Arguments for/against smoking in public areas.

[uncballzer]

:tpd:

Exactly!!!

Just because someone invites the "public" in doesn't mean it is really public. Ultimately it is a privately owned place where the owner can put restrictions on who enters. If he/she wants to say "You're only welcome if you are OK with smoking" then that should be the owner's right.

As for the second hand smoke thing. I agree that most of it is overblown and/or BS. But then I'm no scientist.

However, the guy who runs this site is: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/

He spends a lot of time debunking the myths pushed my anti-tobacco activists.

thanks for posting that blog link--i've been reading this and it's pretty good. just got onto where he discusses SCHIP and how the senate will need to recruit smokers to be able to pay for the insurance inflation and continue funding for this absurd proposal.

 

[American Psycho-Analyst]

It seems to me that these far-reaching legal restrictions minimizing the total number of places a smoker can blaze is symptomatic of a state misplacing its very limited energies. In my mind, this state has far more important things to concern itself with than making existential and health choices for adult citizens. I'm pro-choice in this matter. Let the market sort this out with its 'divine hand' (viz. A. Smith); let proprietors who wish to cater to smokers clearly and unambiguously designate their businesses as smoker-friendly; let all those who do not wish to be around such ilk take their business elsewhere. As a medical student, I understand that, though luekoplastic growths and lung cancers are a national endemic, it would be more logical (if we are trying to save the largest number of Americans from becoming terminally ill) to ban or heavily tax fried foods and potato chips.

 

[uncballzer]

It seems to me that these far-reaching legal restrictions minimizing the total number of places a smoker can blaze is symptomatic of a state misplacing its very limited energies. In my mind, this state has far more important things to concern itself with than making existential and health choices for adult citizens. I'm pro-choice in this matter. Let the market sort this out with its 'divine hand' (viz. A. Smith); let proprietors who wish to cater to smokers clearly and unambiguously designate their businesses as smoker-friendly; let all those who do not wish to be around such ilk take their business elsewhere. As a medical student, I understand that, though luekoplastic growths and lung cancers are a national endemic, it would be more logical (if we are trying to save the largest number of Americans from becoming terminally ill) to ban or heavily tax fried foods and potato chips.

What about these hospitals then that are going smoke free? I worked at one that went smoke free this january. I loved to like a nice cigar just outside the door when I got off for the ride home. Since they want a "healthier" person, can we not tell them to first remove the main risk factor out of their cafes, like oh say bacon grease? fried foods? cholesterol laden eggs?

 

[jinny]

not to take this off topic too much but wearing a seatbelt benefits more than just the wearer. Although statistics in general can be made to show almost anything... it is almost universally accepted that wearing a seatbelt is safer than not... sure there are cases where someone claims that they escaped certain death because they weren't wearing a seatbelt... but incidents like that are few and far between...

so why does it matter to me that someone else wears their seatbelt? because...

it's harder to convince my child the importance of wearing a seatbelt if there are others that don't... and I want my child to have every chance of surviving a collision.

Also, by not wearing your seatbelt, you increase the chance that you will die or be severely injured in an accident... and although I DO care a little about other people's well being, I also don't like the increased costs to society that these injuries 'cause... like increases in the cost of auto insurance, affects on the availability of emergency health care. etc.

How does this relate to smoking? personally, I don't like to compare the seatbelt issue to smoking, but I can see that it is possible.


Yes, smoking is an annoyance to non-smokers... sorry, just a fact. and it's not helped that these days the non-smoker has been taught to believe that they are taking in a dangerous poison... which is ostensibly true but not worth debating here. but unlike not wearing seatbelts, smoking is a more immediate nuisance to nearby people.

and while I agree that having a smoke after a meal can be seen as a right, it is a right that accutely interferes with the rights of people that don't want it... and unfortunately, there are more people that don't want the smoke than do. also, smoking interferes with the rights of the workers that might not want to deal with it. and the biggie... Kids. I'm pretty sure that nobody thinks it's good for young still developing children to be taking in any smoke. I would bet that even the most ardent smoker would find it pretty offensive for someone to light up in the Play Place section of their local Mc Donalds.

Should there be laws prohibiting smoking in restaurants? I think not... but I do think there should be ways to enforce and designate an establishment as permiting smoking in designated areas so that people understand when they go into those areas, that there can be smoking, that way, people that don't want the smoke can avoid restaurants or sections of restaurants that permit it and people that want it will know not to light up in a restaurant or areas that don't. and we can let market forces determine which establishments will prosper... frankly, I think there can be a pretty penny made for establishments that allow smoking. so much so, that lots of people will choose to allow it.

for the issues of the workers... they should get hazard pay for working in smoking establishments... but I think that's how things would play out if it were allowed. people that don't want to work there won't.

Personally, I don't want to smell smoke, especially that musty smell of stale smoke, when I eat. I don't want the smell in my house either... so even if I do have a cigar after a meal, I prefer to have it outside, and I really don't like the smell of cigarettes, so I would not patronize a place that allowed smoking in the dining room. if I wanted to smoke after a meal at a restaurant, I'll go outside... and like it! but more likely, I'll wait till I get home or won't have one at all.

also, I really like the emphasis on food in a restaurant... I don't really want to go back to a time where smoking was that common place in them... when I think back to those times I don't remember any positives with allowing smoking. I still don't hink it should be prohibited tho...

just as a courtesy to other patrons, people shouldn't smoke after a meal... it's just too intrusive. as an analogy, I like to let out gas after a meal, but I don't because manners cost nothing... And now that I think of it, If there was a special farting section in a particular restaurant, I think I would avoid it even tho I like to do so myself.

 

[mosesbotbol]

Let's not forget that 2nd hand smoke creates for a dangerous work environment for the employees of smoking establishments. That was line used in MA to help ban smoking.

I agree with other posters that the business owner should be able to decide and the free market & choice will decide from there...

If society was really looking out for people, we should ban sports and athletic activity. Both are a huge drain on the health care system and more people suffer injury and or death than the do from smoking each year.

 

[kjjm4]

Don't forget cars, they're more dangerous than anything else we do. There are around 6 million car accidents per year, resulting in around 3 million injuries and around 40-45 thousand deaths.

 

[dj1809]

I dunno... As a physician I agree with no smoking in public areas. But that's just me. (Spoken as he steps into his flame-retardant suit)...

 

[FontanaHoo]

The thing that drives me the most nuts about this argument is that while the argument is allegedly about health what most people are arguing is that it is an annoyance to them. They don't like to smell smoke, so they want it outlawed. I've never heard any of my friends in CA or NYC or DC say "I am so happy the government outlawed smoking in public places for my health, my odds of lung cancer are down .00000001%!". No, they all say, "I am so glad I don't smell like smoke when I come home from the bars, I save money on dry cleaning, blah blah blah." Hey, that's fine and a valid point but don't try to hornswaggle me and tell me you are worried about your health when you just drank a 12 pack and drove home. I don't like to breath pollen in the spring, dust from construction sites, car exhaust, etc. But I deal with those annoyances in my life because they happen to be around things I want to do like live my life.

 

[kjjm4]

I dunno... As a physician I agree with no smoking in public areas. But that's just me. (Spoken as he steps into his flame-retardant suit)...

Depends on how you define "public." I agree with smoking not being allowed in places that are truly "public" (government-owned) - schools, post offices, government offices, etc. But on private property, anything that is otherwise legal should be allowed/not allowed at the owners discretion.

 

[stig]

The big problem with posing a question such as this here is that there is no simple answer to it since there are so many levels to look at this on.

For instance: I am fine with not smoking in "public places" because as a cigaar smoker I understand that the smoke does bother some people and I certainly don't want to be blowing smoke in the direction of small children.

Also, I have only been a true cigar smoker (more than 2 or 3 a year) for a couple of years now so I can relate to people who want to be able to walk into an establishment such as restaraunt or bar without having to deal with cigar or cigarette smoke. Many a night as a musician I would come home from playing at a bar and the first thing I want to do is get out of my clothes because they wreak of stale smoke. Now the same argument could be made here that some people are making for pub emloyees, that you don't have to work here if you don't like the smoke. However, it is almost impossible to be a musician playing any type of rock or pop music without playing in clubs. (Don't bother trying to argue this point it's useless)

On the other side of this argument it does apear that certain freedoms are being taken away from us. We can no longer smoke in bars and restaraunts and many other locations that you used to be able to smoke in because the lawmakers said so. You have to watch how much you let slip through before you sart to fight back because it then become the give em' an inch and they take a mile with the lawmakers.

My opinion is that we choose to smoke cigars, pipes cigarettes etc..., it is not something that anyone forces us to do. Restaraunts and many bars & clubs don't generaly sell cigars and cigarettes (The cigarette machine in the loby doesn't count) and they're in the business of serving food and drink and presenting entertainment. It won't kill me to put down the cigar for a couple of hours. If bars and restaraunts are loosing that much business because you can't smoke in them anymore then there does need to be some sort of work around. Many bars in CT have set up smoking lounges on there decks and enclosed them with tents and added heaters for the wonderful CT winters. Think about it this way, we choose to smoke, period and should be respectful of those around us when we are smoking. The same would hold true for any activity that I participated in that a lot of people may not like. I try and enjoy that activity without bothering those around me because it becomes much less enjoyable when it bothers someone. If you can't make it through a meal without a cigarette then step out side and be cuteous regardless of the laws. As for y cigars, I won't light one up unless I am somewhere that I can light up and enjoy it without moving for a long time and that generaly doesn't include a restaraunt. Many smokers on this board admit that they don't smoke n their own homes, so why should it bother us that we can't smoke in a restaraunt?:2

 

[kjjm4]

I don't smoke in restaurants, and I never have. The only public places I smoke at are golf courses and bars. On the golf course, the smoke dissipates in the open air more or less instantly, and in a bar, the majority of the other people there are smoking cigarettes.

If a business owner wants to ban smoking in his/her establishment, I fully respect their right to do so, and I wouldn't smoke there (although I'd be much less likely to go to a bar that didn't allow smoking).

What I'm against is anti-smoking laws. The government doesn't need to interfere. People can decide for themselves whether they want to smoke or go to places that allow smoking.

 

[uncballzer]

The big problem with posing a question such as this here is that there is no simple answer to it since there are so many levels to look at this on.

For instance: I am fine with not smoking in "public places" because as a cigaar smoker I understand that the smoke does bother some people and I certainly don't want to be blowing smoke in the direction of small children.

Also, I have only been a true cigar smoker (more than 2 or 3 a year) for a couple of years now so I can relate to people who want to be able to walk into an establishment such as restaraunt or bar without having to deal with cigar or cigarette smoke. Many a night as a musician I would come home from playing at a bar and the first thing I want to do is get out of my clothes because they wreak of stale smoke. Now the same argument could be made here that some people are making for pub emloyees, that you don't have to work here if you don't like the smoke. However, it is almost impossible to be a musician playing any type of rock or pop music without playing in clubs. (Don't bother trying to argue this point it's useless)

On the other side of this argument it does apear that certain freedoms are being taken away from us. We can no longer smoke in bars and restaraunts and many other locations that you used to be able to smoke in because the lawmakers said so. You have to watch how much you let slip through before you sart to fight back because it then become the give em' an inch and they take a mile with the lawmakers.

My opinion is that we choose to smoke cigars, pipes cigarettes etc..., it is not something that anyone forces us to do. Restaraunts and many bars & clubs don't generaly sell cigars and cigarettes (The cigarette machine in the loby doesn't count) and they're in the business of serving food and drink and presenting entertainment. It won't kill me to put down the cigar for a couple of hours. If bars and restaraunts are loosing that much business because you can't smoke in them anymore then there does need to be some sort of work around. Many bars in CT have set up smoking lounges on there decks and enclosed them with tents and added heaters for the wonderful CT winters. Think about it this way, we choose to smoke, period and should be respectful of those around us when we are smoking. The same would hold true for any activity that I participated in that a lot of people may not like. I try and enjoy that activity without bothering those around me because it becomes much less enjoyable when it bothers someone. If you can't make it through a meal without a cigarette then step out side and be cuteous regardless of the laws. As for y cigars, I won't light one up unless I am somewhere that I can light up and enjoy it without moving for a long time and that generaly doesn't include a restaraunt. Many smokers on this board admit that they don't smoke n their own homes, so why should it bother us that we can't smoke in a restaraunt?:2

I started just looking for counter arguments to med students who are glad one particular bar went non-smoking and arguments against the anti-smoking groups of smoking in general. It kinda went one-side pretty quick, but nonetheless it was interesting to see.

What I'm against is anti-smoking laws. The government doesn't need to interfere. People can decide for themselves whether they want to smoke or go to places that allow smoking.

EXACTLY!:bl

 

[American Psycho-Analyst]

This discussion is essentially one of social philosophy - specifically, the extent to which government mandates can infringe upon personal property and convictions, and, the extent to which certain rights should be upheld that, in some instances, might be seen as an infringement upon the rights of others. I agree with and/or empathize with many of the points articulated in this thread, however, I guess that I am a Federalist [sic] at heart and believe in the sovereignty of individuals and of individually owned property. The consequence of this is that, in my mind, if a business owner wishes to have his restaurant as smoking-friendly, then it his his/her choice and, as I have mentioned earlier, it is the patron's right in a free-market society where to spend his/her capital and time. However, on the other hand, if smoking is made illegal in all such places, then, of course, the smoker himself has no such freedom. To me this is wrong. It seems that a compromise is in order, and, to me, this is the only compromise that seems fair and relatively centrist. A touchy subject to be sure.

 

[Major Captain Silly]

This discussion is essentially one of social philosophy - specifically, the extent to which government mandates can infringe upon personal property and convictions, and, the extent to which certain rights should be upheld that, in some instances, might be seen as an infringement upon the rights of others. I agree with and/or empathize with many of the points articulated in this thread, however, I guess that I am a Federalist [sic] at heart and believe in the sovereignty of individuals and of individually owned property. The consequence of this is that, in my mind, if a business owner wishes to have his restaurant as smoking-friendly, then it his his/her choice and, as I have mentioned earlier, it is the patron's right in a free-market society where to spend his/her capital and time. However, on the other hand, if smoking is made illegal in all such places, then, of course, the smoker himself has no such freedom. To me this is wrong. It seems that a compromise is in order, and, to me, this is the only compromise that seems fair and relatively centrist. A touchy subject to be sure.

I agree 100%. Free Market Economy & personal freedom.

MCS

 

[stig]

This discussion is essentially one of social philosophy - specifically, the extent to which government mandates can infringe upon personal property and convictions, and, the extent to which certain rights should be upheld that, in some instances, might be seen as an infringement upon the rights of others. I agree with and/or empathize with many of the points articulated in this thread, however, I guess that I am a Federalist [sic] at heart and believe in the sovereignty of individuals and of individually owned property. The consequence of this is that, in my mind, if a business owner wishes to have his restaurant as smoking-friendly, then it his his/her choice and, as I have mentioned earlier, it is the patron's right in a free-market society where to spend his/her capital and time. However, on the other hand, if smoking is made illegal in all such places, then, of course, the smoker himself has no such freedom. To me this is wrong. It seems that a compromise is in order, and, to me, this is the only compromise that seems fair and relatively centrist. A touchy subject to be sure.

That's deep. And you have good grammar as well.