Second Hand smoking

Remove all ads!

@ Laches

What about suicide? Should that be made legal? And anyway as I said before the studies above show second-hand smoking does cause harm to others . Even though this harm might be minor, so might punching someone in the face. You might only break their nose, but hay what does it matter, it will get better within a month or so.
Don't think so. Second hand smoke is just as bad as any other thing which causes harm in any way to others, wether (sp?) it be muder, man slaughter or asult (spelling again?). They are all the same in the end.

Can you tell me why shooting some one in the head with a gun is illigal? Or flying and airoplane into a skyscraper is illigal?

@ Depaara

My self, I don't even think this should be allowed. I hate walking through the streets and been able to smell smoke on people before I can see them. It's horrible (IMHO).

 

What's the LEGAL (not moral, ethical, religious, psychological, etc.) basis for suicide being illegal, anyway? Seriously - I've wondered this for most of my life and no one has ever been able to give me a concrete answer.

 

I am a smoker on aregular basis although i don't smoke more than 10 to 12 cigarretes per day.
I do believe that the anti-smoking campaign has a well intentioned basis since i can't and must not put others who don't want to smoke into this. But i think the whole thing is getting a little bit hysterical. I mean smokers are people too why some people tend to forget that and treat them like nazis did the Jews i understand the need for self protection but i never light a cigarrete without asking if someone is against and that should be enough if he/she says no it is a no.

 

RotKu, thank you for proving part of my point. You compare smoking with punching someone in the nose, murder, and the terrorist attacks on the world trade center -- the demonization of smoking. The comparisons are so ridiculous that I'm repeatedly kicking myself for wasting my time to point that out.

If you can't see the difference between me walking up to someone on the street and punching them in the nose without warning and me walking into a private bar, asking the owner of that private bar if it would be ok for me to smoke, the owner giving me permission to smoke, and then me lighting up -- you have a serious problem. One case involves permission, the other doesn't. A more closely analagous example would be boxing, where two people agree to allow someone to hit them -- that is not illegal is it? With second hand smoke, if you don't want to be exposed, you don't have to. Remember, this isn't about smoking in public places, this is about smoking in private places. You walk into a bar, there is smoking, NO ONE FORCES YOU TO STAY, so if you stay YOU are exposing yourself to second hand smoke.

The analogy breaks down however because in boxing someone is sure to get hurt. With second hand smoking, it isn't sure that ANY harm is caused. EVEN the studies which purport to demonstrate a causal link study the SPOUSES of smokers for YEARS. Then, they ignore NUMEROUS DEFICIENCIES and claim a MINISCULE increase in the risk -- with boxing there is a certain injury, with second hand smoke there is a MINISCULE increase in your RISK of injury. Again, like shown above, an increase of 25% to a miniscule number is still a miniscule number. AND AGAIN, the other comprehensive study rejects ANY evidence of an increased risk.

And I can't emphasize this enough, who the hell are you to tell someone that he is not allowed to let his patrons smoke in his privately owned bar which he paid for, opened, and works at? You aren't forced to go there if you don't want to and if you don't like smoke LEAVE.

You don't like the smell of smoke on people? This is a different issue than second hand smoke. This isn't second hand smoke at all. This is smell. If you support smoking bans because you don't like the smell of people who smoke then you should be willing to make it illegal for people to not bathe regularly and use deoderant.

You not liking the smell of someone who smokes is a perfectly legitimate reason to not date someone. It is a perfectly legitimate reason for you to not like smoking. For you to want to make it illegal for someone to do something in his private business because you dislike the way it may smell is, imo, the height of arrogance.

Rallymama, as far a suicide being illegal, I'll wing a possible legal justification here: while suicide is illegal, I am unaware of anyone ever being charged with suicide as a crime (for obvious reasons) or attempted suicide. (EDIT - limiting this to a reasonable time frame) It is a federal crime to make fun of a post office mailman but it isn't a burning issue because it isn't as if the guys on Cheers were arrested - it is a law on the books but it is moot because it is never applied.

So, I'm unaware of the suicide law ever being applied to anyone who attempts it on her own behalf. The reason they may wish to keep it though is that it will allow them to charge someone as an accomplice. I take it that there are a number of different reasons why the law might want to not allow people to assist in suicide and by retaining the law this permits them to deter the practice of assisting others to commit suicide. One reason is becaue once someone is dead it is rather difficult to determine whether their consent to the assisted suicide was genuine. There might be a signed paper or video but all that could be made or performed under duress, instability, etc. On the other hand, if someone commits suicide alone these concerns are not present, we can be more certain there wasn't undue coercion involved.

There are other legal justifications available of course, but that's just one.

For the record, I think physician assisted suicide should be decriminalized (but probably only physician assisted suicide because only in a case this formal would we be able to assure ourselves that it actually is the patient's will being done) as well as euthenasia and would legalize all sorts of other things as well -- but it's drifting off topic.

EDIT --

Looking back over the thread, I wante to tie this quote in. I just wanted to point out that I'm not saying that you should put up with smoking in a restaurant if you don't like it. You should speak to the management if you want. Then, if you don't like it, you should leave. Kick and scream all you want - you can even be one of those people who walks up and says "what a disgusting habit." But if the owner of the restaurant wants to allow her patrons to smoke, he should have that legal right since you aren't forced to go there. If the owner of the restaurant wants to allow a skunk in the place, you aren't forced to eat there either. Health code violations for animals are justified on reasons other than they don't smell nice.

[ May 30, 2003, 17:42: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

You have some good points, Laches. I guess that it has to be admitted that even in a bar that a restaurant owner has opened with his own resources, he still has to follow certain rules regarding places where people are likely to gather, like liquor laws, capacity requirements, etc. He also needs to have his right to forbid certain actions (like smoking, for example) entrenched by law. In Edmonton, my former hometown, they came up with a sort of compromise -- a restaurant owner could opt to allow smoking, but then he had to ban kids -- family places HAD to be smoke free. This addresses the issue, but not all that well, IMHO.

I see it as an effort to protect the rights of non smokers -- rights that many (not all) smokers have shown little regard for over the past several decades. It may inconvenience the smokers, but I don't see it as an infringement on their rights -- they are still free to smoke in a lot of places, like their homes, cars, parks, streets, etc.

 

See, I perceive it primarily not as an infringement on the right of the smokers but as an infringement on any citizen to run her private business.

 

As I mentioned earlier, even if a restaurant is privately owned, it is still subject to certain laws regarding a place that people gather. You can't have strippers at a McDonalds, and that's not just McDonald's policy. McDonald's also does not serve alcohol. In some areas, the McDonald's is indepecantly owned and operated, but the owner still can't just serve liquor there. No one complains about these issues or regulations. What I'm saying is that the majority of people support the alcohol, sanitary and capacity regulations, and they also seem to support the smoking regulations. They think it's reasonable to ask people not to blow smoke into air everyone shares.

 

McDonald's can't serve liquor because it is part of the contract between the individual franchise owner and the McDonald's corporation - not because there is a law which says McDonalds is not allowed to serve alcoholic beverages. The owner of the establishment approached the corporation (or his predecessor in interest) and he made a deal - if McDonald's would allow him to open a franchise he would do certain things, not serving alcohol is one of them. Ditto with strippers though perhaps zoning restrictions would apply but the primary thing preventing the individual owner from opting for them is she has already agreed not to have them.

Sanitary regulations are there for health reasons - the beginning of this thread was about showing that there is no evidence of a compelling health reason to ban second hand smoking in private areas and even the studies that purport to demonstrate second hand smoke does cause health problems are 1) of highly suspect validity and 2) even if we assume they are valid the increased risk is negligible. So, all that is left is that people don't like the smell. Ditto regulations governing capacity.

Also, suppose I grant you that there are other regulations that do restrict an individual owner's right to run her business as she would like - as is obviously the case. From that it does not follow that the imposition by the government of its own moral prefernces in the instance of second hand smoke is acceptable does it - particularly given there isn't adequate evidence of a health hazard?

 

I am very allergic to soybeans. This is one of the most common allergies in North America- almost as common as peanut allergies.

I have a right to eat in Chinese restaurants. It's a free country. It's not my fault people like foods to have soy sauce and tofu in them. All soybean products should be banned from all restaurants to protect people like me. If people need to eat soy so badly, they can do it at home, rather than endanger my health by doing it in a restaurant. But really, the government should ban soybeans outright. I mean, all kinds of health risks have been associated with soybeans. Eating a food that's clearly bad for your health is a disgusting, dirty habit. Stop allowing citizens to endanger their health and that of others!

Besides, what if the only restaurant in town is a Chinese restaurant, and my only qualifications are to work as a waitress? The restaurant's refusal to stop serving soybean products is preventing me from having a safe job! And if the restaurant goes out of business because no one wants to eat Chinese food that doesn't have soy sauce in it, that's not my problem, is it?

 

I've no problem with private establishments being able to allow addicts to congregate and partake of their drug of choice.

What I'd like to see are laws enacted and enforced that prevent these addicts from stinking up public places. I hate having to wade through a cloud of fumes around entrances to buildings that are smoke-free. I hate driving down the road on a beautiful spring day after a rain when the world should smell all fresh and new and finding myself behind a rude individual with a stench-stick hanging out the window. I hate watching as that same person flicks the lit remains into the street, or upon lighting up with the last of a pack, tossing the empty pack out the window.

The last time I checked, the streets were a public place. Why are they allowed to treat the rest of us so rudely?

Because the citizens have given the government that right. In some countries, if you don't like the moral preferences that the government is imposing on you/others, you can make an effort to change the government. Out with the old, in with the new. If it's a big enough issue, the people responsible can be voted out of office and replaced with people more sympathetic to your views.

 

What BigStick mentioned is true -- for years people have put up with the smoke wafting over to their tables from the smoker's area. Enough people are tired of it and have put the pressure on the government to make the change. It's an issue where one side or the other is going to be inconvenienced in some way, and now it's the smoker's turn.

As for zoning laws, that's exactly why certain establishments can't do certain things -- they don't have the licence or permission to do those things -- government regulation of the workplace. Often these regs don't have to do with physical health but for the convenience of the society at large (for instance, city council will not approve a strip club next door to an elementary school)

I just plain don't like to have smoke blown in my face. Those who do so are ignorant and rude, showing very little respect for my rights (see my comment on the skunk above. I fail to see why they cannot control themselves for an hour in order to be somewhat considerate of others.

 

Smoking on passenger airlines has been band (sp?) is it not? There use to be a smoking / non-smoking section on most airliners but not any more. Why can this also be done to bars and restraunts, considering airliners are quiet often publicly owned?

Those who do most of the time can't smell the smell because they've lived with it for such a long time.

It would probably be better to say "me walking up to someone and punching them in the nose with warning " because not once in my previous post did i say that it was without warning. I said that it is exactly (sp?) the same. This is perfectly true, they both cause harm to others. Although one might be less harm than the other they are both a health risk.

So yes i guess I must have a serious problem. But you must also have a serious problem if you can not see the simularity between the two.

 

Airline = public.

Restaurant, bar, club = private.

Get it? Got it? Good.

Also, I foolishly characterized smoking bans as a government enforced moral ban. That's silly of me. Given the justification is second hand smoke, and there isn't evidence of a health risk posed by it (and even the purported evidence demonstrates less of a risk to those living with smokers their entire life than breathing the air throughout the US) it becomes purely a matter of taste.

This thread seems set in its ways, so I'm just going to requote this and sit back and watch I guess:

 

No, Laches, some airlines are privatly owned and they still aren't allowed a non-smoking / smoking section. A Public owned thing is something which is owned by the government. In most cases (that I know of) airlines as well as railways and a lot of other forms of transport (such as buses and taxis) are NOT publicly owned.

[ June 01, 2003, 04:49: Message edited by: RotKU ]

 

In your first post on airlines you note the fact that they're public and now you're arguing they're private -- I think you're confused.

Setting that aside, are you really trying to compare the airline industry to restaurants by saying that since these sometimes privately owned massive industries that serve the public with the aid of massive government support aren't allowed to let people smoke then the mom and pop restaurant and bar with hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands... of alternative should be treated the same? I'm sorry, but that's silliness.

Consider:

How many restaurants get $7 Billion in public funds pumped into them and benefit from the grant of eminent domain? Eminent domain is a power unique to the government or those it grants the power to because they serve the public sector. The airlines get their airports through public funding, they get billions in public emergency funds, they receive the benefit of eminent domain and other powers and so they are heavily regulated because of their function of serving millions and the public benefits they receive. There are relatively few alternatives.

Restaurants and bars on the other hand are numerous with many to choose from on the same block, don't receive billions upon billions from the government, and they don't receive the benefit of eminent domain and other special favors generally reserved for the state.

Really, the airline industry is totally unrelated to a discussion of whether we should allow individual owners of small restaurants and bars to allow their patrons to smoke if they so choose - yet you are trying to draw a non-existent comparison.

 

Sorry about that first post on airlines I meant private not public, my mistake.

Airliners (to my knowledge) do not get $7 million government grants. In the example about you are talking about an airport. Airports are usually owned by the central or local government not by the private airlines. The airlines pay a fee to use the airports they do not own them.

IMO airlines and small public bars and restruants are not completly unrelated. What I was saying before is that if a government can put bans on smoking on airoplanes then why can't they also do this to small bars and restruants

 

Airlines pay a small pittance to "rent" their space -- the benefit of the quote flows to them.
Also:

Again, restaurants and bars do not receive billions upon billions of public funds nor do they serve a crucial public function nor are there a limited number to choose from.

It's a poor comparison imo.

 

Governments still give restruants grants. It's just as you said there are more to choose from so there fore one particular restruant/bar/cafe/what-ever-else-we're-talking-about doesn't receive the millions. Instead it is spread around the different restruants.
IMO it is a perfectly good comparison. As I have said before, they are both (usually) privatly owned industries (is this the right word?). In one there is a smoking ban and in one you are saying that by putting in a smokeing ban it will be a breach of your "freedom".

 

Laches, I'm curious because in other respects I think we're 100% in agreement on this issue. Why do you think that a government should prevent me from spending my own money starting a hypothetical company called Cigar Airways, a luxury airline service that serves liquor and cigars while flying tourists from one Caribbean island to another? An airport is owned by the public more or less, so I'm fine with a no-smoking ban there, but if I own a tiny independent airline myself I think the government should keep its dirty nose out. Just the same as if I used my private yacht for paid cruises and let my paying guests smoke.

Incidentally, airlines try to present their no smoking policy as a safety issue, but the real motivation initially was to reduce the costs of cleaning the cabins. They could use a smaller cleaning staff if they didn't have to empty ashtrays and scrub off nicotine stains between flights, so ending smoking in-flight allowed them to make some cost-saving layoffs while making them look like safety-conscious heroes. I did a really interesting case study on this in business school; it was eye-opening to read the history of this business decision.