Merged Smoking should be banned universally

[Dorian Gray]

Incorrect. Your critical thinking skills appear to be lacking, or letting you down.

You can read, right? If you smoke anyway, you certainly can't be accused of doing something smart.

 

[Dorian Gray]

And it worked, right?

No. Smoke doesn't obey section designations.

What is "about right" about making smokers stand out in the freezing cold to have a cigarette? What is "about right" about continuing historically high levels of pub closures?

And yes, these closures are attributable to the smoking ban:
Smoking gun: is the smoking ban a major cause of the decline of the British pub?

Translation: I'm so addicted to smoking that I can't even pause for a couple of hours so I can go to a bar. I'm also so much more important than the majority nonsmoking crowd that they should have to accommodate my addiction.

Nonsmokers should have to go to designated places where smoking is not allowed, but you shouldn't have to go outside?

 

[jiggeryqua]

So your answer to making their lives better is "Smoke up, Johnny"? My, but you are a veritable font of solutions for improving the lives of the less fortunate, aren't you. If only Mother Teresa had met you.

So, your response is a strawman? I don't know if you're a veritable fount of them, any more than you know whether I have a plethora of solutions for improving the lives of the less fortunate. The difference is, I don't pretend I do know.

 

[Dorian Gray]

It's been argued that pubs in 'non-affluent' areas are being affected by this ban. Could such pubs even afford the ventilation systems required such that I, sitting on the dividing line between smoking and nonsmoking, could not smell (and thus breathe) the smoke from the next table over? Does such a ventilation system exist? And did the cited study above take a sample of the air just into the nonsmoking side of this dividing line to see what the smoking particulate content was there in an establishment with a less than stellar ventilation system, or did they sample the entire nonsmoking area in an establishment with a state-of-the-art system and take an average? And this is a potential flaw I see with the study without even having read beyond the abstract.

 

[jiggeryqua]

No. Smoke doesn't obey section designations.

Translation: I'm so addicted to smoking that I can't even pause for a couple of hours so I can go to a bar. I'm also so much more important than the majority nonsmoking crowd that they should have to accommodate my addiction.

Nonsmokers should have to go to designated places where smoking is not allowed, but you shouldn't have to go outside?

Hold on, the non-smoking sections are outside?? That doesn't sound right. Oh. It isn't right. It's wrong. Misleading. Irrelevant. Specious.

Hold on, minorities should knuckle under to the whims of the majority? Only One True Way will be permitted? That doesn't sound right. Oh. Etc.

Just come right out and say it: people shouldn't be allowed to do things you don't want to do, or at the very least they should share your priorities or admit that they're stupid if they don't.

 

[Dorian Gray]

So, your response is a strawman? I don't know if you're a veritable fount of them, any more than you know whether I have a plethora of solutions for improving the lives of the less fortunate. The difference is, I don't pretend I do know.

You are arguing that we shouldn't ban smoking because it's the only pleasure poor people have. My pointing this out is not a strawman. What is a strawman is your appeal to emotion as a reason to end a smoking ban.

 

[Ambrosia]

Nonsmokers should have to go to designated places where smoking is not allowed.

Yes.

These 'non smoking places' ought to comprise the vast majority of all enclosed public spaces.

Smokers, or people who don't mind smoke ought to also have designated places where smoking is allowed.

 

[jiggeryqua]

It's been argued that pubs in 'non-affluent' areas are being affected by this ban. Could such pubs even afford the ventilation systems required such that I, sitting on the dividing line between smoking and nonsmoking, could not smell (and thus breathe) the smoke from the next table over? Does such a ventilation system exist? And did the cited study above take a sample of the air just into the nonsmoking side of this dividing line to see what the smoking particulate content was there in an establishment with a less than stellar ventilation system, or did they sample the entire nonsmoking area in an establishment with a state-of-the-art system and take an average? And this is a potential flaw I see with the study without even having read beyond the abstract.

Such that you...? The potential flaw I see with your argument is that you might stoop to associate with people who live in 'non-affluent' areas. Oh, and the flaw that you're conflating the free market choice of public house landlords to permit smoking in their establishments (and lose some business perhaps, but probably less than they lose due to the smoking ban) and the suggestion that bar workers can be better protected by efficient ventilation.

Still, it's much more fun to make stuff up than to have to actually address the tyrannical nannying position you've adopted. "Stop being naughty, that's our advice." Bonus points available for identifying the lyric.

 

[jiggeryqua]

You are arguing that we shouldn't ban smoking because it's the only pleasure poor people have. My pointing this out is not a strawman. What is a strawman is your appeal to emotion as a reason to end a smoking ban.

No, I'm not arguing that at all, although I did use the expression in a different context. I've also presented (as have others) other arguments as to why banning smoking would be pointless, ineffective and probably more harmful than permitting (google 'prohibition', or consider the cost of the futile 'war on drugs'). Your 'pointing that out' was not the strawman I pointed out. But it's saturday night, perhaps you're overly relaxed? How is an appeal to emotion a strawman, by the way? And why do you despise emotion? Ah yes, those dirty, smelly poor people from 'non-affluent areas' don't have the self-control to deny theirs. If only people were more like you, the world would be a wonderful place.

 

[Ambrosia]

It's been argued that pubs in 'non-affluent' areas are being affected by this ban. Could such pubs even afford the ventilation systems required such that I, sitting on the dividing line between smoking and nonsmoking, could not smell (and thus breathe) the smoke from the next table over?

You wouldn't be in this establishment at all. The ventilation required only needs to be good enough to keep the particulates in the air low enough to not cause significant harm to the workers.

By going through the door of such an establishment one waives their priviledge/right of entirely smoke free air, (similarly by accepting a job in such a place) it says so on the large obvious sign hung on the door you need to open to get inside.

If you don't want to smell, and thus breathe the smoke, you go to any of the other pubs down the street where smoking remains banned.

I don't want to 'end the smoking ban' I want to amend the smoking ban so that it is much more sensible legislation and caters for both non smokers and smokers appropriately.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Yes.

These 'non smoking places' ought to comprise the vast majority of all enclosed public spaces.

Smokers, or people who don't mind smoke ought to also have designated places where smoking is allowed.

Why should the choice be "breathe smoke or don't go" rather than "don't smoke or don't go"?

 

[Dorian Gray]

Such that you...? The potential flaw I see with your argument is that you might stoop to associate with people who live in 'non-affluent' areas. Oh, and the flaw that you're conflating the free market choice of public house landlords to permit smoking in their establishments (and lose some business perhaps, but probably less than they lose due to the smoking ban) and the suggestion that bar workers can be better protected by efficient ventilation.

Still, it's much more fun to make stuff up than to have to actually address the tyrannical nannying position you've adopted. "Stop being naughty, that's our advice." Bonus points available for identifying the lyric.

Really? You're stooping to using my choice of language to create the strawman of some sort of class warfare? How pathetic, honestly. And "tyrannical nannying"? What's next? Are you going to start crying out "Help, help, I'm being oppressed"?

By the way, smoking and nonsmoking sections are for patrons, not bar workers. So I couldn't possibly be "conflating" them, not having mentioned bar workers. Thus, ironically, your argument is flawed.

 

[Dorian Gray]

No, I'm not arguing that at all, although I did use the expression in a different context. I've also presented (as have others) other arguments as to why banning smoking would be pointless, ineffective and probably more harmful than permitting (google 'prohibition', or consider the cost of the futile 'war on drugs'). Your 'pointing that out' was not the strawman I pointed out. But it's saturday night, perhaps you're overly relaxed? How is an appeal to emotion a strawman, by the way? And why do you despise emotion? Ah yes, those dirty, smelly poor people from 'non-affluent areas' don't have the self-control to deny theirs. If only people were more like you, the world would be a wonderful place.

Hilarious. You know nothing about me, yet you've got me all figured out, haven't you?

And you certainly love the irony. "How is an appeal to emotion a strawman, by the way? And why do you despise emotion?" Following a question about strawmen and emotion with a strawman question that appeals to emotion.

Last time I checked, this was a thread to discuss critical thinking, not emotion. Check the banner at the top of the page for details.

 

[Ambrosia]

Why should the choice be "breathe smoke or don't go" rather than "don't smoke or don't go"?

Why should a non-smoker enforce their preference for smoke free air over the entireity of socialising establishments?

Smokers should have the choice of frequenting an establishment where their preferences are catered for. The amount of places where smoking is permitted should reflect the fact that most people choose not to smoke.

A person already has to breathe smoke emitted from vehicle exhausts to get to the door of said establishment. It's very difficult to breathe truly smoke free air. People seem to accept breathing the air outside without thinking twice. If you swapped the smoke from vehicle exhausts for tobacco smoke at the same concentrations, suddenly it becomes a big issue.

 

[Limbero]

There's a link between drinking alcohol and fatality. That doesn't mean we should ban alcohol.

If you have a drink it won't affect the person next to you, I know what point you're trying to make, but stop it with the straw men.

Ok think of it in numbers of cigarettes smoked. Assuming that second hand smoke is exactly the same smoke that the smoker is inhaling (it's not exactly the same but close enough) we could put a value on how much SHS is inhaled in a given volume of space, in a given volume of time and say that xSHS=smoking 1 cigarette.

If I smoke 1 cigarette in my entire lifetime will I suffer from any smoking related health problems?

Answer: No, none at all.

If I smoke 1 million cigarettes in my lifetime will I suffer from any smoking related health problems?

Answer: Hell yes.

You can describe both 1 and 1million here as "some". The more cigarettes worth of SHS you inhale the greater the chance of developing smoking related illness. Somewhere on the sliding scale there is a value between 1 and 1 million which means you are at significantly higher risk of smoking related illness. We don't know what this number is.

Okay yeah, you skipped an essential step in your last post, that train of thought was kind of hard to follow. Also, you won't find a number like that, the graph will most likely be a slope rather than something spikey.

I am a smoker (yes really ) I don't have any problem at all with smoking being banned in public spaces indoors. I like public spaces being smoke free if I'm honest, and going outside to smoke isn't a major inconvenience most of the time. However UK law presently goes too far and bans me and my friends from our enjoyable past time of going to the pub for a few drinks, and enjoying a cigarette indoors along with our drinks and our conversation. It's not just an inconvenience thing either. Pubs where the majority of patrons smoke are seeing a sharp decline in trade and some are being forced to close.

Especially in low income areas these pubs/working mens clubs/bingo halls are social hubs where people meet and get to know the neighbours. If these places close entirely then local communities become more insular as there is nowhere to both smoke and drink, more people buy cheap alcohol from supermarkets and meet with smaller groups of friends in their own homes rather than go out to socialise.

I'm not arguing that we go back to how things were, or that smokers ought to be able to smoke in any public space, far from it.

I'm completely with you when it comes to pubs, the owner of an establishment should be allowed to have his/her own rules. However, I would prefer it if there were separate pubs for smokers or smoke rooms (airtight door and good ventilation would be a requirement if you'd have a smoke room) rather than smokers going outside, mainly because I as a non-smoker tend to want to go get some fresh air, which is not so fresh if people are smoking. That or if there's a place for smokers to smoke out back, so there can be two secluded outdoor areas.

I'm arguing that there ought to be some provisions in the law for smoking in some small fraction of pubs/clubs/bars. Also that banning smoking outdoors is almost as stupid as banning it altogether.

What do you know of the effects of SHS outdoors? Show me one study that says it's completely harmless to spend time near smokers outdoors and I'll believe you.

All I can give you to support my case right now is this piece of anecdotal evidence: when I'm outside and near a smoker, I can smell the cigarette, even from a distance of 10 meters. That means that the smoke is reaching my nose, and in extension, my lungs. This doesn't prove anything about health effects, but it demonstrates that smoke doesn't just dissipate outdoors, and in fact reaches other people's lungs.

Right now it's 5:22 am in Sweden, and I really can't be arsed to find a study to support my case, but I'll give you one tomorrow if there is one, good night.

 

[Limbero]

Why should a non-smoker enforce their preference for smoke free air over the entireity of socialising establishments?

Smokers should have the choice of frequenting an establishment where their preferences are catered for. The amount of places where smoking is permitted should reflect the fact that most people choose not to smoke.

A person already has to breathe smoke emitted from vehicle exhausts to get to the door of said establishment. It's very difficult to breathe truly smoke free air. People seem to accept breathing the air outside without thinking twice. If you swapped the smoke from vehicle exhausts for tobacco smoke at the same concentrations, suddenly it becomes a big issue.

I've said it before, vehicles are more or less a necessity for a majority of society, smoking isn't.

Vehicle exhausts also carry little to no smell, which makes them harder to notice, and people tend to not complain about things they don't notice.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Hilarious. You know nothing about me, yet you've got me all figured out, haven't you?

Uhuh...

My, but you are a veritable font of solutions for improving the lives of the less fortunate, aren't you.

But let's not get mired in charges of hypocrisy, we're all guilty of it from time to time, especially when 'tired and emotional', eh

And you certainly love the irony. "How is an appeal to emotion a strawman, by the way? And why do you despise emotion?" Following a question about strawmen and emotion with a strawman question that appeals to emotion.

And you certainly love avoiding actual questions, or even actual discussion, in favour of snide remarks. How is an appeal to emotion a strawman? It was an honest question, an honest answer would be appreciated. You gave the impression of despising emotion - you certainly think it has no place in a discussion of human behaviour, which suggests you despise emotion. Or humans. It's probably humans, actually, thinking about it. The dirty, smelly 'non-affluent' ones at any rate.

Last time I checked, this was a thread to discuss critical thinking, not emotion. Check the banner at the top of the page for details.

Last time I checked the banner at the top of the page, 'critical thinking' was just one of the topics suggested. Last time I checked the OP, this thread was to discuss the contention that 'Smoking should be banned universally'. You can check for yourself, just under the banner you mentioned.

 

[Ausmerican]

If you have a drink it won't affect the person next to you, I know what point you're trying to make, but stop it with the straw men.

Technically that is not a straw man. Alcohol use can indeed affect people other than the one imbibing it. It can affect the person they run over driving home drunk, the person they drunkenly assault, the person they stumble into tipsy, or the person they throw up on to name just a few.

 

[bikerdruid]

Smoking should be banned universally

......not bloody likely....

 

[Francesca R]

Usually noticably noisy when you first turn them on, but you tune the noise out surprisingly quickly [ . . . ] Set a limit on acceptable ppm for the general air in the establishment and give trading standards people meters that can detect it

All this seems to make the ventilation idea unworkable. Can you see why the public would agree?

Hang a large sign on the door stating that this is a smoking establishment. Punter can choose before they step into the place whether or not to venture inside. Keep the majority of establishments as they are now. Surely it makes sense to allow some small fraction of pubs and bars to cater for smokers seeing as a small fraction of population smoke.

They seemed to almost all allow it when the law was--in fact--that way. This is, largely, because excess smoke is an unpriced externality.

Let the market decide whether they are viable or not.

The issue is that the market can't decide about the unpriced externality. So this is not a valid solution.