Smoking bans: Good or bad?

Quote:

Drunk Driving is ILLEGAL.

Yet widespread. In 2004 in the U.S.A drunk driving was responsible for over 42,000 deaths.

A Harley-Davidson motorcycle owner can annoy the **** out of people with his insanely loud exhaust. A pet owner can annoy others by walking his barking, sh*tting, territory marking dog in public. The homeless can beg for change, Christians can pass flyers out in public, street musicians can butcher songs, and Rosie O'donnel has her own show...

I can't smoke...

There's nowhere I can't reach.

We're not talking about what causes more fatalities. You're reading too much into this. We're talking about how smoking directly affects other people in restaurants who aren't smoking. And how it affects them EVERY TIME they go into a restaurant or bar.

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

Originally Posted by AliceNWondrland

Are you stupid? You do realize that fatty foods and alcohol only affect the person eating or drinking them, right?

What about conjoined twins sir?

I think its great, smoking is a filthy habit which many people in London do, I hate it when I'm sitting in the bar at my university, you can sometimes literally cut through the smoke with your hand it can be so thick. And I find nothing worse than to pay for such a nice meal and be suffocated by the smoke pouring out from the non-smoking section, it can really spoil my meal.

I'm all in favor for the idea of treatment contracts which the Uk is considering.The amount of resources these people take up is the reason why our health system is in tatters.

Quote:

Overweight people and heavy smokers would have to sign a contract with their GP, agreeing to shed stones or give up cigarettes in return for treatment. Those who failed to keep their side of the bargain, or who missed booked appointments, could be denied free care.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/nhs/s...973125,00.html

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

We're not talking about what causes more fatalities. You're reading too much into this. We're talking about how smoking directly affects other people in restaurants who aren't smoking. And how it affects them EVERY TIME they go into a restaurant or bar.

I'd rather be slightly damaged by smoke then injured or killed because of alcohol. Have these people never heard of non-smoking areas? Couldn't they go to a restaurant that doesn't permit smoking.

3,000 deaths a year by second-hand smoke.

Over 42,000 deaths a year by alcohol.

I'm not agaisnt a smoking ban, I'm against a ban on one dangerous intoxicant which disrupts other peoples lives, but not another.

How ya doing, buddy?

Smoking areas do nothing, the smoke travels around the whole room.

Most amazing jew boots

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000602.html
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000707.html

You could go to a non-smoking restaurant.

FELIPE NO

If those exist in your area (they don't in mine).

Most amazing jew boots

Yep, they exist in my area, they piss me off too because I can't smoke in them.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Oliver Wendell Holmes once pointed out that "The right for me to wave my fist ends where the other man's face begins". Your freedom to do stupid activities ends when they harm other people. And smoking in public harms those around you. Drinking is not directly harmful to anyone but the immediate person. Doing things like driving while drunk IS, and that's why they're illegal.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

And smoking in public harms those around you.

Still to be proven. From a utilitarian P.O.V alcohol is much worse than smoking.

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

I can't believe how many people still refuse to believe the dangers of second hand smoke. Besides, linking those 2 articles does nothing, I can link to a 100 more government reports and scientific studies/experiments which say the contrary.

Also of note those 2 articles are 6 years old.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I don't give a shit if smoking harms you permanently or not, to be honest. It makes my eyes burn and it smells like donkey ass on fire.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

I can link to a 100 more government reports and scientific studies/experiments which say the contrary.

Please do, the articles may be 6 years old, but Straight Dope is pretty respected.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Let's start with the Centre for Disease Control, arguably the most respected authority worldwide on diseases and other health issues:

Link - 66 Results for Secondhand Smoke. All worth reading.
Link - 556 reports on Environmental Tobacco Smoke (the current medical term as best as I can tell)

On to the American Heart Association:

http://www.americanheart.org/present...dentifier=4521
http://www.americanheart.org/present...dentifier=1213
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/96/9/3243


The Mayo Clinic, possibly the highest-regarded medical care instutition in the U.S:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sec...-smoke/CC00023

There's just the basics.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

I'd rather be slightly damaged by smoke then injured or killed because of alcohol. Have these people never heard of non-smoking areas? Couldn't they go to a restaurant that doesn't permit smoking.

3,000 deaths a year by second-hand smoke.

Over 42,000 deaths a year by alcohol.

I'm not agaisnt a smoking ban, I'm against a ban on one dangerous intoxicant which disrupts other peoples lives, but not another.

http://www.livescience.com/technolog...ll_danger.html

From the article: "Cell phone distraction causes 2,600 deaths and 330,000 injuries in the United States every year, according to the journal's publisher, the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society."

Cell phones are potentially hazardous to your health and other people's health! It even has the potential to kill you and people around you! Cell phones must be just as dangerous as cigarettes!

BAN CELL PHONES

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I found that satire to be amusing.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Smoking has been banned in specific public areas in Chicago, but a loophole was formed for the bars and restaurants. You need to have a specific $3000 fan built in to your establishment for every x-sq.ft. coverage. I actually really like that idea, because those $3000 fans are strong enough to just pull the smoke straight up. I wouldn't recommend standing under one with a loose fitting hat though.

As far as smoking goes in general, the rule shouldn't be to ban them all together, but rather tax them out of control. At the Prairie Moon (the bar I frequent), packs of cigarettes cost $10 each. You could go two blocks down heading either north or south, and buy a pack for $6, but each night the packs behind the counter at the Prairie Moon sell out. I really and truly bet that even if they were $20 a pack, they would sell out. When I was smoking, I bought a $10 pack just so I could have two cigarettes.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Fun stuff. "If I'm going to intoxicate myself with plentiful amounts of alcohol, I don't want any nicotine getting on the way".

They should allow it in bars.

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

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

I hate cigarette smoke myself, so the bans don't bother me. Lets face it, it been proven dangerous many times over...so I support the bans however, if there were smoking outside where I could move away from it or designated areas...that would be acceptable to me.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Crash Landon

there are documented cases of non-smokers developing lung cancer and emphysema simply from working amongst smokers for an extended period.

So how does getting any of these illnesses while being around secondhand smoke necessarily prove that it was caused by secondhand smoke? People can get lung cancer/emphysema without being around smokers for extended periods of time.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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?

FELIPE NO

This may just be me, but if I was a business owner, I wouldn't even care if I was told what to allow in my establishment if it affected people's health. In my opinion, business owners don't have a right to choose what to allow in their restaurant if it affects the health of others. Even if that thing you are told not to have isn't illegal. The articles I read said smoking bans help businesses, but even if that was false, and it didn't help businesses, it wouldn't hurt it significantly at all.

But I don't go in restaurants that allow smoking. I've stayed out of them my whole life, and I don't intend to go in them either. I hate how smoke clings to you. Your hair, your clothes. It's just disgusting. It's the most disgusting habit in the history of the world.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Crash Landon

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

No, not really. Because you can't just jump to conclusions like that. Even an apparent trend doesn't make something concrete, that's what I'm trying to say.

A friend once said to me, "since they've allowed people to carry guns, crime around here dropped 17%" (whether or not this was true, I don't know). And I think, you know, that's cool and all, but there can be plenty of other factors that contribute to the drop.

Now you mention that there are "documented cases of secondhand smoke => lung cancer/emphysema", and I question the validity. Like I said above, that doesn't really prove anything, it just points out what could be potentially true, at best.

Originally Posted by Crash Landon

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.

Maybe so. The question isn't so much if there is a higher risk but if the higher risk is significant. Lots of things carry various risks. Crossing the street carries risks of getting hit by a car. That doesn't make the risk significant, even though it's there.

Originally Posted by Crash Landon

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,

How smokers rationalize their habit? Smokers rationalize their habit with a powerful physical/psychological addiction. Have some sympathy, pretty much every smoker I know wants to quit and wished they had never started. They do not want or need an excuse to smoke.

Originally Posted by Crash Landon

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."

"Innocent until proven guilty." Show me how this philosophy is flawed.

Originally Posted by Crash Landon

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.

As posted previously by another user, there's really nothing proving/disproving this.

Originally Posted by Crash Landon

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?

Don't see the analogy with the gun part.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Eleo, you could tell me that there isn't one single "documented" case to support the claim that smoking or breathing second-hand smoke is harmful to you, and it wouldn't matter. It's just plain common sense. You're inhaling smoke, tar and other chemicals into your lungs. There's no way that's not harmful.

Plus, it really does smell horrible and it makes many people sneeze, cough and suffer burning eyes.

There's nowhere I can't reach.