Merged Smoking should be banned universally

[AvalonXQ]

But it's not. This thread is about banning, universally, smoking.

I have not said a word about banning private smoking; your responses to my posts are in support of public smoking, which I dislike and believe it would be reasonable to prohibit. So in claiming that what I have said is not about respect of others, you are incorrect. It's rude to smoke while walking down a crowded street. It's not rude to smoke in your own house.

 

[23_Tauri]

Is the reasoning behind anti-pot laws the same as that behind a ban on smoking? That it's bad for one's health? I always thought anti-drug laws were similar to the old saw about Puritans banning bear-baiting not because it's cruel to the bear but because it gave pleasure to the spectators!

But that's the real reason for the prohibitionist movement against tobacco smoking: not because it's bad for you for others around you, but because you're enjoying it! How dare you!

How else can the ban on smokers members only clubs or now the campaign to ban e-cigarettes (I believe they are already banned in Dubai) be explained, unless we acknowledge that it is driven by a powerful Puritanical streak in society with very good political lobbying skills?

Porn is bad, mmmkay?
Smoking is bad, mmmkay?
Smoking and having sex for pleasure at the same time is double bad, mmmkay?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Basic respect for those around you requires someone to be around you. I think if smokers are willing to go apart from others to indulge, that is sufficient and no further restrictions on smoking are necessary.

Does that mean you're willing to back away from your position that it's totally reasonable for a walking smoker to light up around other walkers?

 

[23_Tauri]

I have not said a word about banning private smoking; your responses to my posts are in support of public smoking, which I dislike and believe it would be reasonable to prohibit. So in claiming that what I have said is not about respect of others, you are incorrect. It's rude to smoke while walking down a crowded street. It's not rude to smoke in your own house.

So if we're not permitted to smoke on the street in the vicinity of non-smokers, can we have special rooms where us smokers can get together and smoke please? And maybe have a coffee or a beer at the same time too? Or maybe a special room down in the basement of our office block where we work, with 'Smokers Lounge' written on the door so people don't get confused. Would that be ok? Mmmmm?

Then we'd be outta your face.

 

[AvalonXQ]

So if we're not permitted to smoke on the street in the vicinity of non-smokers, can we have special rooms where us smokers can get together and smoke please? And maybe have a coffee or a beer at the same time too? Would that be ok? Mmmmm?

I definitely support private smoking clubs.
The state where I live allows them, too.

 

[AvalonXQ]

In fact, here's a quick rule of thumb -- in any situation where it should be legally acceptable to exclude a person on the basis of their skin color, it should be acceptable to allow smoking.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Does that mean you're willing to back away from your position that it's totally reasonable for a walking smoker to light up around other walkers?

I don't remember stating that "position". It would depend on where the walkers are, and how close they are, and whether removing to a distance is feasible or not.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I have not said a word about banning private smoking; your responses to my posts are in support of public smoking, which I dislike and believe it would be reasonable to prohibit. So in claiming that what I have said is not about respect of others, you are incorrect. It's rude to smoke while walking down a crowded street. It's not rude to smoke in your own house.

Oh, sorry. I didn't realize you were deliberately being off-topic from the point of the thread.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Oh, sorry. I didn't realize you were deliberately being off-topic from the point of the thread.

Ah, yes, because no one else has talked at all about non-universal smoking bans in this thread, or the effects and shortfalls of existing bans. I was the first to do that.

(... no, I wasn't)

 

[23_Tauri]

I definitely support private smoking clubs.
The state where I live allows them, too.

Sadly, the UK Government does not.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Ah, yes, because no one else has talked at all about non-universal smoking bans in this thread, or the effects and shortfalls of existing bans. I was the first to do that.

(... no, I wasn't)

Oh, but I wouldn't know that, because I'm not interested in the activities of others, even if I disapprove of those activities, until they impinge upon me.

 

[LTC8K6]

How much pot are you smoking that your neighbor gets high?

Well, the neighbor is going to complain, right? So I guess he sets the level.

When he smells tobacco smoke, he complains, right?

(And no, I don't smoke pot.) (Or anything else.)

 

[LTC8K6]

You do know of course about the potty (!) situation in the Netherlands where, since the ban on smoking tobacco in public places, it is illegal to put tobacco in your joint when you have a smoke in the coffee shops*? So if you want to smoke when you buy, you gotta smoke it neat.

*coffee shops = weed cafes.

I didn't know that but it fits with the typical persecution of tobacco smoke and the support of marijuana smoke.

Something I have always found curious.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Oh, but I wouldn't know that, because I'm not interested in the activities of others, even if I disapprove of those activities, until they impinge upon me.

I didn't realize it was "off-topic" if you didn't acknowledge it as already part of the topic. Could you be so kind as to update us on which posts of the thread you are acknowledging so we know which posts are included in determining the ongoing subject of the conversation?

 

[LTC8K6]

TACOMA, Wash., Aug. 30 (UPI) -- Officials in Washington state say they'll consider moving the health battle over secondhand smoke into a new and contentious arena -- people's homes.

The Tacoma-Pierce County Health Board will consider a proposal next month to classify secondhand smoke as a "nuisance" in multi-unit housing, The Tacoma (Wash.) News Tribune reported Monday.

Backers of the measure say they want it incorporated in the state's landlord-tenant law.

"This is the last piece of the puzzle that needs to be placed," Nan Hogan, who helped write the proposed legislation, said. "We've got smoke-free motel rooms, smoke-free restaurants, smoke-free bars, smoke-free office buildings and even prisons. Why should we go home and have to breathe it there?"

Hogan is a member of the group People United for Smoke-free Housing.

In most multi-family structures, the group says, there is no practical way to seal one apartment from another.

Smokers' rights advocates say controlling smoking in rental apartments is unnecessary and an assault on private rights.

"This is political correctness run amok," said Gary Nolan, U.S. director of the Citizens Freedom Alliance, which advocates for smokers' rights. "They're taking away the rights of the landlord. We have a republic, and they're telling this guy what he can do with his private property. These people should be ashamed of themselves."

There will soon be attempts to apply this to single unit private houses if you can smell the smoke in the next house over, which you sometimes can.

I recall a lawsuit regarding tobacco smoke from a neghboring house, but I can't find it right now.

After all, second hand smoke is a deadly carcinogen, so why should I tolerate your cancer smoke wafting over onto my property? Let alone your pot smoke.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I didn't realize it was "off-topic" if you didn't acknowledge it as already part of the topic. Could you be so kind as to update us on which posts of the thread you are acknowledging so we know which posts are included in determining the ongoing subject of the conversation?

I tend to assume that in a thread title "Smoking should be banned universally" that all posts are arguing for or against that proposal unless specifically stated otherwise. I saw nothing in your posts that began this exchange that suggested you were not addressing a universal ban. I don't see why it's unreasonable for me to make that assumption. But I also don't care, as I'm not one of those posters who insists on being right at all times and wants to argue about the argument. So fine, I'm sorry, I was wrong, and retract everything I've said to you. I hope you enjoy this great victory!

 

[LTC8K6]

WSJ:

New York has been taking an increasingly tough stance toward smoking, but virtually all residential buildings have drawn the line at telling people they can't smoke in their own apartments.

That may be changing. At least half a dozen Manhattan co-ops are expected to ask shareholders during annual meetings this spring to vote on an all-out smoking ban that would prohibit residents from lighting up in their own homes, real estate attorneys say.

Another dozen co-op or condo buildings are considering such a vote.

New York City already prohibits smoking in public areas at any building with at least 10 apartments. Attorneys say a number of recent developments have encouraged some buildings to pursue a total prohibition. These include growing concerns over secondhand smoke, the city's recent decision to slap smoking restrictions on parks and other public areas, and fears that residents will sue each other—or the building—over smoking disputes.

"At every single board meeting we get complaints about smoke and people asking us when will the board do something," says Steven Michaelson, president of an Upper East Side condominium that is holding a vote soon on banning all smoking.

...

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/10336501/detail.html

From 2006. Legal ruling that the smell of smoke is a nuisance and an HOA can ban smoking in your home.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I tend to assume that in a thread title "Smoking should be banned universally" that all posts are arguing for or against that proposal unless specifically stated otherwise. I saw nothing in your posts that began this exchange that suggested you were not addressing a universal ban.

You're right; I probably should have made my own position more clear. That was my mistake. Usually I tend to just express my views and not worry too much if I'm coming off as supporting one "side" or the other, since my position is usual somewhere in the middle.
It was interesting to me, though, that so many anti-ban posters also don't think that reasonable restrictions on public smoking are reasonable -- which are the only situations I addressed, and which were immediately defended by several posters, including yourself. I would very much like to not have to walk behind smokers on the street, and I think that's a reasonable restriction on smoking that, to my knowledge, doesn't currently exist.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.smokingmad.com/el-dorado-hills-couple-sues-neighbor-over-cigarette-smoke.html

The above is a pretty big yard if I recall correctly. Lots of space and still the complaint.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/smoke_scream_3BHUiT2iBXCxmqgQsXmI6K