smoking laws

[Occasional Chemist]

No problem, old chum. People just can't get enough of this issue, can they?

Some of 'em have a two-and-a-half posts a day habit.

Well, it beats the endless threads about Israel.

 

[Cain]

Evolver writes:

In my first post, I made mention that a restaurant owner should be allowed to have whatever legal behavior he wants in his esablishment. If you spray some unwanted substance on patrons, I believe that constitues assault. This would also rule out selling heroin and child prostitutes.

Why can't a person blowing their unwanted smoke on me be considered assault? Honestly, I don't even need to create this mystery substance. I could probably spray water and simply inform curious patrons that it causes their clothes to smell and eyes to itch. After one person sniffs suspiciously and scratches her eye-ball, I'm sure an autocatalytic positive feed back loop -- one part placebo effect, one part group dynamics -- will take hold. I'll probably get wrestled to the floor by a mob of hypochondriacs.

My point is smoking is still a socially acceptable (yet disgusting) habit.

Au contraire! anti-smoking movements prove otherwise. If you acknowledge that spraying a substance identical in its effects to smoking should be illegal because it's socially unaccepted, then by identical reasoning you're forced to accept popular new smoking laws. I suppose you could insist on some pre-prescribed super-majority-- which is probably arbitrary anyway. Maybe 95% of people disapprove of a spray, while only 80% disapprove of smoking. Or maybe there's an esoteric utilitarian calculus in operation: smokers derive a positive benefit out of their disgusting habit, where as nobody benefits from a carcinogenic spray, so cost-benefit calculations turn out different. Fair enough, but the moral premise is categorically different than the one conventionally offered.

_________________________

Todd writes:

People smoke because it gives them pleasure, biologically. The intent of smoking is pretty clear. On the other hand, what's the intent of spraying carcinogens into the air? What would lead a person to do it? I can't think of anything other than a desire to cause harm to others. Intent is a big part of criminal law.

I disagree. It's probably true that most people smoke for physical pleasure. Nonetheless, we might also agree a few people -- definitely not a majority -- smoke because it makes them look "cool". Or they're social smokers. And even if their intent is not to harm others, they willfully smoke knowing otherwise. Armed robbers do not usually enter a bank with the intention of killing anyone. Indeed, if they possess minimal intelligence strict measures are taken to reduce the chances of killing anyone (if only out of pure self-interest). Still, they go in knowing murder is a real possibility.

Smokers knowingly harm and annoy others.

A person armed with an imaginary carcinogenic spray probably doesn't have malicious intentions either. She's only trying to make a point; expose hypocrisy.

This is another area where the thought experiment breaks down, because people can reasonably expect to encounter smoke in a restaurant, but I don't think anyone would expect to get sprayed by some random carcinogen.

I think the word "random" gives a misleading impression. Fine. Since the chemical is pure fiction, let's just assume it's widely known. After the initial publicity of a Florida man appearing before a judge for assaulting patrons at the Gator bar off highway 12, the spray's sale on the Internet becomes known to all reasonably informed citizens. Anyone who has opened a newspaper or listened to talk radio has heard someone talk about the stuff. (We know the real-world is far messier. Currently we everyone agrees that we KNOW the exact effects. But in the real world we could expect some groups charging "unknown long term effects" and so on. Maybe there will also be "spray skeptics" who say the chemical does nothing.) This objection in these parapraphs seem to echo evolver's in their appeal to social norms.

Of course, the final paragraph makes your position clear:

In any case, it should still be up to the restaurant owner to decide whether to allow smoking. If someone gets exposed to smoke and doesn't like it, that's strictly between him and the smoker. The restaurant has nothing to do with it.

In order to be consistent with previous objections under nearly identical circumstances, I would be forced to regard the actions of that smoker as "assault."

 

[Earthborn]

I'm trying to find the dilbert cartoon where the bald guy with glasses invents the "eargarette", a cigarette for non-smokers that one places in the ear, to allow non-smokers to take a cigarette brake. The eargarette would be a lot safer than startign to smoke just for a brake .

Does anyone remember when that dilbert came out?

By putting such a strange term into Google, a few seconds later I found this:
Eargarette Cartoon.

 

[Evolver]

Au contraire! anti-smoking movements prove otherwise. If you acknowledge that spraying a substance identical in its effects to smoking should be illegal because it's socially unaccepted, then by identical reasoning you're forced to accept popular new smoking laws.


Evolver writes:
I get your point. Maybe socially acceptable is not the correct term. The fact that it's legal behavior does not quite cover it either. But the fact is, people have been enjoying smoking with their food for generations. It's not my place to tell them they shouldn't be able to do it. It's not my place to tell restaurant owners to allow it or disallow it. It is my place to find out if a restaurant is smoking or non-smoking before I go, and decide to dine there with that as part of the criteria I use.

 

[Evolver]

Please be patient with me. While I've been reading messages here for months, I'm brand new to posting, and have not yet gotten the hang of using quotes from other messages.

 

[arcticpenguin]

Evolver writes:
I get your point. Maybe socially acceptable is not the correct term. The fact that it's legal behavior does not quite cover it either. But the fact is, people have been enjoying smoking with their food for generations. It's not my place to tell them they shouldn't be able to do it. It's not my place to tell restaurant owners to allow it or disallow it. It is my place to find out if a restaurant is smoking or non-smoking before I go, and decide to dine there with that as part of the criteria I use.

This reduces your argument to one of inertia. This is handled in format debate by declaration of "fiat". Suppose a world in which restaurant smoking is legal exists. I wave my hand, it is so. Now restrict your arguments to whether this world is inferior or superior to the alternate world.

 

[Evolver]

This reduces your argument to one of inertia. This is handled in format debate by declaration of "fiat". Suppose a world in which restaurant smoking is legal exists. I wave my hand, it is so. Now restrict your arguments to whether this world is inferior or superior to the alternate world.

That depends... is the alternate world ruled by "W" too?

 

[Evolver]

This reduces your argument to one of inertia. This is handled in format debate by declaration of "fiat". Suppose a world in which restaurant smoking is legal exists. I wave my hand, it is so. Now restrict your arguments to whether this world is inferior or superior to the alternate world.

Smoking IS legal in most towns where I live. However, in most towns, restaurants have to have a non-smoking area.

In fact, a large number of places have become all non-smoking voluntarily. And it doesn't seem to hurt their business.

 

[Grammatron]

Smoking IS legal in most towns where I live. However, in most towns, restaurants have to have a non-smoking area.

In fact, a large number of places have become all non-smoking voluntarily. And it doesn't seem to hurt their business.

Then why bother wasting time and money making it a law?

 

[Evolver]

Then why bother wasting time and money making it a law?

Yes, I agree. Why bother?

 

[asthmatic camel]

I confess, I'm a miserable, disgusting, weak-willed smoker. I regret having started smoking, wouldn't advise anyone else to do so and wish I could quit the habit.

Having said that, I do think that the anti-smoking zealots lack a sense of perspective. For example, when dining at a non-smoking restaurant, I have no difficulty wandering outside for my post-prandial cigarette. Whilst inhaling, I am often glared at by non-smokers who have just arrived in their gas guzzling 4x4s which pump out far greater quantities of toxic fumes than my cigarette ever will. (I cycle or walk everywhere *smug*)

Isn't it time we poor smokers were allowed some pity rather than condemnation ?

Yours wheezily,

AC.

 

[Cain]

asthmatic camel, while I generally find myself in agreeement with the sentiments expressed they are irrelevant to the central topic (worse, possibly bordering on ad hominem).

Besides, I think there's a significant overlap among the non/anti-SUV and the non/anti-smoking crowds.

 

[asthmatic camel]

asthmatic camel, while I generally find myself in agreeement with the sentiments expressed they are irrelevant to the central topic (worse, possibly bordering on ad hominem).

Besides, I think there's a significant overlap among the non/anti-SUV and the non/anti-smoking crowds.

Any less relevant than an imaginary carcinogen spray ? My point is that I, like most smokers, appreciate that my habit is irritating to others and act accordingly. I do not believe that legislation is required here, merely common courtesy.

Vehicle emissions stink and cause illness; am I asking for a ban on driving ? No. It's one of life's annoyances that I can tolerate.

Birth inevitably leads to suffering and death, perhaps we should legislate against that too.

Wheezy regards,

AC.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

My point is that I, like most smokers, appreciate that my habit is irritating to others and act accordingly. I do not believe that legislation is required here, merely common courtesy.

Then why is it I only ever come across smokers from the discourteous minority?

My impression is that a lot of smokers simply don't understand non-smokers attitudes. People have often assumed they can smoke in my house when visiting, and been surprised when I object. They often offer to "sit next to the window" or "just have the one" as if that makes it OK.

 

[asthmatic camel]

Then why is it I only ever come across smokers from the discourteous minority?

My impression is that a lot of smokers simply don't understand non-smokers attitudes. People have often assumed they can smoke in my house when visiting, and been surprised when I object. They often offer to "sit next to the window" or "just have the one" as if that makes it OK.

I can't speak for all smokers but I always ask for permission to smoke, whether from the owner of the house I'm visiting or from diners at adjoining tables in a restaurant. Perhaps it's a peculiarly Scottish problem.

Yours in an iron lung,

AC.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I can't speak for all smokers but I always ask for permission to smoke, whether from the owner of the house I'm visiting or from diners at adjoining tables in a restaurant. Perhaps it's a peculiarly Scottish problem.

Yours in an iron lung,

AC.

Nope happened when I lived in London as well with guests from all over. And I don't think I've ever been asked in a restaurant in France if I mind if someone at an adjoining table smokes.

 

[a_unique_person]

Then why is it I only ever come across smokers from the discourteous minority?

My impression is that a lot of smokers simply don't understand non-smokers attitudes. People have often assumed they can smoke in my house when visiting, and been surprised when I object. They often offer to "sit next to the window" or "just have the one" as if that makes it OK.

Fortunately, Australia is now pretty well politically correct. Most smokers assume that when they are in a house where no one smokes inside, (and you can tell pretty quickly if people do or not), then you don't smoke in that house, but go outside for a smoko.

Now, they might bitch amongst each other about it, but they follow the etiquette. My son has a friend whose parents smoke, and are quite indignant about people complaining about them smoking in their own house. I am an asthmatic, so I can't stand going into their house for a start, but I also don't like my son being exposed to the smoke in their house when he goes there for a sleepover.

 

[Evolver]

I can't speak for all smokers but I always ask for permission to smoke, whether from the owner of the house I'm visiting or from diners at adjoining tables in a restaurant. Perhaps it's a peculiarly Scottish problem.

Yours in an iron lung,

AC.

No, it's not a Scottish problem. Here in the good ol' USA, some people will ask, but most will not. At least in public places. Even at Disney World, where smoking is restricted to various leper areas, you can find addicts lighting up in lots of corners. Don't they know Mickey is watching them?

 

[Wile E. Coyote]

Most establishments are reluctant to ban smoking completely for fear of losing business. I am glad the government stepped in and said, "Don't worry, we'll make the choice for you." Yoink!

Smoking is really an assault on me. I become sick to my stomach, my eyes burn, and my nose starts to run when I am around it.

Would it be OK for me to mix a little bit of my vodka in with everyone's drinks in a restaurant? I do not think there is a law against giving alcohol to other adults without consent (is there?). They could just stop drinking whatever they have. Hey, I'm drinking! So why shouldn't everyone else?

Smoking is only an acceptable assault on others because of tradition. Is that a good enough reason to allow this assault to carry on?

 

[BillyTK]

I am a victim of matriarchal totalitarian feminazism as I am not allowed to smoke in my home because my wife makes girly complaints that it's smelly, stains the wallpaper and makes her cough. Even my cats shun me if I have a sneaky one inside when my wife's out (felinazis!).

I feel my fundamental human rights are being violated by an increasingly obtrusive nanny state. Hell, I don't b*tch if people don't exercise this right, nor do I get abusive if they don't have a light or a cigarette for me to scrounge, and I don't complain when drivers get abusive because I don't have the stamina to cross the road before the green man disappears (okay, so I don't actually have enough breath to).

People should have the right to live their lives as they wish without government constantly encroaching on them. So if restaurant owners want my business, well they can find me in ward 14, in the bed at the end with the ventilator.