Merged Smoking should be banned universally

[jiggeryqua]

Surely the correlation would be between those who believe that "there is no safe level of second hand tobacco smoke" and those who believe that any level of radiation causes cancer. We could start by showing them this. Pity xkcd haven't done one for tobacco smoke particulates.

There is a greater surface similarity between your examples, but mine both feature in the set of 'people who get on my tits'. I was hoping for a hypocritical correlation - 'your poison bad, my poison good' sort of thing.

 

[jiggeryqua]

We could start by showing them this.

Am I reading that right? Standing next to the Chernobyl core would kill you 25 times in ten minutes? Would it kill you once much sooner than that?

 

[Noztradamus]

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur
Thought police indeed.

Only criminal minds need to fear the Thought Police!

Actually, it's only people who think who need to fear the Thought Police.

 

[Ambrosia]

prolonged exposure working in a place filled with smoke [...] allowing it would be inconsistent with our other workplace safety laws about toxins and carcinogens.

Why would there need to be prolonged exposure to smoke? There is such a thing as air conditioning. The vast majority of such smoke could simply be extracted via a good ventilation system.

I don't want a return to the incredibly smoky bars of times past. I am perfectly fine with the large majority of venues to remain smoke free. I am arguing that the law should have provisions in it to not go so far in catering for the rights of non-smokers, so as to completely trample the rights of smokers in the process. Which here at least in the UK is exactly what is happening.

EDIT: Note, this is in response to already established laws about smoking in businesses. It would be absolutely crazy to try to ban smoking completely

Utterly bananas.

 

[23_Tauri]

This comes down to what kind of society you want. The United States is known for being the leader of the free world. The concerns about smoking basically fall into two categories: 1. It's dangerous health-wise and 2. It's a symbol of our freedom. To argue back and forth between 1 and 2 is silly unless both parties are on the same page about how society should be governed. To me, the person who supports 1 wants a much different society than the person who supports 2.
Specifically, 1 wants more government regulation, and 2 wants less. Neither party really disagrees with each others' premises. For example, 1 understands the benefits of smoking and the importance of freedom. Likewise, 2 understands the dangers of smoking and why some government regulation is needed. (at least, I hope both parties understand these things) Of course, they disagree with each others' conclusions.

Well, what is America about? I don't want to fall into a false dichotomy, but are we a country built on freedom or a country built on limiting choice? Considering that the OP made a very black-and-what claim (universal ban), I feel this dichotomy is appropriate to consider.

I've never made the analogy between smoking and gun ownership before (probably because I live in the UK, not the USA) but it suddenly seems somewhat apt (notwithstanding the fact that all analogies have some shortcomings).

 

[Dorian Gray]

*blowing smoke towards monitor*

Are you driving a car ?

Oh, you're blowing smoke, all right. Are you comparing people who die from smoking related illnesses each year to people who die from car exhaust-related illnesses?

 

[23_Tauri]

There is a greater surface similarity between your examples, but mine both feature in the set of 'people who get on my tits'*. I was hoping for a hypocritical correlation - 'your poison bad, my poison good' sort of thing.

Ah, now I get.

*smoking nazis really get on my tits too

 

[Dorian Gray]

Speaking as an employee in an oncology clinic, I have to say I firmly respect the freedom of choice of every individual, and if they choose to indulge a habit that gives them harmless pleasure and often leads to profits and paychecks for me, who am I to judge them? Live and let live and let charge according to the limits of coverage under the contracted insurers.

That's just it. You should also be able to choose not to, or if unable to give consent verbally or legally, to default to not doing it. That isn't possible if you're the child of a parent who smokes in the home or car, or a patron of a restaurant that allows smoking.

 

[23_Tauri]

I see your point, but I still don't agree. There are risks that people take for their jobs even with the best of protection - even asbestos removal services. Yeah, you get the best safety gear, but the job is still dangerous. Same with police, fire, military, coal miners, etc. An employer tries to make it as safe as possible for the employees, but being an employee of that profession, one still has to face risks.

Yes, and

a) those calling for the very sensible solution of adequate ventilation systems for pubs and bars were ignored by the UK government when it pushed through the the universal smoking ban; and

b) the law in the UK forbids publicans and bar owners who don't have any staff (except themselves) from allowing smoking in their establishments if they so wish.

(Note: the Netherlands recently relaxed their smoking laws to allow family-run brown cafes to allow smoking, although I'm not sure what the current situation is and whether the prohibitionist lobby have made an appeal to the EU).

Oh, and

c) no compromise is allowed whereby smokers' rooms could be provided away from the main bar, thereby permitting bar workers who didn't want to be exposed to smoke to remain away from the smoking area.

 

[23_Tauri]

That's just it. You should also be able to choose not to, or if unable to give consent verbally or legally, to default to not doing it. That isn't possible if you're the child of a parent who smokes in the home or car, or a patron of a restaurant that allows smoking.

I don't think anyone here, including myself, wants a change in the law so that smoking is allowed in establishments that serve food. The UK campaign group to amend the smoking ban certainly isn't calling for this.

As for children, that comes down to how far you believe the state should interfere in the private realm. What about parents who have over-weight children? Should they have the state coming into their houses and confiscating high fat and sugary foods?

Personally, I like living in a liberal democracy.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Wow. Just wow. That the above isn't even true demonstrates that the smoking nazis really can't put a coherent argument together in favour of prohibition. Can you come up with anything more intelligent than a retort of "yooooooo smelllllll! nah nah nah-nah naaa" that wouldn't be out of place in a children's playground?

Each time we have a discussion about tobacco smoking on JREF the standard of intellectual rigour dips hugely. About this time last year there was a decent discussion on the research into SHS, economic impacts of bans and such like. Now, it's just evangelical mud-slinging from the sanctimonious antis.

I thought this was supposed to be a forum for critical thinkers. Prohibitionists sound so like religious fanatics and I'll wager they give them short shrift on the religion sub-forums. Hypocritical, much?

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p133/debs711/smoke2.gif

I thought so too. But despite the fact that it is statistically overwhelming that smoking will lead to a whole host of likely harmful long-term effects, both to quality of life of the smoker and the people around him or her and to the health of the smoker up to and including death, people choose to smoke anyway. Critical thinking skills seem to be lacking.

 

[23_Tauri]

If bars that wanted to allow smoking would make equal accommodation to minimize risk, that may start to be reasonable.

They would love to, but in the UK it's not an option. It's the state that is being unreasonable.

 

[Dorian Gray]

I don't think anyone here, including myself, wants a change in the law so that smoking is allowed in establishments that serve food. The UK campaign group to amend the smoking ban certainly isn't calling for this.

As for children, that comes down to how far you believe the state should interfere in the private realm. What about parents who have over-weight children? Should they have the state coming into their houses and confiscating high fat and sugary foods?

Personally, I like living in a liberal democracy.

The obvious difference is that humans need food to survive, but there is absolutely no benefit to smoking whatsoever. And it is my belief that it's not the food that is the problem so much as the utter lack of exercise due to all the electronic gadgets in our and our kids' lives that encourage us to sit still for great lengths of time.

 

[23_Tauri]

I thought so too. But despite the fact that it is statistically overwhelming that smoking will lead to a whole host of likely harmful long-term effects, both to quality of life of the smoker and the people around him or her and to the health of the smoker up to and including death, people choose to smoke anyway. Critical thinking skills seem to be lacking.

Are you implying that because I am a smoker I lack critical thinking skills?

 

[23_Tauri]

The obvious difference is that humans need food to survive, but there is absolutely no benefit to smoking whatsoever.

It's pleasurable. There are many things in life that carry risk whilst serving no other purpose but pleasure. But we don't stop consenting adults from doing them if they so wish.

Oh, and humans don't need candy and soda and ice cream sundaes to survive.

And it is my belief that it's not the food that is the problem so much as the utter lack of exercise due to all the electronic gadgets in our and our kids' lives that encourage us to sit still for great lengths of time.

How about we confiscate the Playstations from all the parents who have fat kids then?

 

[Dorian Gray]

Sheesh. Look, there is no doubt that smoking is unhealthy. Second hand smoke can cause damage. There's no debate about that. And yes, it does leave a lingering smell on a smoker and people who live with smoker.

The point is this: if it is banned on the basis that it is a) unhealthy for the consumer and the people around her/him and b) it smells bad, then there's a list of many things that people do everyday that should be banned for the same reason. The very first thing I can think of is cars.

Cars pollute and their pollution can cause cancer. They smell bad while idling, and they can cause damage to not only the driver but anyone on the road.

Alcohol is another. Drinking can cause a person to get violent causing damage to others, and have you ever smelled a drunk person?

Sports, sex, etc, there's a whole list of things that one can do that can cause injury to themselves and others and after doing it, one smells bad.

Now I'm not slippery sloping here. I'm not saying that "if we ban cigarettes, these things are next on the list". What I am saying is that banning cigarettes for the reasons you are listing doesn't matter. If an individual chooses to smoke, that is their choice, just like having an individual choose to drive an SUV on a busy highway. Both have different levels of dangerous, both can kill more than just the person using the item, and both will make someone smell badly.

To me, this whole anti-smoking thing has gotten out so over the top, that it's beginning to look like prejudice to me.

It's the intended use. What is a cigarette intended to do? Deliver a drug to a person in an intrusive way that affects people around them. Chew some gum for your nicotine, and I have no problem. There isn't secondhand nicotine gum, so to speak, at least not in a way different from any other gum.
Same thing for a gun. A gun is intended to shoot a target, a person or an animal, and cause destruction or death. So those two things should be heavily regulated - but you don't need a license for either (other than conceal and carry).

A car's intended use is transportation or delivery. You need a license to drive one, and there are a myriad of laws and regulations concerning cars.

If I may reverse slippery slope the argument you made, if cigarettes are legal, why not all drugs, and why not all things that might harm people like rape, murder, possession of nuclear weapons, etc.? If it's okay to harm people sometimes for your own selfish pleasure, then it should be okay for everything, right?

 

[jiggeryqua]

I thought so too. But despite the fact that it is statistically overwhelming that smoking will lead to a whole host of likely harmful long-term effects, both to quality of life of the smoker and the people around him or her and to the health of the smoker up to and including death, people choose to smoke anyway. Critical thinking skills seem to be lacking.

Empathy seems to be lacking. Most of the persistent, unapologetic smokers in the UK are, I understand, in the 'lowest' stratas of society. It's certainly still popular at the sink estate youth club I volunteer with. People whose 'quality of life' is so negligible that 'not smoking' actually decreases it, as they struggle to withdraw from the addiction and their behaviour impacts on those around them. Have you never heard working-class people say 'But it's my only pleasure?' People in jobs that do more physical, mental and social damage than smoking don't have the quality of their lives improved by being obliged to follow your preferences.

I am increasingly convinced that the legislation's primary purpose is to punish dirty, smelly poor people. I wouldn't dare suggest what relatively recent social upheaval might have led to a greater emphasis on punishing dirty, smelly poor people. Which demographic were the law-makers pandering to? Whose votes did it win?

 

[Francesca R]

a) those calling for the very sensible solution of adequate ventilation systems for pubs and bars were ignored by the UK government when it pushed through the the universal smoking ban

Can you demonstrate that "adequate ventilation" is viable? I think most people laugh rather long and hard at that idea.

the law in the UK forbids publicans and bar owners who don't have any staff (except themselves) from allowing smoking in their establishments if they so wish.

I think that's because it isn't just about the rights of employees but of patrons. Private property based rights or priviledges take a back seat.

no compromise is allowed whereby smokers' rooms could be provided away from the main bar, thereby permitting bar workers who didn't want to be exposed to smoke to remain away from the smoking area.

I think most people find these non-viable--from experience I might add; plenty of places had smoking and non-smoking areas before 2007.

I think the UK laws are about right as of now. I am wholly against banning smoking outside, or within X metres of a building etc. I agree that there should not be smoking in workplaces or establishments opened to the public. I don't agree with sponsorship or advertising bans though. Although the current position is "about right" I rather suspect there will be regulatory creep that takes it into illiberal territory from my POV.

(FYI I smoked in the mid 90s during uni years, and did again (5/day-ish) for a while in 2008. Then I have a "natural rate" of smoking amounting to about 10 per year)

 

[23_Tauri]

I am increasingly convinced that the legislation's primary purpose is to punish dirty, smelly poor people. I wouldn't dare suggest what relatively recent social upheaval might have led to a greater emphasis on punishing dirty, smelly poor people. Which demographic were the law-makers pandering to? Whose votes did it win?

On that point, it's worth noting that the pubs that have suffered worst since the UK smoking ban in 2007 have been those catering to the working classes: 'wet' pubs on estates and the inner cities, or rural pubs in marginal areas of the country. The gastro-pubs of Kensington and Balham serving mussels and gnocchi to well-heeled middle class urbanites, which had substantial non-smoking areas where food was served anyway, haven't been affected by the ban.

And bingo of course. Don't forget the bingo halls. And the working men's clubs oop north.

 

[Francesca R]

Does it matter, from a public policy point of view, if pubs "suffer"?