Smoking bans: Good or bad?

Most people here know that I'm a vicious anti-smoker. My reasons are wholly selfish but justifiable, due to my progressively worsening lung condition.

Were I born with better lungs, I might not care. I might've even picked up the habit as most of my friends eventually did. However, from my standpoint, anti-smoking laws were invoked specifically for people like me who have breathing problems and have never smoked a day in our lives.

Ideally, all people should be able to patronize the same buildings and restaurants. But when an establishment permits smoking, for me, entrance is a potential health hazard. A thick cloud of smoke can and often does trigger a coughing attack on my part. Physically, I just can't deal with it.
So when a place allows smoking, they're effectively alienating me. This isn't always fair, as I should be entitled to partake of their services like any other. If a restaurant is known to make the best ribeye steaks in the county, why shouldn't I be able to enjoy one, you know? And I would if not for the smokers whose presence represents a direct threat to my well-being.

And that's the basis of my argument. I don't care that they're killing themselves, not directly anyhow. But smoking has been proven to create a dangerous atmosphere; there are documented cases of non-smokers developing lung cancer and emphysema simply from working amongst smokers for an extended period.
Me, I present no physical threat to smokers. My breathing is not going to hurt anyone. I can enter a building, go about my business and not harm a fly when I exhale. Smokers, however, can.

Anti-smoking laws exist so as to afford all people an equitably breathable atmosphere. Smokers have a right to smoke but they don't have a right to harm me in the process.

As for smoking outside, I generally accept this and do my best to steer clear of the thick cloud, but it IS annoying when some inconsiderate fuck huddles directly in front of an entrance, spewing his toxins directly in my unavoidable path. If other people have to use the entrance, then smoking near it should be as illegal as smoking inside the building.

Not that anyone is fiercely enforcing smoking bans in most places. Violators get a disapproving glare, at best. People like me should be given citizen's permits to write out tickets for folk who flagrantly smoke where others need to be. It'd be the same as any other official private sector role, such as notary public.

I think it's fascinating that we've all accepted that other acts present public threats. Drunken driving is extremely hazardous and we've taken extensive measures to penalize offenders, despite the large alcohol lobby's initial protests.
We've recognized that guns are potentially dangerous weapons and have enacted laws to govern their sale, possession and use, despite whatever the NRA says about how innocent and safe they are. You just can't walk outside, fire off a few rounds in front of a crowd for amusement and get away with it.
We've even admitted that sex can be dangerous, what with HIV all over the place and some people not realizing their infection. We openly endorse condoms, restraint and even celibacy. We prosecute those who know they're infected yet continue to infect others.

But when cigarette smoking is known to be killing thousands each year, both actively and passively, all we can do is shrug and say they all brought it upon themselves? We enact a few wimpy laws to govern the use of cigarettes and then fail to enforce them with any consistence.

I'm not saying people can't smoke. I'm just saying that there's no way in hell they should be permitted to do so in ways that present direct threats to the well-being of others.

I just don't get it.

Most amazing jew boots

It proves it simply through the modern miracle of common sense.

People who smoke have a higher rate of lung cancer and emphysema. FACT.

So it therefore stands to reason that people who are constantly exposed to secondhand smoke have a higher risk of developing lung cancer and emphysema. Smokers exhale the same carcinogens that they inhale.

Arguments like yours really piss me off. Sure, lung cancer isn't strictly dependent upon cigarette smoke, but the smoke definitely isn't helping, is it? But no, this is how smokers rationalize their habit, and how Big Tobacco defends itself. "You can't prove that these people wouldn't have developed lung cancer any other way, so secondhand smoke is therefore not the culprit. Innocent until proven guilty. Nyah."

However, studies have shown that people who've been constantly exposed to secondhand smoke do have a significantly increased rate of respiratory problems. It's a direct correlation and it's perfectly logical to believe that secondhand smoke could lead to lung cancer.

The only thing preventing people from seeing the validity of this argument is stupid pride and lost profits. It's the same bullshit that prompts the NRA goons into saying "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." Perhaps so, but that smoking .12 gauge shotgun is a bit of a mitigating factor, isn't it?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Eleo

There's nothing proven about it. Why don't you do your own research instead of believing what you hear in commercials.

Yes. That makes tons of sense. There's so many cigarette commercials to provide us with the real truth.

There have been countless studies to determine whether cigarette smoking causes cancer. And everyone but the most pigheaded denialists have come to the conclusion that there is a direct link between smoking and cancer. I shouldn't even have to cite specific case studies; by 2006, this is pretty much common knowledge.

The reason there are no pro-cigarette commercials is because they were yanked from the television and radio in the late 70s due to increasing evidence that smoking was indeed hazardous. The manufacturers, even then, were attempting to reach a new, younger audience and it was recognized that this was not something to be encouraged. Hence, the FCC banned tobacco ads.

So given that there are no advertisements on television and radio which support smoking, why would anyone waste money on ad campaigns to discourage smoking unless there was something truly harmful about the habit? What do these organizations have to gain for themselves? What are anti-smoking coalitions selling? About the only products they have to push are Nicorette and the patch, which is a financially suicidal goal since the ultimate aim is to render the need for these products obsolete.

The most logical conclusion, then, is that there is a genuine problem and the anti-smoking message is valid. I concede that the statistics they use may be embellished so as to put the fear of God into smokers, but nevertheless, the higher message - "Stop smoking, you suicidal twit." - isn't something people would say just to spite smokers.

As for the secondhand smoke argument, why don't you light your house on fire and stand in the blaze for a good hour. Breathe deep. Make sure that smoke gets deep down into the base of your lungs. Now, remember as you inhale, that's just basic carbons being burned off around you. Nothing like the complex chemical additives you'll find in the average cigarette. Tell me that the smoke around you is absolutely harmless. Tell me that you're enjoying the burn. Tell me that microscopic particulates in the air actually relax your airways.

The smoke from cigarettes may not be as thick, but you can't possibly insist, with a straight face, that exposure to secondhand smoke isn't tantamount to being inside a small, slow-burning fire that's ever-so-increasingly covering your airways with constricting particles and chemical by-products.

Use fucking common sense instead of trying to justify a habit with flimsy rationalization.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.