Debate:Tobacco

This is a Debate page. Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil! This debate was created by SirChuckB.

This debate started out in the Saloon bar

I may move this to a debate if there is significant interest, but I was just wondering what others around here think about Tobacco regulation? This report got me thinking... It seems like hypcorisy from the left that so many people demand the freedom to live how they want (the so called alternative lifestyles) but are so quick to demand the government ban smoking... I understand the health problems related to smoking, but what about personal freedom there? Just seeing if it bugs anyone else. SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 13:59, 14 January 2009 (EST)

My opinion? It's the establishment's choice. If a restaurant chain or store wants to ban smoking from their premises, it's their choice. If the Government wants to ban smoking from their buildings, that is their choice. But the Government should not be allowed to say that a private business can or can't allow smoking. Several bars have taken a dive in attendance due to this, and many restaurants. Yeah, it's done wonders for public health and saves me 3 minutes by not having to answer "smoking or non-smoking?", but I don't agree with it.

Then again, I don't smoke, so this doesn't impact me that much. ENorman 14:24, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Meanwhile, the tobacco-junkies are screaming like someone was rounding them up in boxcars and shipping them to the Alaskan plutonium-mines. --Gulik 15:09, 14 January 2009 (EST)

You don't mine plutonium, it doesn't occur naturally. Phantom Hoover 16:34, 14 January 2009 (EST)

My take is that tobacco should have been made illegal decades ago, but powerful lobbying from tobacco-dependent states and tax revenues made it too difficult. Non-smokers pay a price in terms of health-care costs for the under-insured, and only in the last decade did healthcare companies start charging smokers more for coverage. The bottom line is that any other product that has been found to be cancer-causing and comparably dangerous has been banned. We don't let people buy anything else this deadly for human consumption. Despite the huge upfront tax & tobacco-business losses, we'd more than recover that and help our national debt if we cut this off now, but that will take more courage than most politicians have. Instead they try to tax it to death, which has the "virtue" of raking in easy money from addicts while claiming to fight the problem. --SpinyNorman 15:47, 14 January 2009 (EST)

I disagree with almost all of your claims.... What about Alcohol? Alcohol is just as bad for you and dangerous as tobacco smoke (assuming and alcoholic drinks roughly the same as a nicotine addict smokes) but it's not illegal. On top of that, Alcohol had the added danger of being a driving hazard, something that tobacco doesn't. Not to mention all the substances that contain known cancer causing agents that are not illegal simply because there is no long term proof of danger (coffee is a great example). You say that non smokers pay a price in terms of health care coverage for the under-insured, but that assumes that under-insured smokers cost more than under-insured non smokers. I have no data to back this up, but I would argue that most people too poor to afford insurance probably don't blow fifty bucks a week on smokes. Also, most tobacco related problems really start to show up later in life, around the time that Medicare starts to step in, therefore, I would argue that smoking doesn't cost us much. Furthermore, I don't understand what you mean at all with "we'd more than recover that and help our national debt if we cut this off now" How would we make money by losing the tobacco tax?

On a different note altogether, I don't think that it's the government's place to dictate that we shouldn't do something because it's bad for you. Drinking is bad for you, but the government doesn't ban it. skydiving and Bungee jumping can have fatal accidents, but the governemnt doesn't ban them. My bigger point is that people should have the freedom to make choices. I also agree with ENorman and don't think the government should have the right to infringe on the rights of others because of health dangers when there are alternatives. If you don't like the smoke in a restaurant or bar.... Don't go there... Much like I say if you don't agree with gay marriage, don't have one :-). Oh yeah, just for the record, I'm not a smoker, never have been and I actually badgered by sister until she quit. SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 16:29, 14 January 2009 (EST

First of all I'm a non-smoker and dislike the smell of stale smoke. My mother-in-law used to be a habitual smoker and after we visited her we had to wash all of the clothes we had taken even the ones we hadn't worn, because they were just impregnated with the stink. She eventually gave up following some breathless attacks and my wife's insistence that she would have to go outside if she wanted to smoke after she came to live with us. She's in a home now and just celebrated her 93rd birthday, although it will be a miracle if she makes he next one. If you're a non-smoker then kissing someone who smokes is like licking a dirty ashtray. Hoever, I do admit to compromising my principles for the sake of an incredibly attractive 21-year-old Colombian girl (think Sophia Loren crossed with Penelope Cruz) but it was never going to last. I think that pubs and restaurants have become much more pleasant since the ban in the UK but seeing people hanging around outside of establishments, especially the pregnant mums in their nighties at hospitals, does cause me some concern. Ultimately it is societal thing, in that it should be seen as uncool to smoke. I despair when I see teenagers smoking but the libertarian part of me does feel that people should not be forced not to smoke. As far as possible everyone should take responsibility for their own health and that includes not using recreational drugs or over-indulging alcohol (I admit to a weakness for the latter). One of the major points for me is how it affects other people. I believe people have the right to smoke but not all over me or my food. The same with drugs and drink - indulge if you like but don't go driving aftwards or stealing to feed the habit. In hotels, restaurants and bars there is often an imperative to accommodate the smoker in some way, but doing so does nothing to discourage people from giving up, so maybe this infringement on personal liberty is acceptable in the short term. I would hope that the problem will have gone away for future generations. When smoking was still allowed on planes it always amused/annoyed me that Lufthansa's policy was no smoking on the port side and smoking on the starboard, it made it very difficult to get away from the smoke. Nigerian Airways on the other hand would always ask if you wanted a smoking or non-smoking seat; whatever you wanted you were guaranteed that you would get your choice, your seat would be designated as no-smoking. The only problem was the guy next to you would have requested a smoking seat and got one. The segregation was all down to seat level rather than having smoking and non-smoking zones. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:32, 14 January 2009 (EST)

How would we make money by losing the tobacco tax? Because the taxes on tobacco don't come anywhere near to paying for the medical, social, and economic impacts of tobacco-related illness, from treating cancer, lung and heart disease, to lost productivity from people who are at the hospital instead of at work to dealing with the social mess that ensues when mommy dies from a tumour at age 38. Fuck smoking. TheoryOfPractice 16:37, 14 January 2009 (EST)

I hate smoking, but didn't support blanket ban that's been brought in in the UK on smoking in public buildings. It's always been something I accepted that if I want to go to the pub, I'm gonna be in a smoky room. Now there's no smoking at all inside the pub, but to get in you have to walk through a bunch of smokers crowding around the door outside & a bunch of dropped cigarette butts outside. Plus you're still as likely, if not more, to walk through people's tobacco smoke on the street. I visited Japan a year or so ago & it's almost the opposite: smoking is de rigeur inside bars there, but is frowned upon in outside public areas, so the only people smoking on streets are in small designated smoking areas. I think it's better than way around.

I think it's a nasty habit, & sadly the main reason people enjoy it is because of nicotine addiction. But I'm not sure that banning it altogether would be a wise move, or even one that a government could get away with. I agree with having a fairly high tax on tobacco, both to fund the resultant healthcare affects, & as some kind of deterrent. I also think children should be made well aware of the dangers during their education, as most smokers start young (often when they are too young to buy tobacco products legally) & don't manage to quit for years afterwards. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:59, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Smoking is bad. It hurts the environment, it hurts other people, and, as everybody (I hope) knows, it hurts yourself. Let's just ban it and be done with it. --"ConservapediaUndergroundTransistor^Goatspeed! 17:02, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Yeah, and the prohibition worked so well -- Nx ^talk 17:08, 14 January 2009 (EST)

ToP you do have a point. However, in practice there would be a lag in the benefits versus the loss of revenue. I am largely against sudden changes in legislation as they can have unexpected consequences. The best way is to increase the incentives for not doing something while also as increasing the penalties for continuing with it. It's rather like fuel economy of vehicles. Europe and Japan have developed more efficient vehicles because of the higher fuel tax base. When the price of oil shot up it was moderated in percentage terms by the higher tax rate so didn't cause quite as much dislocation in the economy. However, in the USA where tax on fuel is much lower it caused all manner of economic problems which have probably been the main cause of Detroit's woes. Toyota is so far ahead of GM because they have had to deal with a tougher fuel taxation regime. Now the big three US auto-makers are asking for government aid to help them catch up. This is something that the likes of Andy and the right just can't comprehend, they automatically assume all taxation is bad but if it is targeted then it can be used as a smoothing filter. When global prices go up if you have a higher tax rate it is possible to reduce taxation to smooth the effect on the economy. Otherwise you end up at the total mercy of international picing. Conventional supply and demand forces can work if all other conditions remain constant but when natural forces are included they can throw up some unpleasant surprises. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:18, 14 January 2009 (EST)

To me, I have no problem if someone wants to ruin their health in the privacy of their own home. When they bring that out into place such as resturants and bars, where it ruins my health, I have a problem. It's kinda like religion like that. And while I know that I could avoid smokey places if I chose, why should I have to? Current tobacco laws suit me, and making smoking illegal would be impractical at best. Though if I did have a choice, I would make alcohol illegal; nothing good comes from drinking, and while I am too lazy to look up stats, drinking causes far more deaths than any legal substance should.Z3ro 17:38, 14 January 2009 (EST)

(Unindent) To Genghis, Weasel and Z3ro, I read your points and I mostly agreed with them, more on that in a moment, to Theory, that kind of emotional response sidesteps the points I made above and to our own Scurvy CUR (that's just a joke, don't read into it) I just want you to know that you sound like a Conservative doing their impression of a Liberal... Just so you know. And Genhis, I too know the trouble of dating a smoker. Nothing kills the passion like tobacco breath. Anyway, I agree with those that say that stopping teenagers from smoking is a good idea. Many teens see smoking as something "adult" and therefore it makes them look slick and sharp (like driving a car and having credit cards). Forming lasting bonds with adults who actually care about them will do more for that than billions of non smoking programs and commercials though (Hell. some of those damn Truth commercials made me want to light up for spite) However, I am strongly against high tobacco taxes as a method of back door banning. How about a tax on violent video games to keep kids from playing them? I know Genghis brought up planes and such, and I think banning smoking on planes and buses was a great move, but only because there were no options. With restaurants, you have options. If I walked into a restaurant and it smelled like a Kentucky Tobacco field, I would leave. And I would be sure to tell the owner that I was leaving specifically because I dislike the smell of tobacco while I'm eating. If the owner had enough complaints and starting seeing his bottom line fall off because of smoking, he would ban it, or limit it to outdoor patios or whatever, but it would be his choice. Z3ro, you said that "I know that I could avoid smokey places if I chose, why should I have to?" and the answer is because your rights as one of the majority (non smokers) does not trump the rights of the minority (smokers). You have the right to not inhale second hand smoke, but you do not have the right to dictate who can smoke and where. I would also take the time to point out that you already make choices on where to eat based on food quality, service, ease of access, waiting times, etc. How hard is it to cross off smoking establishments? As to CUR and others calling for an all out ban, What good would it do? Everything that has been banned in America has simply led to a huge blackmarket. Tobacco is very dangerous to have unregulated because of the ease of cutting it with something else, possibly something very dangerous. A ban would simply rob the government of taxes and unleash some true dangers onto the street. We don't have the resources to control banned substances as it is, and now you want to add another one, one that's already deeply rooted in the country? What sense does that make? As to questions about health care and such, I will try to find some statistics (probably not from the Tobacco Institute :-P) on the true level of these things....I'm sure they exist somewhere. SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 17:56, 14 January 2009 (EST)

To SirChuck, I understand about choosing establishments that are smoke free to patronize, I really do. There is a problem, however; when everyone allows smoking, a bar or resturant will have to allow smoking or face pressure from the competition. It costs the establishment nothing to allow smoking, but will cost to ban smoking if there is not a level playing field. Where I live, before our smoking ban, there were no non-smoking bars to go to. It was inhale smoke or stay home, that's not a choice. If you wanted to tax resturants and bars extra to allow smoking, maybe that would help, but the system as it was did not work; I didn't have a choice. I understand that smokers no longer have a choice, but I don't harm their health without permission.Z3ro 18:08, 14 January 2009 (EST)

I don't live where you do, so I can't really comment on the state of things pre ban, but I know here in Denver, we had tons of nonsmoking restaurants and bars (usually run by hippies... go figure). Your question assumes an unlevel playing field, but I think the opposite it true: All other things being equal (quality, service, all the crap I mentioned before) I would go to a restaurant that advertised "No smoking allowed" before one that did so and I'm pretty sure that there are many others who would do the same. Right before the smoking ban in Colorado, most smoking sections where tucked away in corners and had maybe 2/5ths of the total dining area. In fact, a lot of smokers I knew got non smoking seats because they didn't like the smell while they were eating (ironic, I know). SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 18:26, 14 January 2009 (EST)

I live in Chicago, and we had no non-smoking resturants or bars. I, too, would go to a resturant that advertised no smoking than one which didn't, but resturants aren't even the real problem; bars and clubs were. Everyone likes smoking and drinking, so if you wanted to go dancing, you had to come home smelling like smoke. Now, things are much better.Z3ro 18:32, 14 January 2009 (EST)

But it's the same idea, let a club open up and make their non smoking environment the crux of their advertising... If I didn't have an intense aversion to clubs, I would go. My argument isn't really for smoking perse, it's more against government using the power of the majority against the minority (it's kind of a theme for me.) SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 18:37, 14 January 2009 (EST)

And I agree with the whole minority/majority thing, except when that minority is endangering my health:)Z3ro 18:40, 14 January 2009 (EST)

There was a time where smokers probably were in the majority, it's only through government legislation including taxes that the situation has been reversed. And one wonders what "rights" smokers should have because it mainly involves social occasions. Cigarette smoke is such a pervasive thing that it really does impinge on others whether they like it or not. My having a glass of wine with a meal does not affect the remainder of the restaurant (although my drunken behaviour afterwards might), yet striking up a Cuban afterwards would most certainly impose upon my fellow diners. When I weant to school I had to travel by public trasnport for about 50 minutes each way every day, when I came home I stunk of smoke and had probably inhaled a goodly amount as well. In Singapore you are not allowed to carry durian on the sub-way because it smells so bad, but you are perfectly free to eat it at home. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 18:52, 14 January 2009 (EST)

(EC) The thing with bars & clubs is that people often go with a group of friends, typically some of whom smoke & some of whom don't. So where there's a choice, most likely they would go to a smoking bar so that those who smoke can do so. That's why (in most places) few bars purposefullly opt to be non-smoking, because it has a huge impact on their business. Here in the UK, one of the things that was suggested when the smoking ban was being planned, & thankfully was scrapped, was to ban smoking only in pubs that serve food. This would have pretty much killed off the tradition of pub food, as those that chose to serve food & ban smoking would lose the drinking & smoking crowd, effectively making them restaurants in all but name, & those that wanted to allow smoking (which is extremely common in the UK) would not be licensed to serve food. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:55, 14 January 2009 (EST)

With regards the UK's blanket smoking ban - well the Scottish version has resulted in 17% drop in heart attack admissions to hospital within the first year and, I believe that, when the rest of the UK followed suit similar effects were experienced. OK, so there are freedom of choice issues but the same arguments could be made for heroine use. Would you want that freely and legally available. Silver Sloth 05:06, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Sir Chuck writes: "because your rights as one of the majority (non smokers) does not trump the rights of the minority (smokers). You have the right to not inhale second hand smoke, but you do not have the right to dictate who can smoke and where."

I disagree. I think that my right to breathe air which does not contain carcinogens does trump the right of people who want to put them there. Nobody should have the right to poison somebody simply because they enjoy doing it, and I think it's absurd to suggest otherwise. If smokers want to commit nicotine suicide then let them do it in the privacy of their own homes.--Bob^{bing up} 06:10, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Full disclosure first of all: I smoke cigarettes socially and cigars fairly regularly (one or two a week).

It seems to me that the answer you give to this question is based mostly on your theory of government. My own is that a government's first and primary duty is to protect the rights of its citizens. Concerns such as the health of those citizens, civil order, and so on must be secondary to the specifically enumerated rights of the people as found in the contractual document of government (for the United States, the Constitution). And even the unlisted rights must not be infringed upon without a prevailing public need.

Accordingly, the government must legally protect its citizens in public places. It is absolutely proper to ban smoking in public buildings, therefore, because they are provided for all citizens and accordingly a citizen must be able to be present without having their health endangered by another citizen.

However, the government should not ban smoking in private places, since it is the right of the owner of any establishment to host dangerous activities if he so chooses. As long as there is informed consent on the matter, it seems rather difficult to me for any visitors to a bar to claim they are being unwillingly endangered. If one doesn't like the smell or danger of smoke, then one can always leave.

Z3ro says "And while I know that I could avoid smokey places if I chose, why should I have to?", but one can ask this question about many things. I hate the smell of burnt rice, but I don't have any right to say to a Chinese restaurant, "While I know I could avoid places that cook stir-fried rice if I chose, why should I have to?" Your personal desire not to be subjected to a given thing means that you should not subject yourself to it nor be forced to do so, not that you are permitted to force everyone else to abstain from that thing so you can go everywhere.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 08:20, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Tom More writes: "However, the government should not ban smoking in private places, since it is the right of the owner of any establishment to host dangerous activities if he so chooses. As long as there is informed consent on the matter, it seems rather difficult to me for any visitors to a bar to claim they are being unwillingly endangered. If one doesn't like the smell or danger of smoke, then one can always leave." I disagree. The government should not allow toxic gases to be present in bars and restaurants. Nicotine suicide should be legal - but it should be done in private at home.--Bob^{bing up} 08:37, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Why? If people choose to engage in dangerous behavior or permit it on their property - all consenting, of course - then what is your rationale for stopping them? You appear to think that smoking is okay at home, so it can't be to preserve their lives... what is your reason to prohibit the owner and patrons of establishments from doing it in a private business?--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 10:24, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Don't forget the staff in such establishments, who will suffer more than patrons who spend less time there.  ^{(with butter!)} _{talk to Toast} 10:32, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Private property is not just private property. There's a difference between on the one hand a private home, where the owner is free to do whatever he wants within the constraints of the law in general, and on the other a 'semi-public' private property such . as a pub or a restaurant. The latter is more accessible to the public in general than the former, so it is also sensible that society should have a greater say in what goes on there. For instance, an owner of such a property is not allowed to e.g. arbitrarily restrict entry for specific ethnic groups or to serve unhealthy food, either. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 10:35, 15 January 2009 (EST)

(EC) Moreover, I think that restaurants, bars etc. blur the line between public space and private space. That's why health inspectors show up there and not in my kitchen. If every bar and restaurant allowed unrestricted smoking, the non-smoking majority is then either excluded from important social spaces, or forced to compromise their health in order to access those spaces. Not fair. TheoryOfPractice 10:37, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Re: Toast: The staff in such establishments should indeed have their rights cared for by OSHA - that's a significant lapse. And if you're arguing for making available to employees safety equipment, I'm fully for that. Air filter masks are relatively cheap, and would provide disincentive to owners and employees, forcing the paying of higher wages in exchange for higher risk and discomfort.

Re: Theory: If every bar and restaurant allowed unrestricted paintballing, the non-paintballing majority is then excluded from important social spaces, or forced to compromise their health in order to access those spaces. Not fair. Ban paintballing in public.

Re: AK: Of course owners of properties are allowed to serve unhealthy food. I bought deep-fried Pepsi syrup at a fair once. And you can buy potentially deadly sushi as another example. Your argument is rather a slippery slope... why do you want to permit society to regulate what it deems appropriate only when it comes to smoking? Can't the same logic be used to limit other behaviors deemed to be "wrong?" Why does society get to stop me from smoking in a bar but not stop me from buying fatty bacon?--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 10:52, 15 January 2009 (EST)

I don't think bars blur the line at all between private and public places. They are public places. And I'm baffled by the fact that a minority of people seem to feel they have the right to release toxic gasses into public places. Why? I know they enjoy it, but is that really sufficient excuse to poison the rest of us?--Bob^{bing up} 11:12, 15 January 2009 (EST)

If a bar is a wholly public place in any sense beyond the colloquial, then you've opened quite a large kettle of fish. I can make a host of arguments about how drinking has an enormous social and financial cost, and if a bar is a public place in the sense of being owned by the public then I don't want to support that practice and shouldn't be forced to.

Clearly, however, you don't actually mean that, or else the idea of private property becomes meaningless. A bar is a private establishment owned by its owner, made available for business to the public.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 23:42, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Re: TomMoore: You have made two points against yourself that I don't think you realize. First, paintballing is banned in public places. If you don't believe me, take your paintball gun down to a bar, fire it, and see what happens. Paintballing is dangerous, and as such is regulated (you can generally only do it in designated parks). Secondly, Your deep-fried Pepsi syrup example perfectly displays why smoking in particular is a problem. Go ahead and eat all the deep-fried, fat-filled whatever, but that doesn't also poison me. I'm free to stand next to you, and I don't suffer because of you choice. With smoking, it does affect those around you. That's why it's different.Z3ro 11:53, 15 January 2009 (EST)

I can't go paintballing in a paintball club? That sucks. I wonder what they do there. Oh, wait, you can paintball in places where people are aware of the danger and consent by virtue of their presence, kind of like a bar where there is smoke. Okay, cool.

The Pepsi thing is of course not a perfect analogy, but I was mentioning it to refute a specific point, above; I wanted to demonstrate that we don't take action to save people from themselves in the context of food. You are really just finding fault with the analogy, I'm afraid: a flaw I'll readily admit. There is nothing perfectly analogous to smoking, since it's a rather unique practice.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 23:42, 15 January 2009 (EST)

To clarify, by "unhealthy food", I mean e.g. food produced under unsanitary conditions, that could actually make people sick. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 14:52, 15 January 2009 (EST)

That's a question of consent, though, isn't it? The restaurant isn't informing people of unsanitary conditions. If you're arguing for some sort of inspector to certify a place "smoking" or "non-smoking," then I'm right on board with you.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 23:42, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Tom More writes: If people choose to engage in dangerous behavior or permit it on their property - all consenting, of course - then what is your rationale for stopping them? You appear to think that smoking is okay at home, so it can't be to preserve their lives... what is your reason to prohibit the owner and patrons of establishments from doing it in a private business?

I believe that everybody should have the right to commit suicide in any way they like. If people want to do it a particularly painful way by smoking then that's their decision. I'd say it's a civil liberty. Clearly non-smokers should have the right to not be involved in this activity.

The question then becomes - which right is most important? The right of smokers to kill themselves, or the right of non-smokers to not breathe toxic gasses. Now, I'd say it's pretty clear that the right of non-smokers to not be poisoned trumps the right of smokers to poison them. That means that in public places - like bars - the government has the right, indeed the obligation, to give legal force to the moral right of non-smokers to not be poisoned.--Bob^{bing up} 03:51, 16 January 2009 (EST)

I absolutely agree that you have a right not to breathe smoke, and I swear that if anyone tries to drag you into a smoking bar or restaurant, I will try to stop them. But when you're walking in of your own accord, I don't really see how anyone is forcing you to do anything. Should we pass laws against smelting to stop you from walking into an ironmongers without a protective suit?--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 05:56, 16 January 2009 (EST)

No, Tom I'm not taking about me entering a smoke filled bar. I'm not that stupid. I'm talking about me sitting at a bar and you sitting down near me and lighting up. Why do you feel you should the the right to poison me under those circumstances?--Bob^{bing up} 11:19, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Because by virtue of your presence in a bar that permits smoking, you have consented to being near smoke. It's implicit in your presence. And even if you were somehow unaware, then my lighting up would inform you. To use the paintball thing again, if you were on a paintball field wearing blue during a game, then I might shoot you under the same assumption. I would feel I had the right to assault you with dangerous and messy paintballs because your knowledgeable presence was an implied acceptance of the danger.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 19:49, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Irrelevant anecdote

This is only an anecdote reported as having happened to a close friend. Some years ago she was acting as an extra in a BBC film starring Daniel J. Travanti (of Hill Street Blues fame) who was a notorious anti smoker. One scene took place in a meeting hall in the 50s(it was about Macarthyism I believe). All were fully costumed but forbidden to smoke as Travanti objected so vehemently. At the set time of the action at least 60% of the men would have been smokers, although it was the hallmark of a woman of low morals to smoke in public. As a consequence the verisimilitude of the scene was lost - the air at such a meeting would have been near opaque with smoke but was crystal clear on film. (Frolich's research: film was a BBC/HBO/BFI production: "'Fellow Traveller" 1989.) fröhlich ^{"gay" and "happy"}people who steal other people's true anecdotes and relay them so poorly may anticipate retribution.  ^{(with butter!)} _{talk to Toast} 14:43, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Irrelevant illustration.

On the same tangent, AMC's Mad Men show, set in the very early sixties, features copious smoking (and drinking at work, and the occasional heart attack ;)) - but on the set the actors aren't smoking tobacco - they are smoking "herbal" cigarettes (whatever that means), due to workplace restrictions on smoking teh ebil plant. ħuman 14:14, 15 January 2009 (EST)

As if tobacco wasn't also "herbal". Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 03:37, 16 January 2009 (EST)

A friend of mine briefly smoked some kind of herbal cigarettes when he was trying unsuccessfully to quit smoking. They smelt & -I'm told- tasted revolting. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:13, 16 January 2009 (EST)

I think this should be moved back to the tobacco debate, it fits in there, here it's just an orphan. ħuman 13:48, 16 January 2009 (EST)

I agree, one irrelevancy isn't enough for a fork. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 14:07, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Done. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:13, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Smoking Bans Save Lives

Sorry to bang on about this but, for me, this is the trump card. If you google smoking ban heart attack you will find reports from all over the world that, where smoking bans have been imposed, dramatic falls in heart attacks have followed within very small time periods (the reports are usually for the first year). I applaud any government which takes such a worthwhile step to improve public health. Silver Sloth 09:13, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Banning automobiles would lower the accident fatality rate enormously.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 10:29, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Two points

Firstly it could be argued that automobiles have a positive aspect in allowing personal travel whereas cigarettes have none.

Secondly we do place numerous restrictions on the use of automobiles - limiting speeds, age restrictions - so yes, governments do 'ban' the use of automobiles to reduce accidents in as much as the ban the use of excessive speed and ban use by the young.

So your analogy supports a tobacco ban. Silver Sloth 10:34, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Cigarettes are quite relaxing, actually. Nor do I think subjective opinions about "positive aspects" are really pertinent... just because you don't see the positive aspects of a practice is not an argument to ban it. I don't think motocross is very fun or relaxing, but I don't get to ban it just because I find the noise pollution from autobikes to be dangerous and annoying.

We do indeed regulate automobile use. It is in fact similar to the way there are prominent warning labels on tobacco products and careful listing of ingredients and tar content. Shucks.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 10:52, 15 January 2009 (EST)

The thing about cars is that people generally chose to ride in them. If happen to be walking behind a smoker in the street or one sits down near me in a bar then I am obliged to breathe a toxic gas. It's not my choice. Obviously I'm not stupid enough sit there and breathe the stuff, but the smoker assumes he has the right to impose his own slow suicide on me. Smoke is the only toxic drug I can immediately think of in which the user obliges others to share his drug. Why do smokers feel they have the right to impose these toxins on us?--Bob^{bing up} 11:02, 15 January 2009 (EST)

I am hard-pressed to think of a single person who was a pedestrian and chose to get hit by a car. It's not their choice. You, on the other hand, have absolutely every right not to go to a smoking bar, but instead to go to one wherein smoking is prohibited. As for people blowing smoke in your face, that's rude and you can maybe make a case for illegality there.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 23:35, 15 January 2009 (EST)

I'm sure people don't want to get hit. But drivers don't feel they have the right to drive on the pavement (US sidewalk). However, smokers feel that they have a right to impose their smoke on the rest of us. (I assume that you also cannot think of another toxic drug which its users feel they have the right to poison others with.)

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with you poisoning yourself if you want to. I suppose I've got no problem with your poisoning your family if they don't object - or, more sadly, don't understand the issue. In order to breathe your smoke you don't need to "blow it in my face" - you only need to sit next to me. So, Tom, please tell me why you feel you should have the right to sit next to me in a bar and poison me? I agree that I can walk away. But why do you feel that you should have the right to do this?--Bob^{bing up} 02:36, 16 January 2009 (EST)

It might be better phrased: why do you have the right to go into someone's business and inform them that they can't allow people to smoke there? Why do you get to choose for the owner and every other person who might patronize that business, rather than just choosing for yourself not to go there? A bar or restaurant is not a public building where you might have a necessity to go, after all.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 05:56, 16 January 2009 (EST)

It is precisely because cars kill innocent pedestrians that their use is heavily controlled. Increasingly draconian controls are introduced to limit their use and try to reduce the death toll. As with cars, so with the ciggies. Silver Sloth 04:42, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Absolutely. Lots of warning labels and advertisements have lowered the habitual smoker rate below 20% in America recently.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 05:56, 16 January 2009 (EST)

(unindent) Just jumping again to add a small point (this is a great discussion, by the way, everyone has great points) walking down the street in a crowded city causes you to breathe in a lot of dangerous toxins from cars and buses.... But aside from a few crazy environmentalists, no on is calling for a total ban on cars. SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 05:12, 16 January 2009 (EST)

On the contrary, atmospheric pollution was one of the driving factors behind the London congestion charge. OK, so that's not a 'total ban on cars' but smoking bans aren't a 'total ban on ciggies' either. They're just measures to reduce to a minimum the effect that smokers have on others. Update - Sorry, some post hoc fact checking has proven my assertion wrong. The effect was seen as an added bonus, not a driving (sorry, pun not intended) factor Silver Sloth 05:54, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Tom More writes: "It might be better phrased: why do you have the right to go into someone's business and inform them that they can't allow people to smoke there?"

Tom - I can understand that you might prefer to answer that question - but it is not the one I asked. I repeat: Tom, please tell me why you feel you should have the right to sit next to me in a bar and poison me?--Bob^{bing up} 11:23, 16 January 2009 (EST)

He is not claiming any such right. He agrees (I think) that that situation is not really desirable. However he is arguing (and I agree) that it is up to the business owner to regulate that problem on their own private property. --CPAdmin1 11:39, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Just so you don't start trying to accuse me of anything, I hate smoking, and wouldn't do it if you payed me. --CPAdmin1 11:41, 16 January 2009 (EST)

This issue boils down to how much government regulation you are in favor of, really. The government regulates all kinds of things that we can or can't do, even on private property. I can't run a brothel out of my house, however much I may want too, and however much it does or does not hurt others. Smoking, as an activity, is relatively unique in that many people do it, but it can harm others who are nearby fairly easily, making regulation problematic, at best.Z3ro 11:50, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Do you think drinking should be banned? Alot of people do it even thought hey know it can hurt themselves and other people. I don't see how you can justify one but not the other. --CPAdmin1 13:23, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Banning drinking would be impossible; think of Prohibition: banning drinking caused chaos but didn't stop people drinking. It is too far embedded into society. Phantom Hoover 13:28, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Exactly. It didn't work for alcohol, why should it work for smoking? Do you think the govt. was right to try the prohibition? If it was wrong for alcohol it is wrong for smoking. --CPAdmin1 14:20, 16 January 2009 (EST)

I'm not mainly talking about government regulation. I only want to know why smokers think they should have the right to poison other people. It just seems such an immoral stance. "I enjoy it, and I don't really care if it damages your health." Followed up with "If you don't like it then it's your responsibility to go somewhere else, I'm enjoying myself". I ask again- Why do smokers feel they should have the right to poison other people?--Bob^{bing up} 12:10, 16 January 2009 (EST)

That would be a problem with the mindset of the smokers, not a problem with the laws.--CPAdmin1 13:23, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, it would. And it's the point I'm making.--Bob^{bing up} 13:45, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Just give it a bit of reductio ad absurbum, "I'm going to piss on you in a public place, but I enjoy it so it's your problem and you need to get out of the way" ArmondikoV^sshole 13:47, 16 January 2009 (EST)

If a bar owner want's that to be allowed in his bar, then I don't have a problem with it. --CPAdmin1 14:20, 16 January 2009 (EST)

(unindent) To answer Bob's point... The issue isn't that a smoker feels they have a right to posion you per se. I won't argue that there are inconsiderate smokers, but all the smokers I know I have never had a problem when I ask them to smoke on the balcony or outside my apartment. The general feeling is, if you make the choice to enter a business that allows smoking, your right to complain about the smokey atmosphere is gone. It's like going into a bar and complaining to the manager that people are drinking. SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 15:41, 16 January 2009 (EST)

No, my point is this. Let's imagine that the premises allows smoking. Now let's imagine that an unknown smoker sits down next to me and lights up. He feels that it is morally acceptable to poison me. I'm not talking about what's legal, or what is permitted. I'm talking about what is morally right. Why should any smoker feel that it's morally acceptable to release carcinogens into the atmosphere where others can breathe them? Again, I'm not talking about what is permitted, I'm not talking about what is legal - I'm asking why smokers feel that poisoning other people is morally acceptable.--Bob^{bing up} 16:13, 16 January 2009 (EST)

In point of fact, I smoke either at home, in parks, or in bars. At home no one is in danger, in the park it is very well-ventilated and relatively isolated, and in a bar most other people are smoking. But let's say that we were both in a bar, and I lit up next to you. I really don't feel bad, since as I have repeated many times, your presence is an implied consent to being exposed to smoke. If you don't want to be near smoke, then you should stay out of bars that allow it. I wouldn't feel bad tackling you during a football game, either. If you don't want to be tackled, you shouldn't be playing football. I'm not responsible for the choices you make to endanger yourself.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 20:00, 16 January 2009 (EST)

One of the most important things that government has done over the last 150 years is protect the health of workers, because you know, not everyone has the choice to refuse a job because it may carry significant risks. Sometimes there is a short-term imperative to put food on the table for my family which comes before my long-term health. But we're not just talking cigarette smoke, it's things like asbestos, and mines and being crushed by machinery. If I lived in a mining area I may have had no option but to go down the mines to make a living and expose myself to significant risk of death or a long term painful and fatal disease. So regulations have been introduced to protect the employees. Work-place smoking bans are just an extension of that protection. Wearing smoke masks is a ridiculous suggestion for otherwise low hazard jobs. If there is a recession why should I have to lose my livelihood to avoid smoking so that some fat-cat employer can employ those people who either smoke or are less able to afford the loss of work. I don't think anyone here is advocating a complete ban on smoking just protecting the rights of workers and other members of the public. If I kill someone though my poor driving or while under the effects of drugs/alcohol then I would expect to have to pay for my actions. Somehow the smoker seems to think that they can escape the moral responsibility of not affecting other people's health. What if we were taking about narcotic drugs? People would be encouraged to go on a program to kick the habit or "just say no". Why do people need to smoke at work anyway, can't they wait until they get home? But people have kids and smoking at home can affect their health. Most people think children should be protected from harm so why shouldn't governments bringing in measures to help them? After all they are some of the most vulnerable members of our society. If someone visits my house why should I have to be put in the position of requesting them to go outside to smoke just because they can't wait. Not everyone lives in year-round amenable climates so shoving them out into the snow because they cannot curb their addiction makes me look like a bad host. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 18:13, 16 January 2009 (EST)

You're kind of all over the place here. Why is it a ridiculous suggestion for employees to be provided with masks? Because it's low-hazard otherwise? Moving companies provide back braces for their otherwise low-hazard job, which seems almost the same to me. If servers are being exposed to harsh chemicals, shouldn't they be protected under the same terms as OSHA operates in other circumstances? And their wages would probably be raised slightly if there was an admission of this fact, too - and god knows that servers could use that.

My moral responsibility is nil. I only smoke in places where smoking is permitted, and people who are in these places are implicitly consenting to being exposed. Just like tackling someone in a football game, it's a dangerous activity to which both participants have agreed to participate by virtue of their presence.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 20:00, 16 January 2009 (EST)