The anti-smoking thread

[A_Wanderer]

What I don't get is why libertarians aren't all for anti-smoking laws, as their pro-smoking arguments seem to boil down to "I should be allowed to smoke if I want to!" In actual fact, arguments in both directions employ the same "I should have the liberty to do what I want!" logic, with the 'do what I want' in one case being smoking and in the other case being breathing clean air. However, this is the primary pro-smoking argument, while it is just one of multiple primary anti-smoking arguments. The anti-smoking side has a stronger case and involves the "I should have the liberty to do what I want!" logic the libertarians like to use.

I have never smoked and every member of my immediate family does, most all of my coworkers do and they all know the risks (which I think are overstated to children in a scare the shit out of them young sort of way with a lot of propaganda).

Clean air is not a liberty, the right to do something that will harm you for a chemical rush is, the right to have control over your brain chemistry is, libertarianism does not to demand I must smoke, eat poorly a die at 60 but as a philosophy it should mean that I as an individual have the right to do so if I wish; and that extends over other ilicit drugs, and I would be interested in hearing if the more hedonistic libertarian types agree with legalisation of opioids and ending the war on drugs.

Kids don't smoke; unless you wan't to look cool and fit in

 

[Billy Rotten]

My mother died of lung cancer when she was only 60 years-old. She won't be able to share in the joy of my wedding this August. She was a 1-2 pack-a-day smoker.

Enough said?

 

[indra]

I can understand people trying alcohol or various illegal drugs because quite frankly they feel good. In my experience with cigarettes (I tried them a few times when I was young) though there seems to be nothing pleasurable about smoking them, even if everyone else is.

Does anyone remember getting a good feeling or any kind of pleasure from smoking when they first started? I do get the feeling I'm watching a junkie get a fix when I watch a longtime heavy smoker take a drag after a period without, but what -- other than to fit in -- is the initial appeal? Do some people actually get a kind of high from it?

 

[Angela Harlem]

High, no. Something people enjoy, yes, in a similar vein to a glass of wine.

My theory is that for most people it begins to fit into a habitual pattern, but before you can acknowledge that and cease it, the addiction has well and truly taken hold. It is said to be harder to quit than heroin. No idea how accurate that is.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Does anyone remember getting a good feeling or any kind of pleasure from smoking when they first started? I do get the feeling I'm watching a junkie get a fix when I watch a longtime heavy smoker take a drag after a period without, but what -- other than to fit in -- is the initial appeal? Do some people actually get a kind of high from it?

Theres a good reason for this, it's the same reason that pharmaceutical companies sponser anti-smoking campaigns and it's all about how to deliver the drug people need.

 

[AchtungBono]

I am 46 years old and I have NEVER had a cigarette in my mouth EVER!.....I'm very proud to say.

The worst thing for me is going out to a club or restaurant and being surrounded by clouds of smoke which totally ruin my evening.

I apologize for sounding preachy....I don't mean to.

I encourage everybody who is trying to quit smoking and I give you a BIG hug.

XXX

 

[Vincent Vega]

It is said to be harder to quit than heroin. No idea how accurate that is.

From my experience (I myself never smoked, but my parents did, and many of my friends did at least for a few weeks, some longer) you can't generally say whether it is easy to quit or not.
It totally depends on the person.
It's like with the start of the addiction. Some can smoke one or two cigarrettes and stop again, others smoke one and are addicted to it.
And with quiting it's the same. My mother e.g. tried to, and went to some hypnosis course to stop, then she went there again, and still she smokes sometimes, I think even every day.
My father decided to stop, and did so.

Many other people are the same, and no one can say only because for him it was easy it would be easy for everybody, as no one can say it would be hard for everybody.

I wouldn't compare it to a drug like heroin or cocaine. Not only because the drugs work totally different, but also because people are reacting to the addiction so differently.


I would be very happy if at least in public places people would stop to smoke and go outside. I'm suffering from a kind of asthma myself, maybe caused by passive smoking, I don't know.
Also, it's not like drinking where the alcohol only gets into your body, but the smoke gets into the body of everyone around the smoker.
Sometimes there are so many smokers in a bar I have to leave because I can't breathe anymore, and my eyes feel dry and hurt. You also can't see the other side of the room because of all this smoke.

Even the best ventilation can't cope with so much smoke.

 

[Axver]

the right to do something that will harm you for a chemical rush is [a liberty]

But you have no right to do something that will harm others for a chemical rush, and that's what smoking in public settings does. So why are libertarians all for it when it's infringing upon other peoples' liberties?

 

[A_Wanderer]

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 I said a liberty is a freedom of action and is not neccessarily good or bad; you have no right to use force to stop other people from smoking, you do have a right to ask them to stop or to walk away; this line on minimising harm is at the expense of liberty - it's the same sort of puritanical arguments made by the temperance movement during the era of prohibition as well as those of the anti-drug movement.

Ban smoking in public spaces, ban it from all government buildings, ban it in all public schools but allow the owners of restaurants, clubs and pubs to make the call themselves; patrons are consenting by entering a smoke filled room - if there really is commerical benefit to making premises smoke free (apparently a trend with less people smoking) then it is in their interests to start putting bans in place and I 100% support that. If I maintained a smoke free venue and somebody tried to light up and refused to stop then they should be removed, thats good for everybody, but getting the government to come in to enforce an anti-smoking regime in venues that they don't own then that is wrong.

I think that it's a real pity that people still smoke, I think that anybody with the fortitude to quit deserves a pat on the back and will hopefully enjoy the benefits of a healthier lifestyle, but I still think that as individuals we are capable of living with freedom even when it means that some make people make the stupid choice.

 

[Laura M]

Ban smoking in public spaces, ban it from all government buildings, ban it in all public schools but allow the owners of restaurants, clubs and pubs to make the call themselves; - if there really is commerical benefit to making premises smoke free (apparently a trend with less people smoking) then it is in their interests to start putting bans in place.

I say it's the owners of these places who want to see the smoking ban more than anyone else, after all they are the people subjected to that smoke-filled atmosphere all the time. From what I've read they can't wait for the smoking ban to commence here.

patrons are consenting by entering a smoke filled room

People are entitled to breathe clean air, the same way someone can smoke if they please. I wouldn't smoke around a non-smoker. It's about having some decency and respect for the comfort and health of those around you, especially as now everyone should be well aware of the risks for non-smokers too. I don't care if it's only for 5 or 10 minutes, or if everyone else lights up in that place because it's allowed, that's 10 minutes that I have to sit with my eyes stinging and bear that smell until I'm forced to move elsewhere because someone hasn't the courtesy to smoke outside.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Why shouldn't these venues put up no smoking signs and enforce the policy? If it's the owners banning smoking on their premises I am very supportive.

Smoking etiquette seems to enter into it's own form of social contract - but I disagree that we are entitled to breath clean air wherever we go; especially at the pub.

 

[Laura M]

I disagree that we are entitled to breath clean air wherever we go

I think that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a while.

 

[Vincent Vega]

I say it's the owners of these places who want to see the smoking ban more than anyone else, after all they are the people subjected to that smoke-filled atmosphere all the time. From what I've read they can't wait for the smoking ban to commence here.

But then you really have to ask the owner why they wait for the state to take action.

If the owner really wants his bar, disco or whatever smokefree, he could do so.
It's a poor excuse if he says he is waiting for the state to do so.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Is it really? If my eyes water when I go near a neighbours heavily chlorinated pool is it my right to force them to lower the ammounts? If I am standing in a designated smoking area does my 'right' to breath clean air demand that the smokers around me butt out? If I walk into an opium den.... you get the picture - I don't think that we have rights or entitlements over the enviornment in limited settings of private property (so a smoke filled room - thats fine, dumping heavy metals that leech into my back yard not okay).

 

[Laura M]

But then you really have to ask the owner why they wait for the state to take action.

If the owner really wants his bar, disco or whatever smokefree, he could do so.
It's a poor excuse if he says he is waiting for the state to do so.

Probably due to a loss of business. Most coffee shops and food places here have been smoke free for a while.

In bars now smoking is banned at the bar or within a certain distance of it to protect the staff working there. So, if they haven't banned it like the cafes, they are trying to protect their staff at least.

Our ban comes into place in three months so we won't be waiting long before everywhere is smoke free.

 

[A_Wanderer]

and once the evil that is tobacco is completely banned we can get down to outlawing alcohol - a drug that causes so many unneccesary deaths.

Maybe it's unfair, this is an anti-smoking thread, smoking will kill you - lets take the argument into the smokers thread.

 

[indra]

I think that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a while.

Yes it is.

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. But smoking in enclosed public places -- even privately owned public places (which are regulated so there is no expectation of being able to do completely as one pleases) -- does force it on people who do not wish it.

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?

 

[indra]

and once the evil that is tobacco is completely banned we can get down to outlawing alcohol - a drug that causes so many unneccesary deaths.

The alcohol the person next to me is drinking doesn't find it's way into my body. The smoke from the person smoking next to me does.

You are supposedly a smart guy. You know that is a big difference.

 

[Laura M]

Is it really? If my eyes water when I go near a neighbours heavily chlorinated pool is it my right to force them to lower the ammounts? If I am standing in a designated smoking area does my 'right' to breath clean air demand that the smokers around me butt out? If I walk into an opium den.... you get the picture - I don't think that we have rights or entitlements over the enviornment in limited settings of private property (so a smoke filled room - thats fine, dumping heavy metals that leech into my back yard not okay).

Yes, it really is.

Would you think it's okay to smoke around a baby or young child anywhere? Probably not. So why is it okay to smoke around a non-smoker? It's not like it's healthy for them to be breathing in smoke fumes either.

Alcohol isn't the same. Someone who is blinding drunk and sitting beside me isn't the same as somone puffing away all night at the next table. I did a training course a while back for some voluntary work. I was told that I shouldn't take the person out drinking with me as it would set a bad example. That person was likely to be someone who would perhaps copy my behaviour, start drinking and wouldn't be able to stop until they were plastered. This person has some health/mental issues. Knowing that, I would never dream of stepping into a bar or drinking in that person's presence even though I'm over 18 and I can drink if I please. I wouldn't think of doing something that could harm this person so why would I smoke around someone who didn't smoke just because I could.

People should be able to go out and feel comfortable and not have their health put at risk. It's not about rights, or forcing people to do anything, or bar owners being able to enforce a ban - it's about having some respect for those around you and taking your posionous habit elsewhere. I thought by now everyone was well aware of the dangers of passive smoking.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Not when people make an argument based on health care costs or societal damage.

The smoke from that one person sitting in the bar probably won't have a dramatic effect on you, not any quantifiable harm - you aren't walking home with emphysema from that exposure and you are still electing to stay in that environment and the publican is allowing smoking on the premises.

The legitimate question of harm is of prolonged exposure in the context of the workplace and there I think that there can be a legal framework to protect employees with either good ventilation or legal recourse.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Yes, it really is.

Would you think it's okay to smoke around a baby or young child anywhere? Probably not. So why is it okay to smoke around a non-smoker? It's not like it's healthy for them to be breathing in smoke fumes either.

Am I talking about kindergartens and delivery rooms - no - I am talking about bars and clubs, places without babies and young children around. Children don't consent about being exposed to second hand smoke, those who choose to stay around when somebody lights up or to stay quiet are giving implicit consent. I do not think that you have the right to use government force to prevent people hurting themselves either by smoking or hanging around smokers

Alcohol isn't the same. Someone who is blinding drunk and sitting beside me isn't the same as somone puffing away all night at the next table.

They are both poisoning themselves and there are health risks to long term use that will be payed for with public money.

People should be able to go out and feel comfortable and not have their health put at risk. It's not about rights, or forcing people to do anything, or bar owners being able to enforce a ban - it's about having some respect for those around you and taking your posionous habit elsewhere. I thought by now everyone was well aware of the dangers of passive smoking.

Yes they are; and if you want to protect your lungs then don't expose yourself - enjoy the freedom of choice and go to the non-smoking venue, if somebody rudely lights up in front of you tell them that it is poor form but don't go off and get the government to take away other peoples right to smoke or own venues that will cater to smokers.

 

[Vincent Vega]

If I am standing in a designated smoking area does my 'right' to breath clean air demand that the smokers around me butt out?

You can't compare a bar or pub with a "designated smoking area".

There you have it, the word designated. But a bar or pub doesn't contain the word smoker designated.

Lara Mullen, my point was that, if the owner of any venue didn't abolish smoking in his building he couldn't make the excusion that the state still hasn't banned smoking. If he didn't want anyone to smoke in his e.g. bar, he should make a sign.
If he doesn't do so, he can't blame the state.

 

[A_Wanderer]

We are talking about an abstract right to breath clean air; I do not hold that to be true because there are environments where the air is shitty and if you don't want to be exposed you should just walk away: if these areas are private property I don't have the right to use force to make myself (who doesn't own it) comfortable.

I say it again I am anti-smoking, we have known for decades of the carcinogenic effects and the joys of emphysema and if your addicted quitting sucks; but I love the freedom to smoke or to walk away from smokers. Smokers are a minority, a lot of people think it's a filthy habbit and will not put up with a smoky resteraunt or bar; this should force owners to cater for the masses fairly - it will deliver the same result without what I see as unwarranted and wrongheaded regulatory interference.

 

[A_Wanderer]

There you have it, the word designated. But a bar or pub doesn't contain the word smoker designated.

Unless there is a no-smoking policy in place then it is somewhere people can light up.

 

[Vincent Vega]

They are both poisoning themselves and there are health risks to long term use that will be payed for with public money.

This isn't the discussion anymore.
The posts written here were all about the effects of passive smoking,
I know, these effects are sometimes over-exaggerated, but still there are negative effects on your body.
And in some cases these effects are life threatening.
And there is the difference between smoking and drinking.
When you drink your beer or vodka, the alcohol only enters your body.
But if you smoke, the hazardous substances will also enter the body of the people around you.

Yes they are; and if you want to protect your lungs then don't expose yourself - enjoy the freedom of choice and go to the non-smoking venue, if somebody rudely lights up in front of you tell them that it is poor form but don't go off and get the government to take away other peoples right to smoke or own venues that will cater to smokers.

At least here in Germany that would mean that I couldn't enter any bar, disco, concert hall etc.

 

[Laura M]

They are both poisoning themselves and there are health risks to long term use that will be payed for with public money.Yes they are; and if you want to protect your lungs then don't expose yourself - enjoy the freedom of choice and go to the non-smoking venue, if somebody rudely lights up in front of you tell them that it is poor form but don't go off and get the government to take away other peoples right to smoke or own venues that will cater to smokers.

Yes, smokers and drinkers put their health at risk but I'm going to breathe in smoke, alcohol isn't going to go into my body unless I choose to do that. And yes, both smoking and drinking cost the public money. I don't get why you're making this point though. That's a fact most people are already aware of.

You could smoke your brains out all day long for all I care. I think it's rude to have to be subjected to someone else smoking. If anyone is going to put a smoker's rights before health well it's just ridiculous. That person has the right to smoke just as much as I have the right not to sit in a smoke filled haze while I have a coffee.

Vincent, 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.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Unless there is a no-smoking policy in place then it is somewhere people can light up.

Yes, in a designated smoking area you aren't allowed to blame anyone for smoking or even force him to stop smoking.

But we aren't talking about designated smoking areas.

 

[Ormus]

I'm still bothered by the fact that it's legal, considering how overtly lethal tobacco is.

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.

The only reason that it's never been banned, of course, is that tobacco is the "white man's drug."

 

[Vincent Vega]

Vincent, 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.

Ah, ok, that's a difference

 

[Ormus]

and once the evil that is tobacco is completely banned we can get down to outlawing alcohol - a drug that causes so many unneccesary deaths.

A specious argument in light of the health benefits in moderate alcohol usage. If we banned every healthy/benign substance that has the potential for abuse, then we'd probably have to ban everything.

Tobacco, on the other hand, is not benign or healthy and has nothing but harmful effects. That makes it a logical candidate for being banned.