smoking laws

[peptoabysmal]

Take a look at this thread before you get too wound up. A lot has already been said.
-----
edited to add:
And this one

That's mighty white of you to include my thread in this Tricky (just kidding old pal).

I'm going to stay out of this one, though. I'd like it to fill up with people congratulating one another on how well they justify discrimination, when it is a socially acceptable kind of discrimination. God forbid they should indulge in any socially unacceptable form of discrimination. Did I say the word discrimination enough? OK, one more for the road ... "discrimination".

Have fun patting each other on the back until your arms fall off, folks.

 

[Cain]

I'm going to stay out of this one, though. I'd like it to fill up with people congratulating one another on how well they justify discrimination, when it is a socially acceptable kind of discrimination. God forbid they should indulge in any socially unacceptable form of discrimination. Did I say the word discrimination enough? OK, one more for the road ... "discrimination".

There is nothing wrong with discrimination per se. Plenty of dining establishments have signs declaring "No shirts, no shoes, no dice." A few will even discriminate against me for not wearing a necktie (and they can go f*ck themselves), but I'm sure you don't give a ◊◊◊◊ about such dress codes (for some reason I can't picture Pepto pointing a finger in outrage, "They're discriminating against poor people!") The over-priced food already discriminates against low-income folks. Fine, fine. There's nothing inherently wrong with discrimination.

The bad type of discrimination is arbitrary discrimination. Refusing to admit a person into a restaurant because she's gay, or because he's black, or some other stupid reason. Now, I fail to see how laws protecting me -- and employees, more importantly -- against your unhealthy, unwanted smoke is arbitrary.

On the other hand, smokers should be adamantly opposed to anyone who tells me stop spraying my special chemical concotion. The consequences of my actions are utterly indistinguishable from smoking. I can claim -- with considerably more justification -- arbitrary discrimination.

 

[Grammatron]

There is nothing wrong with discrimination per se. Plenty of dining establishments have signs declaring "No shirts, no shoes, no dice." A few will even discriminate against me for not wearing a necktie (and they can go f*ck themselves), but I'm sure you don't give a ◊◊◊◊ about such dress codes (for some reason I can't picture Pepto pointing a finger in outrage, "They're discriminating against poor people!") The over-priced food already discriminates against low-income folks. Fine, fine. There's nothing inherently wrong with discrimination.

The bad type of discrimination is arbitrary discrimination. Refusing to admit a person into a restaurant because she's gay, or because he's black, or some other stupid reason. Now, I fail to see how laws protecting me -- and employees, more importantly -- against your unhealthy, unwanted smoke is arbitrary.

On the other hand, smokers should be adamantly opposed to anyone who tells me stop spraying my special chemical concotion. The consequences of my actions are utterly indistinguishable from smoking. I can claim -- with considerably more justification -- arbitrary discrimination.

Notice how you let the business decide who they want to serve, which is something all the pro smokers agree with. The problem comes up when there is a law that says "No shirts, no shoes, no dice."

 

[Cain]

Notice how you let the business decide who they want to serve, which is something all the pro smokers agree with. The problem comes up when there is a law that says "No shirts, no shoes, no dice."

The primary rationale for anti-smoking laws arises from the need for worker safety. These initiatives enjoy widespread popularity because most people are fed up with cigarette smoking causing their eyes to itch and clothes to stink. Nevertheless, you're missing the point: I have no problem with those signs because they're not completely arbitrary. Remember how we're sorta kinda discussing arbitrary discrimination? I would have a problem with a sign that said "No ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ Allowed."

But let's get back to my hypothetical spray one more time. On what grounds can an owner allow smokers to stink up the joint, yet still prevent me from misting others with my special formula? If you answer, "by virtue of the fact that she's the owner," then you're just an apologist for authoritarian structures and your putatively liberty-based criticisms of state intervention on this issue are as hollow as they are arbitrary.

And isn't that precisely what smokers detest-- the arbitrary discrimination? Uh-huh. Got it.

 

[Evolver]

This is not true at all. In fact, I saw this car that was parked in our street once. The owner opened up the door, and tipped his full ashtray into the gutter. So, some smokers save up their butts to cause one big pile of litter, rather than many small pieces of it.

Yep. You're right. Not ALL smokers toss their butts out the window. But why does it seem like every car I get behind on the highway has a driver that does it?

 

[Evolver]

But let's get back to my hypothetical spray one more time. On what grounds can an owner allow smokers to stink up the joint, yet still prevent me from misting others with my special formula? If you answer, "by virtue of the fact that she's the owner," then you're just an apologist for authoritarian structures and your putatively liberty-based criticisms of state intervention on this issue are as hollow as they are arbitrary.

And isn't that precisely what smokers detest-- the arbitrary discrimination? Uh-huh. Got it.

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.

 

[Evolver]

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.

With the above stated, I still don't eat at restaurants where I have to breathe smoke. Unfortunately, I also can't see most of my favorite bands when they play in nightclubs. That's the price I must pay to stay alive.

 

[Occasional Chemist]

If you spray some unwanted substance on patrons, I believe that constitues assault. This would also rule out selling heroin and child prostitutes.

Okay, so he sprays his mystery carcinogen into the air and it drifts onto the patrons. Still assault?

 

[arcticpenguin]

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.

Which gets right to the point of his thought experiment: those are exactly the effects caused by smoking on others nearby. Does smoking then qualify as assault?

 

[Evolver]

Okay, so he sprays his mystery carcinogen into the air and it drifts onto the patrons. Still assault?

Yup.

 

[Evolver]

My point is smoking is still a socially acceptable (yet disgusting) habit. Spraying chemicals in the air is not. Restaurants schedule exterminators when the place is closed so that 1) diners will not think the place is infested and 2) diners won't get sprayed with Cain's juice
People in department stores who spray unknowing customers with perfumes have been charged with a crime. How is this different?

 

[toddjh]

Which gets right to the point of his thought experiment: those are exactly the effects caused by smoking on others nearby. Does smoking then qualify as assault?

While I can see the point of the thought experiment, I think it's a little misleading. It doesn't address the question of intent. 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.

Now, as a civil matter, I think you could make a fair case that a person exposed to a carcinogen, from whatever source, should be entitled to compensation. However, that case is weakened significantly when the "victim" chooses to go to an establishment where he knows he will be exposed to it. 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.

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.

Jeremy

 

[Occasional Chemist]

While I can see the point of the thought experiment, I think it's a little misleading. It doesn't address the question of intent. People smoke because it gives them pleasure, biologically. The intent of smoking is pretty clear.

On the other hand, it's pretty hard to make a convincing argument in 2003 that you're UNAWARE of the hazards of smoking. "I was just doing it because I like it and I had no idea that it could hurt anyone" might have sounded more legitimate 50 years ago than it does today.

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.

Then modify Cain's experiment slightly. Give the carcinogen a pleasant odor. Heck, make it addictive.

Is it okay now?

 

[AfaintcoldcupofTea..]

I prefer that nobody smokes while I am eating my meal. So the law restricting smoking in restaurants is acceptable to me.

 

[arcticpenguin]

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.

Sorry, but the whole point of this discussion is whether it is reasonable or not to expect to be infiltrated with smoke in restaurants, so this argument of yours is question-begging.

 

[toddjh]

Sorry, but the whole point of this discussion is whether it is reasonable or not to expect to be infiltrated with smoke in restaurants, so this argument of yours is question-begging.

I don't see how. It's a matter of informed consent. A reasonable person going to a restaurant knows there's a good chance he'll be exposed to cigarette smoke. Whether he likes it or not, he knows. He chooses to go anyway, therefore he obviously considers the risk acceptable.

Until people spraying random carcinogens becomes as commonplace as smoking, there's simply no comparison. A person cannot give informed consent about something if he doesn't know to expect it.

Jeremy

 

[toddjh]

On the other hand, it's pretty hard to make a convincing argument in 2003 that you're UNAWARE of the hazards of smoking. "I was just doing it because I like it and I had no idea that it could hurt anyone" might have sounded more legitimate 50 years ago than it does today.

Then modify Cain's experiment slightly. Give the carcinogen a pleasant odor. Heck, make it addictive.

Is it okay now?

"Not okay" is a far cry from "bad enough to curtail civil liberties." I don't like smoking, and I think smokers tend to be on the rude side (often without even realizing it). Like I said in an earlier post, I even think smoking should be banned in public so that people going about their business aren't forced to breathe other people's noxious fumes. But if they choose to go to a private establishment that has decided to allow smoking, that's their own business.

Jeremy

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

However, that case is weakened significantly when the "victim" chooses to go to an establishment where he knows he will be exposed to it. 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.

Jeremy

But the smoker has chosen (by smoking) to be in an environment with carcinogens present. Surely he must therefore "reasonably expect to encounter" carcinogens, and the fact they are from a spray is irrelevant.

 

[toddjh]

But the smoker has chosen (by smoking) to be in an environment with carcinogens present. Surely he must therefore "reasonably expect to encounter" carcinogens, and the fact they are from a spray is irrelevant.

Hmm? I wasn't talking about a smoker specifically, just any old person.

Jeremy

 

[Tricky]

That's mighty white of you to include my thread in this Tricky (just kidding old pal).

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.