The anti-smoking thread

[A_Wanderer]

I don't think bar owner's here have the right to just put a sign up not allowing folk to smoke. They are campaigning that they should have this right, however, once the ban is in place in April.

Well that sort of policy is absurd, it should be their right and there should be smoking bans done by the individual owners - but a blanket ban does step on property rights in the same manner as whatever obstruction prevents them from banning smoking in their venues today.

Now if you want to make a sound case then protection of staff is the way to go, just because it is designated as private property doesn't mean that employees can just be exposed to carcinogens without caring a jot.

 

[A_Wanderer]

And before someone goes on a "libertarian" rant, the government asserts its control over the legality of substances on a regular basis, such as with OTC/prescription drugs, and removes substances that are fatal/dangerous all the time.

Your exactly right there, one would be commiting an egregious logical fallacy unless of course they openly supported a lunatic point of view that would decriminalise everything from marijuana to something that's only feature if ruining your life like methamphetamine.

 

[Greenlight]

Why should some people's bad habit be forced on anyone else? I have no problem with people smoking in their own homes or cars or even in open spaces outdoors.

Well I'd have agreed with this but then this has made the news over here today
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6244315.stm

A council has confirmed it is investigating a complaint from a neighbour about a couple smoking in their own home.
A woman, who has not been named, has written to the council saying cigarette smoke from next door was "permeating into her living room".

Gwynedd Council's public protection service has said it has a duty to investigate.

Gavin Gordon-Crawley, the subject of the complaint, called it "a joke".

Mr Gordon-Crawley, 51, who smokes 20 cigarettes a day and whose wife is a social smoker, told The Sun newspaper: "I can understand smoking bans in certain places - even a total public smoking ban.

"But being told I can't smoke in my own home. It must be some sort of joke."


The complainant says smoke is 'permeating into her living room'

Jeanette Gordon-Crawley, 54, who lives in a semi-detached house, added: "We can't see how smoke from our house could possibly get into the house next door.

"People have a right to complain if you smoke near them, but we have the right to the occasional cig in our own home."

A spokesperson for Gwynedd Council said it had a "statutory responsibility" to investigate the neighbour's complaint.

"The person complaining alleges that smoke from a neighbouring property is able to enter their property.

"What people do within their own homes is of no concern to us, as long as they do not affect other people," the spokesperson added.

"In this instance, we have received a complaint stating that smoking in a house in the Caernarfon area is causing a nuisance to the neighbours and as a local authority we have a statutory responsibility to investigate this complaint.

It does seem a tad farfetched but then I suppose if you've got inadequate insulation with the house next door it would be horrible to get wafts of cigarette smoke coming through into your own home.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Both of my parents smoked-my mother cigarettes, my father cigars and a pipe. That was probably before all the strong science existed about second hand smoke. They smoked in the house and the cars, so God only knows how much second hand smoke I was exposed to. My mother quit cold turkey ages ago because her neighbor who was her best friend smoked and eventually died of cancer that spread to her brain. My father eventually quit too.

I have smoked occasionally, very rarely. The last time was once last summer. I have an old package of cigarettes in my dresser drawer and I never buy them. Since my parents have other addictions and it runs in my family, I live in a paranoid fear of developing any addiction. I have no desire at all really to smoke and I don't know why I ever did or do. I drink very rarely too, mostly for that reason. I try my best not to drink at all. I drink alcohol free wine and honestly have never used a non-prescription drug. Addiction is very tough to deal with, the best thing is to never start at all if you can do it.

 

[verte76]

One of my sisters is an asthmatic. The other one is allergic to cigarette smoke. They should be able to go to a restaurant or whatever without having to worry about second-hand smoke. The one who's allergic is married to a Mexican and they love going to Mexican places, and there are plenty of these in Brooklyn. New York City is a smoke-free city, so they can have their fun.

 

[anitram]

Firstly the harm is cumulative, standing a meter away from a smoker for five minutes isn't quantifiable harm, secondly we are dealing with private premises such as bars and clubs where the owners have final say over what people can and cannot do and lastly as

That's simply not true and has never been true so long as the rule of law has existed. The government has always imposed limits on what you can and can't do in your own home, and it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

 

[vaz02]

Never dated a smoker in my life and never will, such a turn of.

 

[A_Wanderer]

So if governments have been doing it since the dawn of civilisation then that makes it alright?

In context we are talking about smoking; if I run a restaurant I have to comply with health and safety, if I own land I don't have the right to shoot any trespasser or marry a 12 year old - but smoking is an activity that is legal (for now), the question of allowing smoking in any particular venue should be left to the owner and if you argue that they shouldn't have that control then you are taking away some of their property rights; and even though there are examples of this that we deal with every day it still doesn't make it any better.

Just would be interesting to know what people feel about marijuana decriminalisation and where that smoking would be alright - homes, parks, concerts, coffee houses? It wouldn't surprise me if some people felt that one was okay and the other wasn't - and it would cut both ways and I think that they would be equally wrong.

If we want to be anti-smoking then why not have positive anti-smoking programs; i would rather see public service announcements, support lines and the turning of society against smoking (which has already happened) than encroaching bans (which often seem to exclude venues like Casinos - places that deliver the big bucks to the government).

I agree that smoking bans deliver positive results - cleaner air, nicer venues and better general health - but empowering the government to engage in prohibition for something with good ends at the expense of individual liberties is the dark side of that and no matter how much it is argued that it is done with other substances I don't think it makes it right; I as an individual have ultimate control over my mind, I should have as much control over my property as well. And since people have pointed out the advantages of bans and the making of smokers into a minority then why not leave it up to the venues rather than give that inch?

Lastly I assume that all of you pro-freedom folks who support the blanket ban on the basis of second hand smoke also support the decriminalisation of drugs that don't effect other people; are doing lines of coke and injecting heroin allowable (in principle).

 

[Liesje]

Well I'd have agreed with this but then this has made the news over here today
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6244315.stm

It does seem a tad farfetched but then I suppose if you've got inadequate insulation with the house next door it would be horrible to get wafts of cigarette smoke coming through into your own home.

Yeah, that might be pushing it. Our neighbors like to fertilize their lawns every spring and it smells like rotting ass for a week, but we deal. Besides, we burn wood fires so they have to smell chimney smoke sometimes. It's give and take, urban life.

But...what is a semi-detached house? Is that like a duplex? If it is, then I guess it depends on how the houses are ventilated and whether the smoke is destroying property (you know how once you get that smell into carpet or furniture it does NOT come out). I lived in a duplex during college, but I've never meet a landlord that permitted smoking, so it wasn't an issue.

As for smoking in restaurants, both Phil and I noticed a major difference while we were in Honolulu. Our hotel had a Fridays in the lobby and it was so much nicer than our Fridays at home, not having smoke stinging in your eyes. Our Fridays is disgusting because the "smoking" section is basically setup so all their smoke goes into the non-smoking section anyway. It was really nice just to be able to go into a restaurant and not get stuck next to a chain smoker who holds his cigarette out so all the smoke is at your table. There are places in Grand Rapids I refuse to go to simply because it's so filthy from smoke - and these aren't bars or pubs.

I really have no sympathy for people who think they have a right to smoke in public. I might have some sympathy if not for their rude behaviors. People just tossing butts on the ground, people going to the beach and sitting just so that they can smoke all day and all their smoke blows onto the family with little kids, people holding their cigarettes so that the smoke avoids their own table and goes into the non-smoking section, etc. Maybe if smokers were more careful and considerate, I'd be willing to listen, but it hasn't happened yet. BTW my dad is a chain smoker and I still love him, I just don't support his right to make filth in the space other people have paid to use

 

[Laura M]

But...what is a semi-detached house?

Lastly I assume that all of you pro-freedom folks who support the blanket ban on the basis of second hand smoke also support the decriminalisation of drugs that don't effect other people; are doing lines of coke and injecting heroin allowable (in principle).

What?

Why is this anything to do with the topic anyway.

 

[Canadiens1131]

Ok, the rhetoric is really getting out of hand around here.

I smoke. Yes, it is a bad habit, but I am not a bad person. You know why? Cause I do it in my own home. I live alone. End of story.

Not everyone who enjoys a smoke is a crazy paranoid libertarian, or a jerk.

Doesn't matter. Smoking has done the cultural acceptance 360 and if you're a smoker, you're obviously weak and/or a nazi.

 

[Liesje]

Thanks, Lara! Looks like a duplex means the same thing.

 

[martha]

The smokers are kind of tense in an anti-smoking thread.

 

[martha]

And since people have pointed out the advantages of bans and the making of smokers into a minority then why not leave it up to the venues rather than give that inch?

Let's bring the employees who have to breathe all that shit into this thread then.

 

[Canadiens1131]

The smokers are kind of tense in an anti-smoking thread.

Come on, not everyone can drive a bio-diesel car

 

[A_Wanderer]

Read other thread, there is too much crossover.

 

[martha]

No. Bring it up here. I read the other thread, but I think it needs to be discussed here. The employees are the reason there are indoor smoking bans, not some stupid anti-private property conspiracy.

 

[Laura M]

Thanks, Lara! Looks like a duplex means the same thing.

I always thought a duplex was a flat. Guess I learnt something new today.

 

[Liesje]

I always thought a duplex was a flat. Guess I learnt something new today.

Usually they are (mine was - basement and ground floor). The one you posted could be called a townhouse, but usually there are several townhouses in a row, not just two residences connected. Some people (probably myself included) would just call it an apartment (something box-shaped that has 2+ residences). So many large old homes here have been converted into 4-8 residences, we just refer to it as it's own apartment building.

 

[A_Wanderer]

What a landowner can do on property that they own and what they allow patrons to do will cross onto issues of property rights; it isn't a conspiracy it's an obvious concequence of getting the government to stick a blanket ban in place. One could almost feel as if you think you are saying that only a conspiracy theorist could see that as a problem that conflicts with their own philosophy.

The reasons that people want smoking bans are great; but the concept of the blanket ban and the means to that end via government coercion is wrong.

Now as for protecting employees it is a scientific fact that exposure to second hand smoke is detrimental; it has does all the damage that the smoke does through the smokers lungs and long term exposure will deliver the concequences; now the question is this - are employees consenting to this exposure by continuing to work a job where they are being exposed, are employers liable to the health damages incurred, is the employer legally bound to maintain a healthy work environment and how may that be delivered - bit it better ventilation systems to keep smoking areas contained or banning smoking to protect themselves from future lawsuits (and maybe even attract all that extra business that non-smoking venues will attract).

Im not pro-smoking - I have never taken a drag of a cigarette or joint, I am not disputing the damage it does to you and those around you but I oppose statist initiatives to dissuade smokers (thankfully they not only pay regular taxes like the rest of us they put in a lot of sin tax).

Of course none of these arguments about employee risks apply to the other things that some see as places where the state should get involved like greasy burgers, sugar loaded drinks, high proof spirits and certain drinks containing thujone. So let there be robust debate about smoking; about what is consensual exposure, about what rules venue owners can force their clientelle to abide by, about what role governments have in those rules and what liability smoking venues have from lawsuits because right now it looks like people who know whats better for everybody else wants to regulate a bad habbit out of existence.

 

[Liesje]

The reasons that people want smoking bans are great; but the concept of the blanket ban and the means to that end via government coercion is wrong.

What about all the other blanket bans? Sex, being drunk, peeing, certain breeds of dogs....You're advocating to reverse them all?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Sex between adults is consensual - I don't support harming minors as they by definition cannot give consent. Urination (I assume in public) is either vandalising sombodies property and/or indecent exposure, violent dog breeds do harm people when owners are irresponsible; the liberty of being allowed to breed Rottweillers must be conditional upon being responsible so in the interests of public safety regulation is neccessary (if we want to live in a civil society we must surrender the idea of anarchic total liberty, we want roads, schools, running water and emergency rooms then the people will need to pay taxes, obey the law and be responsible).

A civil society can still maximise individual liberties - and that is where the debate must be centered, we need people to defend the right to do the stupid things because it's very easy to erode freedoms in the name of security; security from terrorism, security from crime, security from drugs, security from internet pornography and the security of not having any smoking wherever we go.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Lastly I assume that all of you pro-freedom folks who support the blanket ban on the basis of second hand smoke also support the decriminalisation of drugs that don't effect other people; are doing lines of coke and injecting heroin allowable (in principle).

Assume what you want, but I think it's disgusting to make that comparison.

 

[financeguy]

A non smoker shouldn't have to decide not see a band or breathe filthy air because the club has people smoking in it. The air should be good for everyone. And the smokers can still smoke -- they just have to go outside to do so. How in the world is that infringing on their liberty?

Uhm.....you've given up?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Whats to be ashamed of - people mess their lives up with drugs even though they are illegal, we waste so much money locking them away and it still doesn't solve the problem (which will always be there).

 

[Laura M]

Whats to be ashamed of - people mess their lives up with drugs even though they are illegal, we waste so much money locking them away and it still doesn't solve the problem (which will always be there).

Either I have totally lost the plot of this thread or you're dragging this discussion into all sorts of areas that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Martha said to keep it in this thread; smoking sucks this is the result

 

[Laura M]

Yip. It is.

 

[financeguy]

Given the cold hard facts people get about cigarettes from childhood, this is a lame-ass excuse to start what everyone knows is a deadly, disgusting, foul habit.

Everyone 'knows' that the deadly, disgusting habit of driving automobiles and motorbikes causes carbon monoxide pollution, which is seriously injurious to the health of others.

 

[Liesje]

Which is why a lot of people support regulating CO2 and other emissions, but that's a topic for another thread...