Rules on Smoking - Too Strict?

[Cuddles]

I’m perhaps unusual, in that I have never smoked – never seen the point of it – but (British, aged 62) was brought up among smokers; don’t find smell of tobacco being smoked, nauseating. The “passive smoking” thing has always seemed rather preposterous to me: in the world as it is now, we are exposed to so many potential poisons – why single out thus, the smoking of tobacco?

Because tobacco ultimately has no real use. We accept that we will encounter some toxins as a result of having cars, because cars are extremely useful. We accept that we will encounter some toxins as a result of industry, because industry is extremely useful. We accept that we will encounter some toxins in food, because food is extremely useful. Smoking, however, is not in any way useful, other than perhaps to the people who choose to do it themselves. Some people therefore don't want to be exposed to the toxins that are generated by other people solely for some selfish purpose.

The other point is that smoking is in no way singled out. There is a huge amount of regulation to reduce pollution from vehicles and industry, and even things like aerosol deodorants. The problem smokers have isn't that they are being singled out, because that's simply not true. The problem seems to be that they don't want anyone to have any influence over their pollution at all.

And before people bring up things like perfume again, it is extremely rare for me to encounter someone wearing enough perfume for me to even notice, let alone have difficulty breathing. If it was common for people to hang congregate around doorways and spray passing people in the face with perfume, I'd support laws against that as well.

^This.

Interesting that the only other people who seem to see what I'm getting at are also UKians. We don't appear to have the same level of intolerance (and it is an intolerance) to being in the presence of smokers as there seems to be in the US.

Wow, clearly you live in a very different UK from the one I do.

 

[JoelKatz]

Speaking of perfume, I always ask my coworkers not to wear perfume or cologne due to me being allergic to certain ones (it makes my skin itch and occasionally turn red). I have yet to have a coworker refuse, complain, call me a smell-Nazi, or accuse me of hypocrisy for not also asking them to stop using soap.

That's because most people are not jerks and will adjust their behavior if they are in fact causing another person harm or discomfort. If you did encounter a lot of jerks who refused to stop wearing perfumes you were allergic to, ultimately one of three things would have to happen:

1) You would just have to suffer, maybe quit. (Bad)
2) The company could completely prohibit all employees from wearing perfumes. The policy could be supported by flimsy rationalizations and an implication that perfume is unprofessional or hurts everyone. (Bad)
3) The company could develop sensible policies that minimize the conflict but accommodate everyone's reasonable requests. These policies would mostly just inconvenience the jerks who couldn't make reasonable accommodations anyway. (Good)

His complaint is that the company did something much like 2 where 3 was quite possible.

 

[gumboot]

thanks for the veiled insult instead of a point.

Gum gets stuck to more than just arcade machines, and you knew that. Desks, chairs, elevator walls, elevator button pads, railings, do i really need to go over the entire list? And usually it is there for very long periods of time turning into darn near a part of the scenery. I used the arcade machine as an available example that i could provide (rather disgusting ) photos of the decades old gum stuck to it.

If you have a counter point i would welcome it.

I'm not sure this is a valid comparison at all. The only time chewing gum pollutes our environment and interferes with others is when people fail to dispose of it correctly.

Smoking, on the other hand, by it's very nature pollutes our environment and interferes with others.

You don't ban something just because a bunch of people don't dispose of it properly.

 

[whatthebutlersaw]

Actually, to me it sounds like his company did 3, and the jerks are now inconvenienced.

 

[quadraginta]

I'm not sure this is a valid comparison at all. The only time chewing gum pollutes our environment and interferes with others is when people fail to dispose of it correctly.

Smoking, on the other hand, by it's very nature pollutes our environment and interferes with others.

You don't ban something just because a bunch of people don't dispose of it properly.

The city of Raleigh, NC just banned smoking in public parks. Their rationale was that too many smokers didn't dispose of their cigarette butts properly.

 

[gumboot]

The city of Raleigh, NC just banned smoking in public parks. Their rationale was that too many smokers didn't dispose of their cigarette butts properly.

So the government of Raleigh, NC is stupid. And?

 

[gumboot]

Admittedly, this one was most likely meant as humour but still...


Also hoping this one is a joke... but still...

*must not get involved in another smoking thread, must not get involved in another smoking thread, must not get involved.... damn it!!!

[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/CatsGods.jpg[/qimg]

Here's the crux of the issue. Do you, or do you not believe that the majority of non-smokers find cigarette smoke to be disgusting? Not just unpleasant, but actually repulsive.

 

[brodski]

If it was common for people to hang congregate around doorways and spray passing people in the face with perfume, I'd support laws against that as well.

Have you never been in a department store?

 

[bluesjnr]

have you never been in a department store in Harlem at 3am?

ftfy

 

[23_Tauri]

Oh Aten, I need a roll-up!

 

[23_Tauri]

The city of Raleigh, NC just banned smoking in public parks. Their rationale was that too many smokers didn't dispose of their cigarette butts properly.

We had a thread on that too!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=184443&highlight=smoking

 

[quadraginta]

So the government of Raleigh, NC is stupid. And?

And ...?

Nothing in particular. The story was on the local news yesterday. I was just sharing.

I don't know that I blame the 'gumint' all that much. This has been in the works for a while. The voters in Raleigh chose the people on the city council that finally passed the measure, so I guess it would be more accurate to say that "the voters of Raleigh are stupid". They got what they wanted, or at least some sort of faction did.

Interestingly, smoking is still allowed in the city parks' parking lots, where I guess the cigarette butts are less offensive.

Politicians around here don't get a lot of traction by sticking up for smoker's rights, and that's in NC, where tobacco was king for over a century. We have major cities that would never have been so much as a whistle stop by the railroad tracks if it hadn't been for tobacco. Stores that sell nothing but tobacco products and accessories aren't allowed to let people smoke inside.

 

[Fishstick]

Stores that sell nothing but tobacco products and accessories aren't allowed to let people smoke inside.

I don't think that's strange. I haven't seen many cigar stores where they let you smoke inside, either. You can like the smell of tobacco but hate the smell of tobacco smoke, even as a smoker.

 

[23_Tauri]

Actually, I don't think we do. I think it's reasonable to apply regulations which are already in place with regards to air safety. I don't think employers are obliged to deal with assaults to employees' sense of smell or taste, etc. You also seem to think it's reasonable to address workplace safety concerns. Accommodations to address safety ranges from awkward to impossible and realistically, since smokers are not a protected group, like those with disabilities, employers shouldn't be put under an obligation to accommodate them.

Yes I do think it's reasonable to address workplace conditions, making a workplace environment comfortable for everyone in it. At the same time, I think that it reasonable to allow employers to cater for smokers if they want to do so, for example by providing office workers with a warm, indoor space in which they can smoke on their breaks without inconveniencing the non-smokers. I believe (I'll double check) that this was the situation prior to the recent ban on smoking in public places in the UK (I don't know about the USA). I am not a proponent of a law that obliges employers to provide a smoking rest room but I would like to see a change so that employers can provide this if they so wish and have the space to do so. As it stands, the State dictates that this is illegal. Likewise with pubs and bars, they are not allowed to provide a smoking room.

In the past, some employers chose to provide smoking rooms because they knew that providing their staff with facilities to meet their needs made it more likely that they could attract and keep the staff they need to run the company. It's not really any different from providing drinks vending machines, kettles and such like.

It also made for an excellent BBC comedy series.

If safety is a priority, the most effective way to ensure it is simply a smoking ban in enclosed workspaces. Unfortunately, this seems to make it easy to extend bans to areas where safety is no longer the issue, but accommodating intolerance is. And I don't agree with that.

Yes. The decision as to whether to accommodate smokers, and how, should rest with the employer, not the State.

On the other side of the issue, proponents want it left open for employers to choose to make accommodations. I think this is reasonable, but I'm not going to push for it. I am a doctor after all.

(Although, if I wanted to be logical about it, turning a blind eye to ubiquitous tobacco use would be a far easier way to ensure doctors' job security than embroiling themselves in these vast, elaborate pharmaceutical conspiracies which are susceptible to discovery by failed con artists and ex-B-movie starlets.)
Linda

What elaborate pharmaceutical conspiracies? I must have missed something there.

 

[quadraginta]

I don't think that's strange. I haven't seen many cigar stores where they let you smoke inside, either. You can like the smell of tobacco but hate the smell of tobacco smoke, even as a smoker.

Well I have seen plenty of tobacco shops that let people smoke, so our experiences are different, but that isn't the point. I have no problem with letting the proprietor of a shop establish rules of behavior for their shop.

What's strange is that the purported intent of the smoking ban statutes is to protect non-smokers from the undesired effects of smokers when proximity is unavoidable. It seems sort of silly to me to mandate that for stores which sell little or nothing but supplies and equipment for smokers.

 

[roger]

Have you never been in a department store?

Yes, they used to ambush you, until laws were passed (here in the States, not sure where you are) stopping that, because besides the nuisance factor they were causing medical issues to people with asthma and allergies.

edit: hmm, googling is not showing me any laws - but I know there was a big sea chance in the 80s and 90s. Perhaps the big stores just changed their policies in the face of lawsuits. I dunno - I remembered it as there being laws passed, but I could be wrong.

 

[brodski]

Yes, they used to ambush you, until laws were passed (here in the States, not sure where you are) stopping that, because besides the nuisance factor they were causing medical issues to people with asthma and allergies.

I reformated my quote to give you a better idea of where I am from.

We may have laws liek that over here now too.

Hauve you neuveur beueun iun a deupaurtmeunt stoure?

 

[Stray Cat]

Here's the crux of the issue. Do you, or do you not believe that the majority of non-smokers find cigarette smoke to be disgusting? Not just unpleasant, but actually repulsive.

I find fat people disgusting and repulsive but you wont find me joining in the fatty threads to call them out on it. And you wont find me promoting the banning of cakes.

*must not get involved in another smoking thread, must not get involved in another smoking thread, must not get involved.... damn it!!!

 

[I Ratant]

Here's the crux of the issue. Do you, or do you not believe that the majority of non-smokers find cigarette smoke to be disgusting? Not just unpleasant, but actually repulsive.

.
I'll take unpleasant, Alex.
I used to say "Kissing a girl who smokes is like licking an ashtray".
I'm wrong about that.

 

[roger]

The other point is that smoking is in no way singled out. There is a huge amount of regulation to reduce pollution from vehicles and industry, and even things like aerosol deodorants. The problem smokers have isn't that they are being singled out, because that's simply not true. The problem seems to be that they don't want anyone to have any influence over their pollution at all.

We are restricted in a huge number of ways. My property is very hilly, and I could safely discharge firearms on it - but I am not allowed. I cannot play loud music or run loud machinery after a certain hour. I'm not allowed to dump my car's oil into the water table. I'm pretty sure my pesticide use is limited. I can't burn toxic things (my father always had a sideline in metal reclamation, and used to take copper wires and burn them in a barrel to strip them of their insulation - yes, very stupid - and now that is highly illegal and he sits there and strips them with wire strippers, as he should have done from the beginning) on my property. I can't juggle running chainsaws at the doorway of a place of business. I'm not allowed open containers in public. I can't take a glass bottle to the beach. I'm not allowed to stand naked in my own windows. I'm not allowed to do electrical work on my house even though I know how to do it - I need to have a licensed contractor do it. I can't honk my car horn in a hospital zone. I can't drive into a school parking lot with my entirely legal handgun locked away in my car. I can't "block the box" at a traffic light. I can't drive my car on the dunes at the beach, or go off-trail with my 4x4. All in all smokers have been given an incredible pass in society, given the safety concerns, productivity concerns, and health concerns (they call in sick more often, have to retire earlier, etc).


Like it or not if your actions have the potential to affect others, it is going to be legislated. I agree with you, smokers aren't really being specially called out in this regard. There is some 'momentum' to these changes, of course, as we are in the process of rethinking what we want to allow, so I understand why smokers feel that they are under the gun.