concerned, no one has the right to infringe upon another person's health. Currently, second hand smoke is the third leading cause of preventable deaths a year in the United States.

If you want to slowly kill yourself off, that's great! But to expect people to change their living style to keep themselves from being killed off by your bad habit is BS.

What do you lose is you're not allowed to smoke in public? Nothing.
What could I lose if you're allowed to smoke in public? My life.

It's as simple as that.

PS> I know for a fact that the taxes generated from the sale of cigarettes don't come anywhere near the costs of caring for those suffering from smoking-related illnesses.

Well, here's one reason for it:

Restaurants aren't public property.

Sure. But net gain doesn't necessarily imply win-win. So you won out on this deal. It's still not clear how smokers who enjoy smoking in restaurants/bars/ect and owners who are inclined to let them, experienced anything but a loss.

Still, there's a substantial difference between places on private property that are open to the public and those that aren't. For example, it's legal to say you won't allow any black people in your private home on private property, but it's illegal to say you won't allow any black people in your open-to-the-public restaurant on private property. Another more related example is that it's perfectly fine to have rats and cockroaches in your kitchen when you prepare your own food which wasn't properly refrigerated, but a restaurant can be shut down for having the same situation itself.

Since I usually do lean libertarian, I have some sympathy for the pro-smoking argument. The public health argument for banning smoking isn't as strong as for banning unsanitary conditions, but I still think it's valid. Maybe I would have a different opinion if I was a smoker. :lol: It's certainly nice to live in a place where smoking is banned, though to me the smoke isn't nearly as bad as the cigarette butts which smokers are determined to litter over every square foot of the planet, so I'd like to see littering laws enforced once in a while along with the smoking ban. I live for the day I see somebody get a $1,000 fine for littering a butt. (hey, I finally thought of an answer for that thread in Living!) I once went to a bar in a state where smoking wasn't banned. I made the mistake of bringing a leather jacket into this place and it reeked for a week. And there are certainly places even in California I go where illegal smoking is tolerated, but it's never nearly as bad as in a full-on smoking state, and it also helps that it's not tobacco but something else that a lot of people are smoking. :lol: Is that making things stink a property of tobacco itself or the shit that's added to cigarettes? Dried tobacco leaves themselves don't smell nearly as much as say, cannabis buds, yet you can burn down all the cannabis you want and you wouldn't know it the next day.

Why is this thread going? Why does this thread have politics and LAWS in it? Why does it have regulations and freedom arguments littered through it?

The debate that needs to be argued is how many smokers (most in this thread) think it's ok to make me stink and have a hard time breathing. Are you fucking kidding me?? This isn't about laws, it's about how idiotic it is that smokers have ZERO ethical qualms with making me stink and have trouble breathing. Laws and regulations and bullshit aside, I'm BAFFLED by the fact that most smokers think it's ethically fine to stink up non-smokers. The laws and regulations concerning smoking is an entirely different discussion. This discussion is about who wants to be an asshole in public and who doesn't. I don't care if you smoke. I seriously don't. But don't smoke when it affects me negatively because it means you're an asshole who doesn't care about others.

Wrong on both counts. Frankly I think that in consideration of other drug laws cigarettes should logically be illegal. Seems kinda stupid to say "all these drugs are bad for you and so they're illegal, but cigarettes are bad for you too and they're not illegal." It just doesn't make sense, and I feel laws should be logical.

Realistically I think ALL drugs should be legal. If you want to kill yourself by overdosing on meth, hey, go to town. That's your decision, it doesn't effect me, and I don't think the government should be in the position of legislating stupidity when that stupidity only effects the one being stupid.

So yes, I absolutely think cigarettes should be legal, and it's not because I secretly want to be an evil overlord controlling every aspect of Pan's paranoid life. It's because I think if you want to smoke, that should be your choice.

As far as the taxes generated, if we dropped cigarette taxes, we'd just tax something else to make up for it, so that's a pretty weak argument.

But I said the government shouldn't be in the position of legislating stupidity when the stupidity only effects the stupid. But when you're being stupid and it puts me in danger, the government absolutely should step in. That's why there are reckless driving laws. That's why there are laws against digging pit traps in sidewalks. And that's why there should be laws restricting YOU from harming ME with your cigarettes.

Now, I've said my piece. . .Go read Lasereth's post again, and think long and hard about what you're actually doing when you decide to light up near nonsmokers.

joining this debate quite late on - but for what it is worth i agree with this. if heroin, cocaine, weed, lsd, etc, etc are illegal because they are bad for you then alcohol and tobacco should also be illegal. i say make everything legal, control it at a national level, let people do what they want in their own time and space, make it as safe as possible for every user, tax the buggery out of it and then provide as much information and education as possible to everyone so that they can make their own decision.

i can't understand why a smoker would argue the right to pass on their poisonous secondhand smoke to other people (especially children) but then i'll never understand why someone would want to drink so much that they have no control over their actions and do really agressive stupid things that they wouldn't normally do (did you know that 85% of all violent crimes in britain are committed under the influence of alcohol?)

anyway that's my two tuppence worth

Yeah, I know there are differences like these. But I honestly think they shouldn't exist. It's still their property and their right to be a racist asshole or an unsanitary slob. I fully support the government making them be very upfront about whatever 'standards' they hold, but as long as the general public knows what they're getting into, such an owner should be allowed to extend the invitation for people to enter his property.

The invitation is, after all, what makes it public-accessible private property as opposed to private property, no? As long as the offer isn't deceptive, they should be allowed to make it.

Sure it is. The topic began with a smoker's rant. Related laws, smoking bans in particular, fit just fine within the scope of the topic.

They aren't 'making' you stink. I maintain that this is one of the biggest illusions running through the thread. You have a choice in the matter: don't set foot on private property, public-accessible or otherwise, that allows smoking, and you won't stink.

I'm still stuck on the original question made by Hagatha. It is a question that I have asked several of my friends in the past few months, with no real answers. I thought there might be some answers here if I kept coming back to this issue, but still, there are not.

Smoking directly causes the deaths of 400,000 people a year I grant you that. How many deaths does alcohol indirectly lead to every year? Do the women that die because their drunken husbands beat the crap out of them get counted in the number of deaths due to alcohol that the CDC publishes? How about the number of moms that kill themselves 'cause some drunk ran over her daughter when said daughter was checking the mail?

You (collective you) say that it's ok to be so condescending to smokers because what they do directly impacts the lives of others who have chosen not to smoke and some guy getting drunk doesn't mean you have to live with the consequences.

Go sit in on an Ala-non meeting sometime and then tell me that only the guilty are paying for the addiction of the drunkard.

I've responded to the smoking ban issue in this thread a few times, not to argue with the idea that smokers should not be allowed to harm others, but because I can see that this trend of banning smoking is getting more and more out of hand. Protecting the innocent is fine by me, vilifying the idiot is not- yes I classify myself and anyone else stupid enough to take up smoking as an idiot.

The two issues are related because if it were just a matter of public concern then people would be satisfied with smokers can't smoke inside of places that non smokers would be expected to go, such as restaurants, bars, amusement parks, etc. But it is an issue of finger pointing and disgust when the laws are then made that we can't smoke in our own vehicles, or in some cases, outside unless we're in a specific smoking section.

I can understand not wanting to stink. I feel the same way about people wearing cologne and perfume. I do NOT advocate making laws restricting peoples rights to go swimming in the crap if that’s what they want to do, because from there its such a small step to regulating how often people MUST bathe, and then its not much of a jump to legislating what soaps they can use. I know that's a little extreme, but it’s the logical conclusion to passing legislation based on how a person smells.

Once you get past the health issues, which you do by banning smoking indoors where nonsmokers are likely to be, all you're advocating for is the right to control how a person smells- and that's too much legislation on personal choices. Sorry if my smell offends you, lots of people's smells offend me. I'll deal with it if it means I don't have to have a law that regulates it.

There are too many posts to quote, but this one stood out to me.


If you're a non-smoker, chances are that you live in a non-smoking house and are generally in a non-smoking environment majority of the time. So if you think that by being around a smoker lets say in a restaurant, or standing beside one at a bus stop, that you are going to inhale enough second hand smoke in your lifetime to kill you, I'd say you have some paranoia issues.

What can you say about the people who have never smoked a day in their life, but end up with some form of cancer? Are you immediately going to blame it on 2nd hand smoke? A family friend of mine is a health nut, ate only organic foods, never smoked, always excersised, and now only has 1-2 years to live because of lymphoma. Are you going to tell me that is somehow related to her being in our "smoke filled" house at Christmas a couple of years in a row? Sure it's not a cardiac disease, but who can be so sure that it's not caused by something else in the environment. Lung cancer isn't caused ONLY by smoke, although I'm aware it's the leading contributor.

What about the 85 year old man that has smoked since he was 13 and dies only from old age, compared to a 45 year old who develops COPD from smoking only 10 years?

I'm not saying that smoking is a good thing, or that we should all just take a shot at it, since it's hit and miss whether or not you'll die from it, I'm just saying that there are so many different environmental factors that play into getting a disease, that to pin point it on second hand smoke is and easy target and pretty ignorant.

Xera you are kind of arguing that two wrongs make a right ...
just because alcohol is bad for people too and is allowed in public places should mean that smoking should be two.
all that can be said is that unless you are an aggressive or stupid drinker, having a few drinks, even getting completely drunk, does not harm the person sitting opposite you, or the person working behind the bar or the child living in your house. smoking does that. should bar workers or waiters be forced to work in an environment that harms them? you might argue that they should and 'cos they have a choice to seek employment elsewhere, but this is not always possible - I honestly think that people have the right to breath clean air in their workplace and that it is the law's job to protect this right.

That just goes to show you how much you know about second hand smoke.

You'd have to be a fool to believe that all forms of cancer are caused by second hand or smoke or to believe that anyone stated as much. While we don't know the causes of all cancer, it's rather easy to determine whether or not secondhand smoke was a factor in someone's death.

What about them? It still doesn't take away from the dangers of smoking/secondhand smoke.

What are you talking about? At least 53,000 deaths a year in the United States have been attributed to second hand smoke (That's about 145 deaths per day). Furthermore, there have been quite a few studies done which point out that second hand smoke causes a wide array of medical conditions. To say that second hand smoke is not the cause of a large number of medical problems in the United States is, in your own words, pretty ignorant.

fatbob, I think you skimmed what I wrote and then responded. I tried very hard to make it clear I am upset about the amount of abuse that smokers get in relation to other people with other addictions. Furthermore, my father is an alcoholic, please don't ever try to tell me that drinkers don't harm the kids in their house. Even when they aren't abusive drunks, they still cause harm.

The original question "Are the other addictions somehow more acceptable? Are they any less destructive?" was there to illustrate that. I'm sorry you did not understand that point.

Please read my entire post before you get on to me about my views on smoking in places non smokers would be expected to be. I was VERY plain on my views on those SPECIFIC bans.

Again, my only problem is with the fact that these bans keep getting more and more broad, and are now including places that in NO WAY protect nonsmokers from my second hand smoke. The only problem I had with the original bans, not smoking in restaraunts or workplaces etc, without proper ventilation, was that I was pretty sure it was just a matter of time that the laws would be expanded upon. I've given examples of what is happening here and in California to show why it is that I fear this.

Again, make whatever law you think you need to in order to protect your SAFETY. Do not make laws that are simply about enforcing your will on others without being able to show a health benifit. My smoking outdoors does not harm you in anyway at all, or at least not nearly as much as your average everyday SUV.

Ok ban supporters......

I want to own a private smoking club, I want to hire only smokers, since that would be "discrimination", I hire them as "independant contractors'.

I go out and every Friday, I get the hottest bands in town to play. I start getting a good reputaution as a true hotspot.

Non smokers want in, I have to let them if they pay the same fees to get in.

All of a sudden a group of them start trying to get the government to fine me because even though I went by the rules and every member before they were allowed in had to sign a contract that smoking would not be an issue with them.

Why can I not do this? Why will you not allow this? And who would win the court case?

Actually, if it's a private club you don't have to let nonsmokers in.

And really, i don't care. Do what you want to do. Start a club. What i will or won't allow is irrelevant since i am not the law. Who wins the court case depends on what the court case is and what the laws are in your area. As a hypothetical example, this one falls woefully short.

Plus, we're not talking about private smoking clubs, whatever that is. We're talking about restaurants. Businesses where the primary purpose is feeding people for money.

Hmm.

Hypothetical: A property owner turns his property into a private club that sells food to its members. The only requirement for membership is a willingness to tolerate indoor cigarette smoke. In all other respects, it's identical to those restaurants that are no longer allowed to allow smoking.

Do you have a problem with such a place?

And what substantial difference is there between this hypothetical and the restaurants that previously allowed smoking before the ban?

Ah but then there are discrimination lawsuits.

Really and why does this fall "woefully short"?

So if I make this a hot nightclub, for smokers only and say, I'm making some big money, when the non-smoking Nazis come after me, you'll stand up for my rights to have this place? You won't say "well, you are still a place of business and except for that fee thingy, you still serve the public so smoking should be banned..... even though that was the whole purpose of you opening and running the business, it has become too big now and too many of your patrons want there to be no smoking."

You won't say that.... and you'll defend my rights?

(BTW in Ohio that place would be illegal anyway, because as stated above, doesn't matter if the employees smoke, doesn't matter what the business is.... as long as I have 1 employee it is illegal to have smoking there at any time.)

In the real world, smoking is prohibited in order to protect the health of the general public. Your hypothetical situation is based solely on the exclusion of one class of people, without a feasible reason to do so. Sure, you could probably argue that a non-smoker doesn't have to go to your club, but then why should someone be forced to suffer for someone else's bad habits? A smoker refraining from lighting up for an hour or so won't kill them. The same can't be said for a non-smoker forced to sit around a smoker for an hour.

But it is a PRIVATE smoking club..... this demonstrates the power and control one must have.

But the reality is that it is a PRIVATE club that caters to the smoking population. You demand we can't smoke in public, so we open private nightclubs to cater to the people who wish to smoke.

Why is that so wrong?

You say "it's in the best interest of public health, why does a non-smoker have to suffer." You people use the excuse over and over... and say it isn't about control but it is. In this hypothetical, you would be paying a club to join only to destroy it because you choose not to believe in it.

THAT IS CONTROL.

That's the same as people joining the NRA and then demanding that handguns cause people to get excessively brave and raise tensions and lead to gunfights, so you don't want shooting ranges at the clubs.

It makes no sense.... it is all about control.

There are still golf clubs that refuse to allow female members, discrimination be damned.

It's completely tangential to reality. You're not opening a club, these bans(at least in my city) don't apply to private clubs anyway. You're going awfully far out on a limb to prove a point that's irrelevant.

A better hypothetical experiment would be for me to ask you if you support lifting smoking bans in hospitals. They are private businesses too. The people who got to them definitely have a choice about where to go, or whether to go.

Actually, i wouldn't defend your rights because this isn't a matter of rights inasmuch as it doesn't concern actual rights. I'd defend your rights if they were actually trying to take them away. This issue isn't really a big deal to me either way, though i prefer the bans.

All this talk of rights and yet you fail to realize that a lack of smoking bans deprives the general populace of the "right" to go to a bar without having to deal with cigarette smoke.

Well, you don't like it you can always move, right? Or try and organize your efforts, participate in the democratic process, vote for candidates who've taken a lot of money from big tobacco, start a petition. Certainly complaining about the loss of privileges that you may or may not even be willing to actually fight for on the internet won't really help.

Very true.

No, I'm going to a point that is probably going to become reality in many cities.

No, there are certain industries that smoking up until recently has always been permitted: Bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, hotels. Those, I feel are the acceptable places to smoke in. Places of public health, stores, etc. no.

Why isn't it my "right" to open a private club where I want to cater a population that doesn't discriminate in any way...... just states that if you enter you must accept the fact people will be smoking, cigarettes, cigars, pipes.

And you have the right NOT to go there and to find one that doesn't have smoking. Eventually if the non-smoking bars and establishments start doing better business, then the smoking establishments will turn non-smoking to make money.

You are taking away choice because YOU want what you want and refuse to allow choice.


I'm just trying to have a discussion and show a point of view. This interests me, because I see these people getting ready for their next target, their next power play.

Like I said either make it illegal, stop taxing it then tell us where we can smoke, or allow the above business owners the right to decide what they feel is in their best interest.

I used to have immense respect for you, Filtherton, you always had a voice of reason... but not so much on this issue.

On a personal note: 1) I promised my son I'd quit for his birthday Dec. 8th ( hopefully I do) and 2) whether this was about smoking or soda drinking or coffee or anything else.... I'd still be as adamnant as I am. Because I believe in the rights of people and that society grows better with freedoms and decisions that are open than to have decisions dictated and freedoms taken away.

But that's just me.

Here's the thing. You assert that you have rights as a smoker and that business owners have rights as business owners. What you ignore are the rights of people who aren't business owners or smokers. By any definition that you've offered the rights of these groups are equivalent in scope and magnitude. Your right to smoke in a bar and a bar owner's right to allow smoking in a bar, and a person's right to go to a bar and not smell like smoke are all based on the same legal footing. There's nothing remotely inherent about any of them. By these definitions, rights only exist in the space not specifically mentioned by the legislature, or, in the case of referendums, the people directly.

The fact that you used to be able to engage in a certain activity doesn't make that activity inherently something you should always be able to do.

At some point you have to recognize that you live in a place where, if the stars are in proper alignment, people have the ability to participate in the process of making laws. Sometimes these people will make laws that you disagree with and that's just how it goes.

One flaw in your position is that you seem to think that your specific habits should fall outside the scope of what the general public can and can't regulate in a fashion that they see fit. This is a mistake. Your "rights" as a smoker depend on how much smoking society wants to put up with and once society decides to tell you no you don't have the right anymore. That's just how it is.

You could say that you want the right to smoke in bars back, but that assertion really holds no more weight than the assertion that i want the right to go to a bar and not deal with smoke. In practice, rights such as these are slippery things and it really just ends up being an agree to disagree type of thing.

Another flaw is that you support bans in places that match the criteria you've cited as the basis for your opposing bans in bars. It used to be that you could smoke everywhere. If you want to see people smoking in hospitals you just need to watch more movies from the 60's. The community college i used to go to still has ashtrays built into the walls. At some point, we all had the "right" to smoke in any private businesse that chose to allow us to smoke. Now we don't, and apparently you see some wisdom in that change.


On a side note, good luck quitting. I need to do the same thing.

See, I dispute that he's doing that. I don't see any actual rights violations in a restaurant owner allowing people to smoke on his private property. No one has a right to the products of a smoke-free restaurant. Hell, no one has a right to the products of a restaurant, period. (Other than restaurant owners, of course.)

The former rights are based upon the right to property. The latter right is based upon... nothing. There's nothing equal about the right to modify your own property and the 'right' to modify someone else's property without permission.

No, but the fact that non-smokers are free to avoid the harm caused by said activity does make it something that you should always be able to do.

Well, sure. It's not like there's never been an unjust law before. But this thread has basically become a debate concerning the quality of this law. We get that it's a law, the question is this: is it a good law? Still looks like a solid no to me.

If society tells me that I don't have the right to smoke on my own property, then that's not society getting rid of the right, that's society violating the right. The right's still there. The right to property and free movement wasn't partially nonexistent when slavery was legal, it was partially violated (no, I'm not comparing the magnitudes, that would be silly).

Sure it does. A lot more weight. One's based in the right to property, the other's based in nothing.

Well, i don't see any actual rights violations in a restaurant owner not being allowed to let people smoke during business hours.

The right to property? Is that where you can do whatever you want on your own property or is that where you have the right to own whatever property you want? As far as i know, neither of them exist.

Public defecation: we could all avoid the harm caused by it so we should always be able to do it. Tell me what's wrong with that sentence.

I imagine your tune would change if you had asthma.

It really all depends on who you let define your rights. Even on your own property you can't do whatever the hell you want.

Well, in practice, the right to property doesn't really mean all that much. This is where we agree to disagree.

With some obvious caveats (you have to purchase/receive the property in order to have the right to it, you're responsible for costs imposed without consent on property that isn't yours), both.

Nothing. Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I've said before in this thread that people should be held responsible for the external costs they create - costs that affect property that isn't theirs.

Nope.

No, even on your own property, you can't do damage to property that isn't yours. Unless, of course, the property owner consents to the damage. Explicitly or implicitly.

Rights aren't 'is'-statements, rights are 'ought'-statements. So it's very possible that rights aren't upheld in practice. This doesn't diminish their meaning.

If we can't agree that a right to property exists, then sure, we're at a standstill.

But I'd like you to address this, because I'm wondering where our disagreement really lies:

Hypothetical: A property owner turns his property into a private club that sells food to its members. The only requirement for membership is a willingness to tolerate indoor cigarette smoke. In all other respects, it's identical to those restaurants that are no longer allowed to allow smoking.

Do you have a problem with such a place?

And what substantial difference is there between this hypothetical and the restaurants that previously allowed smoking before the ban?

How about that restaurant is moved to a area (state, county, whatever) where a restaurant like that is tolerated/allowed? Much like a non-smoker has to seek out places of business where non-smoking is enforced. I'm sure there are several fine states where options like this are available.

Or perhaps it will be suggested that the non-smokers/those who physically suffer because of cigarette smoke be the ones who move to a place (ranging from changing where they work/conduct business/eat out/enjoy recreational activities/live) where they are safe. Well, I don't think that I should have to move to a different location because of a health issue that I have no choice over, to accomodate the results of those who do have a choice (to smoke or not).

Dealing with cigarette smoke is not merely an inconvenience to me, it's a matter of life or death (worst-case scenario, without my meds). I am not the only one in this situation, by far. I would give so much to not have this problem, but I will have to deal with it to the end of my days.

And for the record, I no longer wear perfume or scented products in the workplace, to accomodate those who have migranes triggered by these things. I know how much suffering that can cause, and I surely don't have to indulge in that kind of thing, and for me it's a complete non-issue.

Like i tried to say above, i don't care. I don't have a problem with that setup. I also said that i don't have a problem with other people deciding that they don't want a set up like that and making it illegal. I don't have a problem with regulation of private property and business. I actually think that regulation of private property and businesses is essential to a well functioning society. This seems to be where we differ.

One situation actually exists in reality and the other not so much.

Choo! Choo! Next stop.. socialism All Aboard!

Well, if anyone's wondering who stole their ability to put things in historical context, i think it's safe to say that DaElf isn't the culprit.

Do you mean socialism like where there are labor laws? Or socialism like where there are workplace safety regulations? Or socialism like where personal property doesn't mean the same thing as personal fiefdom? No, you probably mean socialism as some vaguely defined, poorly understood bogeyman to be trotted out as evidence of your own lack of a broader understanding of political forces. Yeah, that sounds about right.

It's not black and white for me, I'm not opposed to some regulation and I've already listed some that I find reasonable and even essential. Banning smoking on private property? Not reasonable or essential.

Would you be opposed if the majority decided that restaurant owners must allow smokers?

I find the whole health argument to be an irredeemably flawed justification, but if it's a matter of "I don't see a need for a justification, majority rule is enough", that's a whole 'nother argument. Then I'm interested in where exactly you'd draw the line - what shouldn't be allowed even if it has majority approval? We can probably both agree that slavery shouldn't be put to a vote and that increased funding for a local rec center should be votable... but between those two extremes, where do you draw the line?

Those two situations are hardly equivalent.

Yeah, that's probably the most pragmatic solution for smoke-minded people in states with bans, but I'd prefer that all states respect property rights. And although it's less pragmatic, it's hardly out of the realm of plausibility to fight to overturn these bans.

A smoker refraining from lighting up for an hour isn't going to kill them. On the other hand, a non-smoker forced to be around a smoker for an hour could be potentially fatal. Why doesn't anyone acknowledge this point?

And certain people wouldn't survive a trip to the peanut butter factory. The solution isn't to tell restaurant owners what to do with their property, it's for those with allergies to avoid these places.