Merged Smoking should be banned universally

[23_Tauri]

I agree with the smoking ban as is almost, the only change I'd like to see is for some social areas, pubs, clubs, bars to be able to apply for a "smoking licence" which would exempt them from the ban. I'd only ever want to see a small fraction of these places allowed to get such a licence, appropriate to the % of people that smoke. Smoking in public buildings, most workplaces, not good and should stay banned imo. I do not think that smoking should be outlawed in outdoor public space at all.

Ambrosia, I note that the changes you'd like to see are almost identical to those being sought by the 'Amend The Smoking Ban' campaigners in the UK. I thought I'd post them here (below), because they are the changes I would like to see too and they illustrate that smokers aren't asking to be able to smoke anywhere, at anytime, "and to hell with the rest of you" but only that they be allowed to carry on what is a perfectly legal activity in places where it won't bother the non-smokers:

• Adopting the Spanish model – whereby venues with limited floor space can choose to be smoking or non-smoking, but venues larger than 1002 metres can have a designated smoking room if this constitutes less than 30% of total floor space, is fully partitioned and separated from the rest of the venue, and can be wholly avoided by non-smokers.

• Allowing the smoking of tobacco only in venues that can secure a licence by ensuring an agreed level of ventilation and air quality in both smoking and non-smoking areas.

• Allowing some discretion for local authorities in determining the nature and extent of smoking regulations.

http://www.amendthesmokingban.com/index.php/our_case/

 

[23_Tauri]

The second I haven't made up my mind on yet. If it isn't dangerous, I'm against a ban, but I still think it should be social convention not to light a cigarette when you're around a lot of non-smokers, because it can be mightily bothersome. I just think you're being a bit too certain of it not being dangerous, but admittedly, the research results are scattered and inconclusive.

I am a smoker, and I can tell you that it was never social convention to light up at a table of non-smokers when out in a public place, such as a pub for example. If someone wanted a smoke when no-one else at the table was smoked, you asked first: "do you mind if I smoke?"

I apologize beforehand if this is too ridiculous, it's just an example. Being bothered is not grounds for outlawing something, I'd just like smoking in outdoor public spaces to have the same social restrictions as public urination. If you really really have to, and you can do it without bothering anyone, go ahead, but show some respect and refrain from waving your dick/cigarette around in my face.

Since when did having a cigarette contravene obscenity laws? And when did a smoker last wave a cigarette in your face? I've never waved my cigarette in anyone's face. Why would I want to do that?

Perhaps you find the sight of my cigarette as offensive as the sight of a penis (I can't say my penis because being a woman I don't have one), but let's not get bogged down in this analogy of cigs and dicks as things might get a little Freudian.

Funny thing is, when I'm out and about in public there are places where I can go and have a pee inside. They're called public toilets. But if I'm out and about and want a cigarette indoors, there's nowhere that I can go and light up, unless I go back home again.

 

[23_Tauri]

1. You can in fact kick a smoking habit after that long. My grandfather gave up smoking in his early sixties after doing it for over 30 years.

But why should they have to? Small pleasures and all that. Particularly for the olds. I guess you get to a certain age and you make the most of even the smallest pleasures you've got left.

2. If you let them smoke, that could cause problems for the next person who's going to live there.

How?

I say they should provide apartments to smokers proportional to the percentage of smokers in the population.

Sounds very sensible. We agree! Welcome by the way, nice to have you here Limbero.

 

[JAStewart]

Even though its banned in pubs my clothes still come back stinking. I don't know why.

 

[DC]

Even though its banned in pubs my clothes still come back stinking. I don't know why.

a shower now and then might help

 

[JFrankA]

Ambrosia, I note that the changes you'd like to see are almost identical to those being sought by the 'Amend The Smoking Ban' campaigners in the UK. I thought I'd post them here (below), because they are the changes I would like to see too and they illustrate that smokers aren't asking to be able to smoke anywhere, at anytime, "and to hell with the rest of you" but only that they be allowed to carry on what is a perfectly legal activity in places where it won't bother the non-smokers:

• Adopting the Spanish model – whereby venues with limited floor space can choose to be smoking or non-smoking, but venues larger than 1002 metres can have a designated smoking room if this constitutes less than 30% of total floor space, is fully partitioned and separated from the rest of the venue, and can be wholly avoided by non-smokers.

• Allowing the smoking of tobacco only in venues that can secure a licence by ensuring an agreed level of ventilation and air quality in both smoking and non-smoking areas.

• Allowing some discretion for local authorities in determining the nature and extent of smoking regulations.

http://www.amendthesmokingban.com/index.php/our_case/

This sounds reasonable to me.

It just seems to me that a) banning it altogether and b) banning smoking outdoors just seem to me fanatical and, I'm sorry, judgmental.

 

[23_Tauri]

This sounds reasonable to me.

We smokers are a very reasonable bunch.

Must be all that relaxing nicotine.

It just seems to me that a) banning it altogether and b) banning smoking outdoors just seem to me fanatical and, I'm sorry, judgmental.

Hysterical is the word that comes to my mind. Health/environmental scares are the scourge of the modern world IMO, not because they are real threats to our well-being, but because they are the make believe of scaremongering policitians and single issue lobby groups, supported by a sensationalist media that indulges them. Reason goes out the window. Bird flu, ebola virus, DDT, second hand smoke.... what next to stop us sleeping in our beds at night?

Sorry if that comes over a bit ranty.

 

[Aepervius]

Even though its banned in pubs my clothes still come back stinking. I don't know why.

Try puking in the toilet next time


Oh hum.

 

[Limbero]

I am a smoker, and I can tell you that it was never social convention to light up at a table of non-smokers when out in a public place, such as a pub for example. If someone wanted a smoke when no-one else at the table was smoked, you asked first: "do you mind if I smoke?"

Maybe it's you, or maybe it's the smokers I encounter, but I take the bus almost every day from school, and at least once a week there's someone who lights a cigarette inside the shelter thing (in Sweden they're small glass structures with three walls and a roof), often with 5-10 people in there who aren't smoking. And it's not that I'm the only one who minds, because I'm usually not the first person to ask them to step outside, and that is always met with an annoyed frown from the smoker.

I hope I've just had bad luck, and that you're actually a representative of the average smoker.

Since when did having a cigarette contravene obscenity laws? And when did a smoker last wave a cigarette in your face? I've never waved my cigarette in anyone's face. Why would I want to do that?

As I mentioned, it's just an (arguably ridiculous) example, I never meant to say that smoking is obscene. Are Swedish smokers worse pricks than other smokes, I wonder? Waving it in my face might be an overstatement, but I still think 20-30 cm from my face is way too close, and I encounter that almost daily.

Perhaps you find the sight of my cigarette as offensive as the sight of a penis (I can't say my penis because being a woman I don't have one), but let's not get bogged down in this analogy of cigs and dicks as things might get a little Freudian.

I never meant for this part of the example to get so literal, my point was that, just as you meant earlier, you don't just whip out your cigarette (or dick, for that matter, heh) without asking. And I agree, the analogy has served its purpose, and I'm gonna have to find away to make my brain disassociate dicks and cigs now.

Funny thing is, when I'm out and about in public there are places where I can go and have a pee inside. They're called public toilets. But if I'm out and about and want a cigarette indoors, there's nowhere that I can go and light up, unless I go back home again.

This is bad, I agree, as I've said earlier, I'm very much for separated smoking areas, and I can't see why we shouldn't have them.

 

[Limbero]

But why should they have to? Small pleasures and all that. Particularly for the olds. I guess you get to a certain age and you make the most of even the smallest pleasures you've got left.

You shouldn't, but he claimed it wasn't possible, and I provided evidence of the contrary.

How?

Unless the apartment is better ventilated and cleaned than your average apartment (at least in Sweden), smoking will leave stains and sometimes smells, I've experienced it first hand.

Sounds very sensible. We agree! Welcome by the way, nice to have you here Limbero. [qimg]http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p133/debs711/1lg061shake.gif[/qimg]

Thank you very much.

Also, to reply to your earlier post (#400 in this thread), without filling this thread with my own post, just a quick few thoughts:

I didn't mean to be rude to you, I was just clarifying, I apologize if it came off as an insult.

I always try to provide evidence, but sometimes I (perhaps mistakenly) assume something is accepted as "truth", and don't think to back it up.

Harm that doesn't have long lasting effects is still harm, wouldn't you agree? And yes, the experiment's premises was far-fetched and overdone, but they still give good evidence for the fact that SHS can be dangerous.

Wikipedia is a great way to find information, but should never be a source in itself. It is, however, a great way to find a large collection of sources.

Oh, and if you're going to give me a rebuttal, please don't use studies funded by the tobacco industry.

Here I was just trying to be witty by paraphrasing you, not referencing your earlier source, but rather joking about future ones. I guess I should boil down my posts to more seriousness.

Anyway, thanks for the warm welcome I've gotten here, and I'm glad to see that discussions are kept so civilized here.

 

[23_Tauri]

Hi Limbero

Maybe it's you, or maybe it's the smokers I encounter, but I take the bus almost every day from school, and at least once a week there's someone who lights a cigarette inside the shelter thing (in Sweden they're small glass structures with three walls and a roof), often with 5-10 people in there who aren't smoking. And it's not that I'm the only one who minds, because I'm usually not the first person to ask them to step outside, and that is always met with an annoyed frown from the smoker.

I hope I've just had bad luck, and that you're actually a representative of the average smoker.

I hope that most smokers are sensitive to those around them too. But here's a thought: in the UK at least, maybe a lot of smokers have become less tolerant since the smoking ban because they feel so put upon. There's nothing like a sense of injustice against oneself to stoke one's radicalism.

I've often had the idle thought since the smoking ban that if I didn't smoke I might just start in order to show solidarity to the new underclass called smokers!

And I agree, the analogy has served its purpose, and I'm gonna have to find away to make my brain disassociate dicks and cigs now.

Yes, best we move on from that one, eh?

This is bad, I agree, as I've said earlier, I'm very much for separated smoking areas, and I can't see why we shouldn't have them.

This is the crux of the issue for me, and tells me that this is a prohibitionist movement, not a means to ensure non-smokers aren't affected by tobacco smoke (which is what it's dressed up as).

 

[23_Tauri]

Unless the apartment is better ventilated and cleaned than your average apartment (at least in Sweden), smoking will leave stains and sometimes smells, I've experienced it first hand.

How about a clause in the tenancy agreement that stipulates that on vacating the property the tenant has to pay for re-painting and new carpets? I have this in respect of my cat (the piece of paper that I had to sign was called A Cat Clause - geddit? ). When I leave I have to pay for carpet cleaners to remove all traces of cat hair and cat smells.

I didn't mean to be rude to you, I was just clarifying, I apologize if it came off as an insult.

I need to apologize too, because I was too quick and rather rude in my reply to you, too.

Harm that doesn't have long lasting effects is still harm, wouldn't you agree? And yes, the experiment's premises was far-fetched and overdone, but they still give good evidence for the fact that SHS can be dangerous.

I agree, but now we get into the whole question of how much circumstantial evidence (such as this study) does one need before one takes certain measures? And are those measures commensurate with the scale of the risk? This is where I think the law has gone very wrong. Require establishments to provide ventilation in some areas, have separate smoking and non-smoking rooms, yes. But hysteria about there being "no safe level of second hand smoke", or the dangers of third hand smoke, for example, it's ridiculous, and illiberal.

Wikipedia is a great way to find information, but should never be a source in itself. It is, however, a great way to find a large collection of sources.

Agree.

Here I was just trying to be witty by paraphrasing you, not referencing your earlier source, but rather joking about future ones. I guess I should boil down my posts to more seriousness.

It's a bit like the climate change debate, when the AGW's accuse those putting alternative PoV forwards as being climate change deniers in the pockets of the oil industry. Likewise with the smoking debate, whenever there's a study suggesting no link between SHS and ill-health, the first cry heard is "sponsored by the tobacco industry!". And it's not so. So, I shall check my sources carefully.

Anyway, thanks for the warm welcome I've gotten here, and I'm glad to see that discussions are kept so civilized here.

Mine wasnt' that warm initially, but I try to stay civil. I manage... sometimes...

 

[mikeyx]

Should smoking be banned

For the reasoning behind why it should

1) stink
2) second hand smoke
3) health issues foisted upon an already overburdened healthcare system
4) the general rudeness apathy of smokers towards everyone else.

It short, not just in public, the ban should be EVERYwhere

 

[Skepticemea]

For the reasoning behind why it should

1) stink
2) second hand smoke
3) health issues foisted upon an already overburdened healthcare system
4) the general rudeness apathy of smokers towards everyone else.

It short, not just in public, the ban should be EVERYwhere

What else do you disagree with that you think should be banned?

Personally I think hair metal, Robert Pattinson and Rebecca Black should be illegal.

 

[ehcks]

Laws should not prohibit actions that do not directly harm people other than the person doing the action.

Smoking could be restricted in public areas but should not be banned outright.

 

[commandlinegamer]

Rebecca Black is illegal, currently.

 

[Ocelot]

Yes but a workable plan to do so is the first hurdle. Addicts won't necesarily play by the rules.

Anyone not already addicted should not be able to buy cigarettes.

One way might be to keep raising the smoking age. Currently you have to be 18 to buy cigarettes. What if we let it be known that in two years time the age would be raise to 19. Then to 20 two years after that and so on for ten years when anyone under 23 could not but cigarettes. Thereafter the smoking age would be raised by each year. As such no-one currently under the age of 13 would ever legally be allowed to buy cigarettes. What to do then about addicts in later years want to move to this country?

Maybe addicts should be able to apply for a card (Much like how foreigners can get an alcohol card in Dubai) To buy cigarettes or tobacco product you'd be required to show the card. Perhaps then this is all we need and the smoking age thing becomes superfluous.

 

[Skepticemea]

Rebecca Black is illegal, currently.

Phew.

As for the OP, I'm not sure that prohibiting tobacco is a great idea considering the roaring success of the Volsteadt act in depression-era America.

Unless you are trying to create more organised crime dynasties, of course. They do make for great cinema.

 

[JJM 777]

Laws should not prohibit actions that do not directly harm people other than the person doing the action.

That idea would scrap most of all laws.

 

[ehcks]

That idea would scrap most of all laws.

Most? Many, perhaps, but certainly not most.

Can you give an example of such a law you would prefer not removed?