And all the figures about second hand smoke killing? I dont buy it. For one second. Use some common sense and some real world experience and think about what they are claiming. How many of you have a family member or know someone who has died from lung cancer caused by smoking. Most of you here I'm sure. How many of you know someone who has cancer caused by second hand smoke? No one? Ask all your friends if they know someone whos died from second hand smoke. Thought so.

As several people have pointed out.. government should be the last resort in this struggle. Uncle Sam is not a baby sitter and shouldnt be treated like one. If the anti-smoking lobby spent their time talking to business's instead of pushing fascist legislation, we might see the same trend we are seeing today. More non smoking establishments. And no ones freedom is stepped on in the process.

The fact is the anti-smoking lobby has become just as underhanded, treacherous and venomous as the big tobacco lobby. But of course.. their end justifies their means..

Common sense to me can only result in attempting to minimize my exposure to chemicals known to cause cancer and other various adverse conditions, but that's just me and a whole lot of other people.

Any government must necessarily act as a "babysitter". That is what governments do- look out for the best interests of their citizens. You have benefitted immensely from goverment regulation of private business. If you want to claim otherwise perhaps you'd prefer to live in a third world country with little or no goverment regulation of private business.

Your statements about the anti-smoking lobby are interesting, but you lack any evidence to back them up. Even with evidence, your statements are hardly relevant. Politics is a dirty game.

While you may find it weak, many others do not...including lawmakers. I don't know how the laws are made in your country, but around here, the no smoking in public places was enacted by workers compensation, rather than by legislators.

Now, please step outside and enjoy your "cool" addiction. ;) :p

Oh yeah, YES it is my air just as much as it's your air, but it's your smoke and not mine, so keep it to yourself...thanks.

1.) Look, there's zero 100% accurate evidence linking the relatively small amount of secondhand smoke you get in a night out to health problems like the make it sound. ZERO. I'd love to see a link to an actual study that doesn't include the words "estimated" or "projected" or anything like that. All I'm seeing is "estimated (or the other fave 'up to') 30,000 people!" ZOMG SO MANY PEOPLE DYING FROM SECONDHAND SMOKE. WAIT HOW MANY? WE DON'T KNOW loooooolerz.

2.) Also, news flash regarding this stuff: if someone dies of prostate cancer, it's "cancer" and also *may* be counted in those figures if someone in their home smoked. The reason I say this is, once again, there has never, EVER, been a conclusive study regarding the effects of secondhand smoke. Not that bullshit 12 year old one, not the bullshit 6 year old one. It stands to reason that if you're in a COMPLETELY SMOKE SATURATED ENVIRONMENT - like, approaching 100% smoke - 24/7, for months, like those rats, that your chances of cancer will probably increase. Duh. Put someone in that same environment with car fumes and they'll be dead even faster. Duh as well. But cars aren't outlawed? Common sense, people.

3.) I'd love someone to Google this since I'm on dialup and travelling and can't at the moment, but there was some recent study that measured "average air pollution" in one night out VERSUS average air pollutants in morning traffic, then sitting in your office with your windows open, then afternoon traffic. And that was higher than the second hand smoke. It was published quietly and faded off of the radar like all studies that weaken the secondhand smoke argument do, but I recall it. You should be able to hunt it down.

4.) RE: my alcohol and fast food analogies. I apologize as you guys are right. Those don't directly affect other people. Strike those from the discussion.

5.) People with allergies to smoking and asthma etc: Now those people I feel for.

6.) The story about the waitress at the smoke filled restaurant? Yeah, talk to any research scientist about how "correllation does not equal causation." That isn't any sort of valid evidence whatsoever. We know nothing about the rest of her lifestyle, etc. etc. etc...

7.) And FINALLY, the main point that everyone that's FOR this has pretty much glossed over is still uh Stubba's: This, shockingly, isn't really about whether or not smoking is bad for you or for the guy standing in the room with you. This is about government intervention in business where they really didn't need to; in essence, nanny legislation. With the evidence supporting the secondhand smoke = cancer link weak at best, and with the free market clearly demonstrating that a very small minority of people wanted this ban (otherwise most business would have put their own ban in place), I find it completely insane that this legislation exists.

And as far as stuff that affects us? You know what, I don't own a car. I walk where I like to go or use transportation. Your gas guzzlers are pumping CARCINOGENIC CHEMICALS INTO MY AIR. It's YOUR exhaust, not mine. When I'm walking on the sidewalk, I'm breathing YOUR car's exhaust. When my apartment window is open, which is MY private space, I have to close it before rush hour or else the whole place will eventually smell. I DEMAND A BAN ON CARS. Demand, I say! Those chemicals cause cancer!

And that, my friends, is a completely valid argument too.

Well, I guess I can't really answer that. I just hope that the majority doesn't turn against something you enjoy doing without evidence that it's harming other people.

You are exposed to cancer causing chemicals constantly. Not just in the air you breathe from smokers, but in the milk you drink, the food you consume, and the sunlight you see. What you should be worried about is the amount of exposure and the relative risk associated with such exposure. The question should be, does second hand smoke produce cancer causing chemicals in such amounts that it poses a healh risk to bystanders? If that answer is yes, then I completely agree that smoking should be banned. But in the absence of real evidence to substantiate that position, I must disagree.

I don't agree that is what governments must necessarily do. And if you really believe that governments look out for the best interests of citizens, well, you obviously either don't live in the US or are ridiculously naive. I can't speak for other countries, but the US government exists for one reason: to perpetuate itself and make sure the rich white men stay rich and white.

Well, it's not that I find it weak, the WHO report specifically stated it found weak evidence to support the contention that ETS harm others. It actually used the word weak. It's not a question of anybody else finding it weak, it's a question of basing laws on weak evidence.

I will admit that if moderate to strong evidence showing ETS is harmful to others is proven, then smoking should be banned in public places.

Will you admit that if only weak or no evidence showing ETS is harmful to others is found, then smoking should not be banned in public places? If not, why not? I think this is one of the main areas of argument right now, but not because we really disagree about policy, but about the facts. First we should establish the policy, then determine if the facts fit the policy, yes?


I think it's generally enacted by legislation here. How is it enacted by worker's compensation where you are? What does that mean?

Oh well. I concede this arguement simply because no one is actually addressing my main concern. I have heard all of the horror stories about how bad smoke is for your enjoyment and how you all believe flawed studies about secondhand smoke. All I can suggest is that many of you need to learn how to intrepret study results...

(Here's a hint, a difference of 2 per million between the control group and the group being studied does not actually prove anything.)

Sadly it seems that all of you that are for the ban see no problem with using the force of government to stop smoking instead of simply using market pressure. I have gone to a restraunt, been dissatisified with something and told the manager about it many times. A simple "I am leaving your place because I didn't like so-and-so" repeated day after day by all of the non-smokers in the country would cause a number of places to change their policy. Then you could start a little website that identifies all of the places that are safe for your people and everything would be good. But no, that's a little too much personal responsibility.

Why do that when you can get daddy government to take care of the mean people for you?

I think this statement bothered me the most...
Any person who believes this is obviously not a person I need to be arguing with. Yes I have benefitted from regulation of private business. Thinks like food poisioning and licensing of hair stylists have made my life much better. However I believe in setting limits on that power. I hope you are happy with your babysitter. Personally, I'm an adult and don't want or need one.

I, at least, don't want to deny that second-hand smoke could conceivably cause health problems. But there are so many things that could be done besides just banning it. You could require all bars and restaurants to have a certain amount of ventilation. I have a few friends who can't stand cigarette smoke. But there's one bar in town that they'll go to. Not because it's non-smoking -- it's not. But they've limited where you can smoke, and have provided great ventilation, so that the smoke isn't a problem, even for very sensitive people.

It's not just the weather stuff, though it gets cold enough here in South Bend that it'd be a bit annoying if anyone ever did ban smoking in bars. But it's being at a table talking with my friends, and then having to leave that table to have a cigarette (it's an addiction, folks. You wouldn't want to be around me if I've gone more than a couple hours without a smoke.) It's not being able to have a cigarette with my coffee. It's getting off a plane after a 10 hour flight and still having to wait an hour before I have a cigarette. It's a hundred and one little things like this. And I'm not saying I should be able to smoke whereever I like. I'm just saying there should be more options available to me than "Behind the dumpster".


Indeed it does. And if there were hordes of people who hated smoky bars, but liked bars, wouldn't someone have opened a smoke-free bar by now, to cater to those people? Not because it's healthier, but because they could make money?

And if they do, i will accept the fact that sometimes the price of living in a community is conforming to the whims of the majority. Even when i did smoke, i agreed with the idea that smoking should be banned in restaurants and bars.

Minimization is minimization, and smoking causes more than just cancer. I see what you're saying though.


Yeah, i guess looking out for the citizen's best interest is a responsibility that has long since been shifted way down the list of priorities. But you have to admit that self-perpetuation and the protection of the rich white man doesn't preclude banning smoking.

And you decide where we draw the line? I thought that was the job of the constitution and the citizens. You see, there are limits on that power. Limits that don't involve vague buzzwords like "babysit". I trust the government to regulate businesses because business has time and time again proven that it needs to be regulated. You can call it babysitting all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that you benefit from the babysitter. It doesn't change the fact that you'd shit your pants if the government decided to stop babysitting you. It seems rather ironic to me that you would agree to the idea that you benefit from the government's babysitting and then piss on me for saying that i benefit from a babysitting government.

Perhaps all you adults can buy plain tickets to somalia, where they don't even have a government to babysit anyone, and leave us pewling children to wallow in the protective babysitter arms of uncle sam.

I see what you're saying. Smoking bans aren't always outright bans. In my fair city the smoking "bans" that are going into effect this spring are actually just requirements that most establishments create seperate ventilated rooms for the smokers to smoke in.

As for the hordes of nonsmokers want to dring in clean air, i would argue the point that, just because a market isn't being tapped, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Yes I suppose I must. Consider it admitted.

You're right, it's ad hominem, I apologise.

So it was. Fair. The quote were more trying to imitate a particular tone of voice... hard to explain, its a bad typing habit I have.

But for the record:

I am of mixed feelings about this. I think smoke free resturants is a good idea but I think banning smoking in bars is kinda stupid. If individual bar owners want to make their bar smoke free that is one thing but I don't think the government has a right to tell private business owners what sort of legal things they can and can not allow in their business (smoking is still legal after all).

In each of these analogies, I was trying to point out how weak each argument was for the banning of smoking, not trying to make out smokers to be a protected class. Each of the arguments for banning smoking can be reduced to absurdity if the policy for banning smoking was instituted. In each case, the rationale for banning smoking would be the equivalent policy for a negative policy against black people or any other minority group. I use black people as an example because I hope everyone recognizes how uncool it would be to do these same things to black people.

#13: So when is your city going to get around to outlawing black men, the number one cause of death of other black men ages 15-34?

The suggestion being that if the government is really concerned with outlawing all causes of death then why not outlaw the # 1 cause of death of black men 15-34. This statstic is from US figures.

#81: Yeah, lets keep the smokers out of the bars. They make the place unpleasant. And you know what, lets keep the black people out too, they really make the place unpleasant.

Here, again, I was trying to be sarcastic. If the government should act when people are annoyed, well, some racist people are annoyed that black people go into bars. If annoyance is the only consideration, then why wouldn't they be banned from bars too?

#107: That's true. And black people won't die if they have to use a separate water fountain and sit at the back of the bus. But not dying is not a sufficient reason to outlaw an activity.

I think that's pretty clear, a policy not killing someone is not a sufficient reason to outlaw an activity.

#115: OK, so the new rule is every activity for which I cannot find 10 reasons it benefits my life should be outlawed? Well, look, I'll be honest with you. I've tried and tried and I can't find 10 reasons black people benefit my life. So maybe they should be outlawed too?

Ok, I was trying to be very sarcastic here. I'm sure there are 10 ways black people have benefited my life. But someone asked me to name 10 ways cigs benefited my life. I can't imagine why having 10 reasons something benefitted my life would be enough to prevent a policy of banning something. But if that were the policy, then certainly some redneck bastard could come forward and say that there aren't 10 ways black people benefitted his life and thus black people could be outlawed.

I hope that makes my reasons clear, but again, I am not very smart so if this isn't the way you would do things I hope you understand.