Anti-Smoking Laws. Good or Bad?

[Me14k]

First off, I do not smoke. I detest smoke, it is one of the most disgusting things ever.

The thing is that smoking is a huge part of our economy and I dont think we can carry on without it. One of the head surgeons at Northwestern Hospital in Chicago told my Debate coach at my school that 50% of the hospitals business is through patients which smoke. Being that our nations hospitals are already suffering and struggling for money taking away smoking is like taking away half their profit, thus it hurts the other half. (This statistic is pretty disgusting, im not trying to say its a good thing, but we must see how it positivly effects out economy.)

Smoking industry is also huge..millions of people rely on the smoking business for jobs..taking away smoking will make more unemployed people..which will hurt our economy even more.

And obviously the point that it is our free will to do as we please as long as it doesnt hurt others. Everyone talks about how bad second hand smoking is..its not that harmful to the majority of people who witness it. Being around smoke for 30 minutes is not going to get someone addicted or give them cancer..the only people at risk for getting ill through second hand smoking is people who are constantly around it..like waiters and bar tenders and it is these people's choice to be in an envioronment where this goes on.

-(I live in illinois) There was new legislation that just past in Illinois that makes it a $100 fine to smoke in a car with kids under the age of 18. I think that is the ONLY good anti smoking legislation ever considered/passed.

Do people really think that it is ok to risk our economy at the sake of non smokers feeling happy?

 

[Xsyven]

It's not the fact that secondhand smoke is supposedly "killing" everyone that breathes it in that bothers me, it's the fact that cigarettes smell terrible.

I know that the smell alone is a stupid reason to think that everywhere should have anti-smoking laws, but honestly, I can't stand it.

It's like lighting a stink bomb in the middle of public, and saying "I like it". Not only does it smell terrible, but it sticks to your clothes as well. If anything, I think public smoking should be considered vandalism.

I don't mind if people smoke outside their homes. Just don't get it in the way of other people.

 

[AltF4]

Broken Window Economics ftl?

Having more people injured and in hospitals does not help our economy. Think about what you're saying. If so, then it would be ideal for every American citizen to be in a hospital bed. What real productivity would there be? It doesn't work like that, I hope your econ professor has taught you better than that.

The reason anti-smoking laws are being put in place is because it violates the rights of those around you. Let me elaborate.

I live in Arizona where we just recently passed an anti-smoking law. It states that smoking is prohibited in any indoor public place. (Also within a certain distance outside of said places)
The reason behind the bill is that in a public place, you do not have the right to hurt other people without their consent. The indoor stipulation is an obvious clause because outside the argument is moot.

The harmful effects of second hand smoke are well known and documented. It would infringe on other's rights if you were to smoke in an indoor public area. Everyone else would have to choose between being slowly poisoned, or not being able to visit this public place. (Such as restaurants, bars, bowling alleys, clubs, malls, etc...)

Smoking is not obviously prohibited in any outdoor or private location, such as in your home. The laws do not prohibit you from smoking, only from doing so in such a way that is harmful to others. Why is that wrong?

On a personal note: I love the new smoke free Arizona. I can actually go bowling now! I come down with terrible strep throat when I'm exposed to too much smoke because my dad used to smoke when I was a kid. As the voters have spoken (at least in Az so far), I'm not alone on this issue either.

On a completely different note: Wasn't I supposed to have my temporary debater status removed on the weekend? Shouldn't there be a vote or something?

 

[Digital Watches]

AltF4, I don't think there's any question as to whether you're in for good.

But on topic: Arguing that long exposure is the only risk that secondhand smoke poses ignores a very important problem:

No smoking regulations would mean that smoking is by default allowed at all times and in all places. This would essentially GUARUNTEE that in the majority of public places in a major urban area, people would be smoking. Do you know how many people smoke? It's crazy! By merely going anywhere but one's home and the homes of people who also don't smoke, a person could be effectively exposing themselves to secondhand smoke ALL DAY, EVERY DAY were regulations not in place. No matter how you slice it, this type of environment would have SOME effect on the general health of the non-smoking populace, so long as they weren't obsessively avoiding... everywhere.

I'm not even sure about how little is necessary to pose a notable detriment, but I'm no expert and have no statistics on the matter, so I won't argue that point. Yet.

 

[Sargent_Peach]

In Arkansas, we also recently passed a law that banned smoking in public places and within 20 feet of said places. At least I think it is 20 ft. I'm not a smoker, but I really didn't have a problem with there being a smoking and non-smoking section in restaurants and what-not. I wouldn't mind if public places wanted to make specially designed areas for smokers. If there was someway to separate them, obviously hard in a bowling alley, but easily attainable in a restaurant. So all places wouldn't be able to do this, but the ones that really wanted to, could.

 

[Kalypso]

It's a ****ing abomination for the most part, coming from someone who hates smoking. There is no reason people should enforce their views on others.

I don't in any way think second hand smoking is anywhere near a good enough reason to ever ban smoking. For one, you don't get cancer from casual exposure to second hand smoke, any study that says so is full of ****, you maybe get cancer from extended exposure to said smoke, like working in a bar, but it's never something out of your control. Just like it's your choice whether or not to smoke, it's your choice whether or not to be around smoke.

Smokers are already forced out of anything with walls that they don't own anyway, to continue these bans are just ridiculous. If it takes a 2-pack a day smoker 10-20 years to get cancer, doesn't it stand to reason that someone who doesn't smoke and avoids second hand smoke when possible isn't going to have any problems, ever? I can understand getting a condition if you live with someone who smokes for many years, or work in a smoke-filled environment for many years, but the assertion that some guy smoking on a street corner is dirtying your lungs is simply ridiculous beyond belief.

It's a filthy, disgusting habit, but if someone choses it more power to them, they should have the freedom to partake, just like I should have that same freedom should I choose to smoke. I can advocate certain smoking bans, such as freedom for employers to ban smoking in their workplaces, and even maybe a global smoking ban in most restaurants, but the extent these bans have taken seem obscene to me.

 

[Digital Watches]

It's a ****ing abomination for the most part, coming from someone who hates smoking. There is no reason people should enforce their views on others.

It ceases to be a "view" when there are mountains of studies and a clear detriment involved. I'm against fully banning something that should be the choice of the user (stupid a choice as it may be), but second-hand smoke CAN harm my health, and I don't want to be forcibly exposed to it (as I would be if smoking were legal in any public place) on a regular basis.

I don't in any way think second hand smoking is anywhere near a good enough reason to ever ban smoking. For one, you don't get cancer from casual exposure to second hand smoke, any study that says so is full of ****,

If you'd like to call into question the credibility of more qualified individuals, perhaps you'd like to counter with a study that proves otherwise?

you maybe get cancer from extended exposure to said smoke, like working in a bar, but it's never something out of your control.

Until you can meaningfully discredit studies that suggest things to the contrary, I must conclude that this is little more than uninformed opinion and extrapolation, no offense.

Just like it's your choice whether or not to smoke, it's your choice whether or not to be around smoke.

It wouldn't be if there weren't regulations as to where smoking was legal. No one seems to want to refute that point.

Smokers are already forced out of anything with walls that they don't own anyway,

Wrong. People who smoke have never been banned from any institution whatsoever to my knowledge. Smoking there, on the other hand, is a different story. Don't act as though it's an issue of discrimination. Classic appeal to emotion.

to continue these bans are just ridiculous. If it takes a 2-pack a day smoker 10-20 years to get cancer, doesn't it stand to reason that someone who doesn't smoke and avoids second hand smoke when possible isn't going to have any problems, ever?

Again, give me the studies that show this, and by this, I mean firstly that the frequency with which one smokes will speed their development of cancer in an exact linear progression, because that's what your logic relies on. Again, you're attempting to put conventional wisdom in place of actual knowledge and expertise.

I can understand getting a condition if you live with someone who smokes for many years, or work in a smoke-filled environment for many years, but the assertion that some guy smoking on a street corner is dirtying your lungs is simply ridiculous beyond belief.

Try guys smoking on nearly every street corner you pass and nearly every public building you enter besides your own home or those of friends who likewise don't smoke, because without regulations, this is a very real possibility in heavily populated areas.

It's a filthy, disgusting habit, but if someone choses it more power to them, they should have the freedom to partake, just like I should have that same freedom should I choose to smoke.

No one is denying anyone the right to smoke. As already stated, people who smoke are still allowed anywhere and everywhere a non-smoker would. They just can't smoke there, and these regulations exist for reasons already stated.

I can advocate certain smoking bans, such as freedom for employers to ban smoking in their workplaces, and even maybe a global smoking ban in most restaurants, but the extent these bans have taken seem obscene to me.

Examples, please? I could see some establishments being set aside as "smoking-allowed" establishments, but otherwise, by allowing smoking in public places, you are creating situations in which the choice is between significant exposure and avoiding the place. The more places it's allowed in, the more likely a person is to spend their whole day exposed.

 

[AltF4]

This is a matter of rights. It is the role of laws to uphold the rights of the minority. You have the right as a citizen to visit a public place without expectation of harm from others. You do NOT have the right to slowly poison passers by in a public place. You cannot just separate them. Separate but equal is inherently unequal, remember?

Even if smokers outnumbered non-smokers by a vast margin, the laws should still be in place.

 

[Kalypso]

It should be on a case by case basis, not a global ****ing ban. Smokers have the right to have a place to smoke, but as of now, at least in my city they pretty much don't have anywhere. The only place I know of that allows smoking inside is a Sheesha bar. It should be decided by the employer, not the government.

Banning smoking in government/public facilities? Great, go for it.
Banning it in private establishments against the wishes of the employer? Horrible, and ****ed up.

Saying "I have the right to be in a smoke free environment" is fine, you do, but that doesn't mean you get to ban it everywhere. That's infringing on other peoples right to smoke. Taking smoking away from bars and other establishments whose entire purpose is to be a place where people can smoke and drink etc. is ****ing insane, and I don't see how you can disagree with that because 'You want to go there smoke-free.'

'Poison' the air.... that's just ridiculous wording. Makes the air smell like ****? Granted, but so does people not bathing. Are you going to ban people who haven't showered and worn deodorant from public places as well?

Until you can meaningfully discredit studies that suggest things to the contrary, I must conclude that this is little more than uninformed opinion and extrapolation, no offense.

Show me a study that suggests casual exposure to smoke causes cancer. I haven't seen any, and I'd guess that there aren't any in peer-reviewed journals, because it just doesn't make sense to say that second hand smoke causes people oooooh so many problems when it takes decades for the **** to appear in multiple-pack-a-day smokers.

Examples, please? I could see some establishments being set aside as "smoking-allowed" establishments, but otherwise, by allowing smoking in public places, you are creating situations in which the choice is between significant exposure and avoiding the place. The more places it's allowed in, the more likely a person is to spend their whole day exposed.

Straw man argument. You assume that by allowing smoking in all places, there will be smoking in all places. This simply isn't true because employers will ban it from their stores to get more business. Most employers would, after all a smoker will still shop in their store when they can't smoke, but it would make the place smell better and allow non-smoking customers that want to come in to do it as well.

Smoke doesn't magically appear everywhere when you allow it, that's like the argument for anti-drug laws that 'If we allowed drugs everyone would start doing them.' Not really, everyone that wants to do them already does.

 

[Digital Watches]

It should be on a case by case basis, not a global ****ing ban. Smokers have the right to have a place to smoke, but as of now, at least in my city they pretty much don't have anywhere. The only place I know of that allows smoking inside is a Sheesha bar. It should be decided by the employer, not the government.

I'm all for places for people to smoke, but they shouldn't be "any building that doesn't explicitly ban it." If we allow smoking-allowed to be the rule rather than the exception in public places, we create a situation where more often than not, going into a public venue or establishment of any kind entails second-hand smoke.

Banning smoking in government/public facilities? Great, go for it.
Banning it in private establishments against the wishes of the employer? Horrible, and ****ed up.

I'm all for allowing the owner of an establishment to choose whether they allow smoking, however, any establishment that does so should be clearly labeled as such, and those under the legal age to smoke tobacco should not be permitted on the premises.

Saying "I have the right to be in a smoke free environment" is fine, you do, but that doesn't mean you get to ban it everywhere. That's infringing on other peoples right to smoke.

The right to be in a smoke-free environment is a higher priority, in my opinion, than the right to smoke in any given place. Smoking causes harm to everyone around, whereas NOT smoking causes harm to no one.

Taking smoking away from bars and other establishments whose entire purpose is to be a place where people can smoke and drink etc. is ****ing insane, and I don't see how you can disagree with that because 'You want to go there smoke-free.'

Now this I agree with. Bars and such are places that are generally known to be "smoking allowed" and also tend to not allow minors inside. It therefore makes perfect sense to allow it there, should the owner of the establishment decide to.

'Poison' the air.... that's just ridiculous wording.

Bull****.

poi·son /ˈpɔɪzən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[poi-zuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a substance with an inherent property that tends to destroy life or impair health.
2. something harmful or pernicious, as to happiness or well-being: the poison of slander.
3. Slang. any variety of alcoholic liquor: Name your poison!
–verb (used with object)
4. to administer poison to (a person or animal).
5. to kill or injure with or as if with poison.
6. to put poison into or upon; saturate with poison: to poison food.
7. to ruin, vitiate, or corrupt: Hatred had poisoned his mind.
8. Chemistry. to destroy or diminish the activity of (a catalyst or enzyme).
–adjective
9. causing poisoning; poisonous: a poison shrub.

Again, prove that second-hand smoking isn't detrimental to human health. Then we'll talk.

 

[Kalypso]

Your argument is that 'Second-hand smoke kills, so it shouldn't be allowed anywhere except (Presumably) bars and other places whose purpose is to allow smoking." You can't have this stance that second-hand smoke kills without providing backup to support that statement, which to me is ridiculous. Again, if it takes 10-20 years for a multiple pack a day smoker to develop any real problems, and some never do, how can second hand smoke possibly cause problems to people who only experience it casually?

The only study I've seen that suggested second-hand smoke can cause health problems was one talking about bartenders or waiters in a smoke-filled bar. And yes, if you choose to work in a place like that, it's like you're smoking all day long there's so much smoke around, of course you can develop problems. But that came argument can't be used to stop someone from smoking outside, where it disperses almost instantly, or in a restaurant that allows a smoking section which is away from where you sit, where you only take in a very minimal amount of smoke. If anything, a restaurant with a smoking section could ventilate it, making the smoke leave the building before it got to you.

 

[AltF4]

Restaurants and bars are not private in the same manner that one's home is. He may own the land, but it is still a public place for the these purposes.

The owner of a bar is not allowed to make just ANY kind of rule that he wants. He is not allowed to make a rule that infringes on the rights of others. You can't segregate white people from black, you can't make a rule that says "people with large noses must sit in the corner". Likewise, the owner of an establishment cannot make a rule that says that "if you want to not be poisoned, you have to sit in the corner." Separate is inherently unequal.

If you wish to do something that is harmful to everyone around you, go ahead and do it in a non-public place! Do it in your home, your back yard, or indeed anywhere outside (as the Arizona law has it)

EDIT: I can't believe we're arguing the validity of the dangers of second hand smoke. The studies and evidence are endless.Seriously, just google "Second hand smoke" and read any of the next 1000 articles. The EPA, the American Lung Association, the list goes on and on. I for one am a victim as I said previously.

 

[blazedaces]

Personally I think you both (no offense) sound ridiculous. Each one of you is asking the other one for proof while neither of you wants to just step up the plate. I decided to look it up on my own. I honestly sought the truth, and was surprised to find this (source at the bottom):

Abstract
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Objective To measure the relation between environmental tobacco smoke, as estimated by smoking in spouses, and long term mortality from tobacco related disease.

Design Prospective cohort study covering 39 years.

Setting Adult population of California, United States.

Participants 118 094 adults enrolled in late 1959 in the American Cancer Society cancer prevention study (CPS I), who were followed until 1998. Particular focus is on the 35 561 never smokers who had a spouse in the study with known smoking habits.

Main outcome measures Relative risks and 95% confidence intervals for deaths from coronary heart disease, lung cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease related to smoking in spouses and active cigarette smoking.

Results For participants followed from 1960 until 1998 the age adjusted relative risk (95% confidence interval) for never smokers married to ever smokers compared with never smokers married to never smokers was 0.94 (0.85 to 1.05) for coronary heart disease, 0.75 (0.42 to 1.35) for lung cancer, and 1.27 (0.78 to 2.08) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among 9619 men, and 1.01 (0.94 to 1.08), 0.99 (0.72 to 1.37), and 1.13 (0.80 to 1.58), respectively, among 25 942 women. No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.

[highlight]Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.[/highlight]

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full...=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=1,2,3,4,10

This is probably the most reliable study on the subject in existence. Digital Watches, I'm just kind of disappointed because I expected more from you, didn't think you'd be one to make claims without having at least known them to be true earlier...

My opinion still stands that smoking should be banned from most public places and here are my reasons:

Smoking hinders the rights of people around smokers: it makes people cough, it stinks, non-smokers shouldn't have to suffer through it. We're not allowed to have sex in public. We're not allowed to defame public property. We're not allowed to litter. These things are all activities certain people enjoy, but there consequences obviously affect the environment around these people and that is why there are laws against their practice.

Someone mentioned something about people being unhygienic and why we don't ban that then, but it is clearly frowned upon in society and not enough people stink all over the place (relatively to the number of smokers) for this to be an issue), but if enough did I am pretty sure laws would be enforced (and I wouldn't be surprised if laws actually already exist about it, but I didn't look anything up, so I don't know).


Smokers rights are not being violated because they can smoke outside anytime they want. If smoking was not something that obviously bothered people around them then it would be fine to do anywhere, but that's not the case.


-blazed

 

[Kalypso]

Restaurants and bars are not private in the same manner that one's home is. He may own the land, but it is still a public place for the these purposes.

So smoking should be banned from anywhere a non-smoker is allowed to freely enter? Am I understanding you?

That's insane, I don't see how that's not infringing on a smokers right to smoke.

The owner of a bar is not allowed to make just ANY kind of rule that he wants. He is not allowed to make a rule that infringes on the rights of others. You can't segregate white people from black, you can't make a rule that says "people with large noses must sit in the corner". Likewise, the owner of an establishment cannot make a rule that says that "if you want to not be poisoned, you have to sit in the corner." Separate is inherently unequal.

If you wish to do something that is harmful to everyone around you, go ahead and do it in a non-public place! Do it in your home, your back yard, or indeed anywhere outside (as the Arizona law has it)

Hooters only hires attractive women to be waiters. MANY clubs bouncers only allow certain people into the club, see 'Knocked Up' for a good example of this, 'He said I'm only allowed to let in 5% black people.' I'll never get a job at some places around here because they are almost entirely black, and they wouldn't hire me because I'm white. In the real world, segregation happens all the frickin time, lol.

EDIT: I can't believe we're arguing the validity of the dangers of second hand smoke. The studies and evidence are endless. I for one am a victim as I said previously.

So present some of it? The evidence that 'global warming is happening, it's our fault and we need to do something about it' is endless as well, but in my eyes and the eyes of many scientists that statement is completely wrong, and much of the 'evidence' those claims are based on are completely faulty. Saying the evidence is 'endless' is just a way to try and make me look stupid while not presenting any evidence ar all. How are you a victim of second hand smoke, exactly?

 

[Digital Watches]

Your argument is that 'Second-hand smoke kills, so it shouldn't be allowed anywhere except (Presumably) bars and other places whose purpose is to allow smoking." You can't have this stance that second-hand smoke kills without providing backup to support that statement, which to me is ridiculous. Again, if it takes 10-20 years for a multiple pack a day smoker to develop any real problems, and some never do, how can second hand smoke possibly cause problems to people who only experience it casually?

Again, you're putting flawed logic and conventional wisdom in place of actual case studies.

http://www.inchem.org/documents/iarc/vol83/02-involuntary.html

This is the most recent one I've seen, but if I were to do some digging, I could find more. This is an example of a study that seems rather impartial, and does not include the hysterics of some anti-smoking groups. It even notes that certain risks believed to be true may be negligible, and does note that the increased risk for lung cancer exists for any exposure, and increases with more exposure. If you're inclined to believe Wikipedia, their article (heavily referenced, so plenty of sources) seems to suggest the same.

If anything, a restaurant with a smoking section could ventilate it, making the smoke leave the building before it got to you.

That's actually a decent idea. It's a start, at least.

Straw man argument.

Misused that term entirely. A strawman argument is an argument given by one side that is supposed to represent the point of view of the other, but done so in such a way that it seems a lot more ridiculous than what the opposition actually advocates.

You assume that by allowing smoking in all places, there will be smoking in all places.

It will make it appear in MORE places, including places where non-smokers are employed, in places not generally assumed to be smoking environments. This forces them to choose between being exposed on a regular basis or resigning from jobs that they may need or have plenty of incentive not to give up. And again, to allow smoking somewhere, I think it should be necessary to ban those not above the legal age to smoke.

This simply isn't true because employers will ban it from their stores to get more business. Most employers would, after all a smoker will still shop in their store when they can't smoke, but it would make the place smell better and allow non-smoking customers that want to come in to do it as well.

Which is a great argument for why smokers are not being discriminated against by banning smoking in public places.

 

[Kalypso]

Which is a great argument for why smokers are not being discriminated against by banning smoking in public places.

How, exactly? It's an argument to allow smoking, but leave it up to the employer. I'm not saying that smoking should never be banned, I'm saying the government shouldn't be the one to do it, and it shouldn't be done globally.

See blazedaces post, a 40-year study with hundreds of thousands of subjects that supports my view exactly. It's not like I base my views on nothing, I just didn't have the links handy, I've seen that supported quite a few times before.

 

[blazedaces]

http://www.inchem.org/documents/iarc/vol83/02-involuntary.html

This is the most recent one I've seen, but if I were to do some digging, I could find more. This is an example of a study that seems rather impartial, and does not include the hysterics of some anti-smoking groups. It even notes that certain risks believed to be true may be negligible, and does note that the increased risk for lung cancer exists for any exposure, and increases with more exposure. If you're inclined to believe Wikipedia, their article (heavily referenced, so plenty of sources) seems to suggest the same.

This isn't a study, it's something like you which claims that so many studies exist.

-blazed

 

[AltF4]

That's insane, I don't see how that's not infringing on a smokers right to smoke.

Smokers don't have a right to smoke! You don't have the right to do something that harms everyone around you! You do have the right to do it in a private place, where nobody is affected.

And yes, I am saying smoking should be (and in Arizona is) banned in any public indoor place. Public means not who owns the property, but rather what rights are available in those locations.

You have a right to not be poisoned by random other people in a public place. This is the right that is being protected by these laws.

And I mentioned earlier that my father used to smoke a lot when I was little. I used to come down with terrible strep throat on a nearly bi-monthly basis until he stopped. I still get it if I'm exposed to smokers for too long a time today. The probabilities of my situation happening with other people are irrelevant. Even if people like me are in the minority (which judging by the voters, they are not) it is the role of the law to protect the rights of the minority.

 

[blazedaces]

That's insane, I don't see how that's not infringing on a smokers right to smoke.

We don't have the right to say anything we want on private property do we? You can't just yell FIRE in a theater... but you'll be saying "but this is a clear infringement on the person's right to yell FIRE"...

You don't have a right to violate other people's rights (like the right to not die from a fire or the right to not have smoke in your face when you didn't ask for it).

 

[Kalypso]

Smokers don't have a right to smoke! You don't have the right to do something that harms everyone around you! You do have the right to do it in a private place, where nobody is affected.

And yes, I am saying smoking should be (and in Arizona is) banned in any public indoor place. Public means not who owns the property, but rather what rights are available in those locations.

You have a right to not be poisoned by random other people in a public place. This is the right that is being protected by these laws.

And I mentioned earlier that my father used to smoke a lot when I was little. I used to come down with terrible strep throat on a nearly bi-monthly basis until he stopped. I still get it if I'm exposed to smokers for too long a time today. The probabilities of my situation happening with other people are irrelevant. Even if people like me are in the minority (which judging by the voters, they are not) it is the role of the law to protect the rights of the minority.

Your case suggests banning it in private places around kids, not in public places. Your problem would not/could not exist simply by casual exposure in public, you had to have a restricted area (Your house) with your dad smoking a lot through your childhood.

Again, you assert that you need 'protection' from the evil second hand smoke monster, you really think it's so bad that anyone smoking anywhere is going to give you problems? I simply find that insane, although I can't speak about your personal life being that I don't know you, all I can say is that it seems a grossly exaggerated claim and that it isn't justification to ban smoking everywhere.

There are plenty of places in relative public people can smoke that can't damage you at all, you're saying that they should all be outlawed, which is ridiculous, and it IS an infringement on liberties.

 

[AltF4]

This is a really good debate. We're all on at the same time for once, eh? lol

Even if second hand smoke doesn't cause any long term serious health effects, it still shouldn't be allowed in public. You can't go around in a public place shining flashlights in people's faces can you? It's annoying, distracting, etc... You can't just go any bother random people in public, and that's exactly what smoking is.

EDIT: Btw, I'm gonna go eat. Be back in a while. Good debating with you guys.

 

[Kalypso]

Simple line of logic people.

Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness.

Obviously, smoking makes smokers happy, which is why they do it. So they should be allowed to whenever it doesn't hinder other peoples happiness.

It doesn't hinder anyones health when done outside, and in most places it will disperse so quickly it's like it never happened. It doesn't hinder your health when done in a smoking-designated area, because you don't have to enter it. For every smoking area there is, there will be a non-smoking area providing IDENTICAL services, that's just capitalism. If I see a city with 100% smoking bars and I start a non-smoking bar, I'll get tons of service from non-smokers who want a bar.

So then, if they can smoke in these places that don't harm anyone that doesn't want to smoke, you ARE infringing on their liberties by banning it. To assert that you need to be able to enter ANY public place and be 100% smoke free is, again, ridiculous, you don't need to be able to enter anywhere you want and enforce your standards on people.

Even if second hand smoke doesn't cause any long term serious health effects, it still shouldn't be allowed in public. You can't go around in a public place shining flashlights in people's faces can you? It's annoying, distracting, etc... You can't just go any bother random people in public, and that's exactly what smoking is.

HORRIBLE logic.

'Profanity is annoying, it should be banned from all public places'
'Fat people are annoying, they should be banned from all public places'
'Body odor is annoying...'

etc.

You don't get to go around and ban everything you don't like from everywhere, that's the entire ****ing point of the word 'liberty.' Learn 2 Tolerance.

 

[Digital Watches]

Again, you assert that you need 'protection' from the evil second hand smoke monster, you really think it's so bad that anyone smoking anywhere is going to give you problems? I simply find that insane, although I can't speak about your personal life being that I don't know you, all I can say is that it seems a grossly exaggerated claim and that it isn't justification to ban smoking everywhere.

Any risk is enough to justify a ban on smoking in most public places. Therefore, your tactic of downplaying the risk with pseudo-logic is irrelevant and erroneous.

There are plenty of places in relative public people can smoke that can't damage you at all, you're saying that they should all be outlawed, which is ridiculous, and it IS an infringement on liberties.

My source may not have been perfect, but you have no source at all. Prove that there is exactly 0 risk involved in exposure to secondhand smoke on a semi-frequent basis.

 

[Kalypso]

My source may not have been perfect, but you have no source at all. Prove that there is exactly 0 risk involved in exposure to secondhand smoke on a semi-frequent basis.

Stupid statement. Everything in life has a risk associated with it, EVERYTHING. Of course I can't prove that second hand smoke is 100% safe, because nothing is safe. Most food is 'bad' for your health. The air in many places, like LA is bad for you. Being in a car? ****ing bad for you, such enormous risk of being hurt.

Again, to go around and ban anything that might possibly post a risk to someone simply doesn't fly, you end up banning everything. Can't carry around anything sharp, might trip on someone, can't drive a car, might hurt someone. Can't drink, might get drunk and hurt someone.

These statements simply DO NOT hold up because of how incredibly slippery the slope they lead to is. Evidence? I provided perfectly reasonable logic which is supported by blazedaces enormous study. Your 'evidence' is non-existent, and your argument infringes on other peoples liberties. I've shown this. To assert that smoking should be banned because possibly it could hurt someone somehow is equally ridiculous, and I've shown why. You people show absolutely no tolerance at all for something that bothers you. That lack of tolerance leads to a slippery slope where the government bans everything. Bad logic. Bad argument.

 

[Digital Watches]

Simple line of logic people.

Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness.

Remember how someone was saying that the Declaration of Independence is propoganda, not a legally binding document? It's actually quite true. For obvious reasons, the "pursuit of happiness" is too subjective to be made into an inalienable right... which is why it isn't.

Obviously, smoking makes smokers happy, which is why they do it. So they should be allowed to whenever it doesn't hinder other peoples happiness.

So... annoyance and lung cancer AREN'T hinderances to happiness?

It doesn't hinder anyones health when done outside, and in most places it will disperse so quickly it's like it never happened.

I don't see anyone still arguing about outdoor smoking but you.

It doesn't hinder your health when done in a smoking-designated area, because you don't have to enter it.

True.

For every smoking area there is, there will be a non-smoking area providing IDENTICAL services, that's just capitalism. If I see a city with 100% smoking bars and I start a non-smoking bar, I'll get tons of service from non-smokers who want a bar.

And making two separate sections of your business, airtight from each other or heavily ventilated, is EXTREMELY cost effective, I take it?

So then, if they can smoke in these places that don't harm anyone that doesn't want to smoke, you ARE infringing on their liberties by banning it. To assert that you need to be able to enter ANY public place and be 100% smoke free is, again, ridiculous, you don't need to be able to enter anywhere you want and enforce your standards on people.

Emotional appeal again. What's with people and throwing around the word "rights" or "liberties" and assuming that it means something in the case they speak of? No one's rights are being infringed upon, as smokers are NOT BANNED FROM GOING TO NON-SMOKING PLACES. Smoking poses a clear, demonstrated, and inherent danger, and therefore should be allowed as the exception, rather than the rule.

 

[Kalypso]

So... annoyance and lung cancer AREN'T hinderances to happiness?

Casual second hand smoke DOES NOT pose a lung cancer risk. IT DOES NOT. Re-read blazedaces post every time you start spouting this bs, you have to be exposed to so much smoke to get lung cancer that it's like you smoke yourself. This is NOT COMPARABLE to walking by someone who is smoking. The logic is bad, please stop using it.

And no, being annoyed is not a reason to ban anything. Myspace annoys me, 'texting' annoys the **** out of me. A great deal of peoples conversations annoy me, loud rap music annoys me. ****, a great deal of things people do annoy me, BUT I TOLERATE THEM. If I didn't tolerate them, they wouldn't tolerate me, and no one would be able to do anything. I don't know why I have to keep repeating this, do you guys have no understanding of tolerance at all? Think about a society where everything that could annoy someone is banned.

I don't see anyone still arguing about outdoor smoking but you.

'Banning smoking in public places' implies outdoors. I care much more for the ability to smoke in a smoke designated place, such as a bar, though. Which you agree with.

And making two separate sections of your business, airtight from each other or heavily ventilated, is EXTREMELY cost effective, I take it?

I didn't say that every business needs a smoking section and a nonsmoking section, ventilation is just a possibility and isn't that cost inefficient. What I suggest is that there are smoking bars and nonsmoking bars, smoking restaurants and nonsmoking restaurants, etc.

Smoking poses a clear, demonstrated, and inherent danger, and therefore should be allowed as the exception, rather than the rule.

Wrong.

 

[Digital Watches]

Stupid statement. Everything in life has a risk associated with it, EVERYTHING. Of course I can't prove that second hand smoke is 100% safe, because nothing is safe. Most food is 'bad' for your health. The air in many places, like LA is bad for you. Being in a car? ****ing bad for you, such enormous risk of being hurt.

Food standards are being constantly improved by law, and if they aren't, they should be. Unsafe driving is illegal. Pollution is and should continue to be legally dealt with.

Again, to go around and ban anything that might possibly post a risk to someone simply doesn't fly, you end up banning everything. Can't carry around anything sharp, might trip on someone, can't drive a car, might hurt someone. Can't drink, might get drunk and hurt someone.

Drunkenness in public or while operating a vehicle is illegal. Carrying bladed weapons without a liscence is illegal in many places. Attacking someone with a bladed weapon is illegal. Hitting someone with a car is illegal. All of these are preventable, and so is smoking in a public place.

These statements simply DO NOT hold up because of how incredibly slippery the slope they lead to is. Evidence? I provided perfectly reasonable logic

Like "Smokers take ten years to develop cancer, why should non-smokers EVER develop it?" Reasonable-SOUNDING logic, but relying heavily on conventional wisdom, which is a nice-sounding word for bull**** that people will believe, but isn't supported by any kind of evidence.

which is supported by blazedaces enormous study.

Blazedaces' study explicitly states that the risk exists, and that's all that matters. "Weaker than generally believed" is fine and good, but I'm not willing to take even a small risk when it's entirely avoidable and preventable.

Your 'evidence' is non-existent, and your argument infringes on other peoples liberties. I've shown this.

You have not. No one is being prevented from smoking EVER, no one is being prevented from going somewhere other people are allowed.

To assert that smoking should be banned because possibly it could hurt someone somehow is equally ridiculous, and I've shown why.

You also have failed to do that.

You people show absolutely no tolerance at all for something that bothers you.

Wrong. I show no tolerance at all for something that could kill me and is easily prevented.

That lack of tolerance leads to a slippery slope where the government bans everything. Bad logic. Bad argument.

You're sure one to speak. "We ban something that is clearly detrimental, therefore we're on the road to banning everything!" That's hideous logic.

 

[Kalypso]

Food standards are being constantly improved by law, and if they aren't, they should be. Unsafe driving is illegal. Pollution is and should continue to be legally dealt with.

Drunkenness in public or while operating a vehicle is illegal. Carrying bladed weapons without a liscence is illegal in many places. Attacking someone with a bladed weapon is illegal. Hitting someone with a car is illegal. All of these are preventable, and so is smoking in a public place.

You don't get it, the actions I spoke of are illegal, but possession of damaging things isn't. You can drive, you can carry a knife, you can do all of these things, you just can't use them in a damaging fashion, but they do have damaging potential. That's my entire point, and you completely missed it.

You also have failed to do that.

You assert that second-hand smoke kills, I say it doesn't and blazedaces study supports this, as well as simple logic that if you avoid smoke, you're not going to take in enough to permanently harm yourself, it's not that toxic. You have presented no evidence otherwise.

Your other argument is that it's 'annoying,' I've addressed why we don't ban things that annoy us.

Wrong. I show no tolerance at all for something that could kill me and is easily prevented.

It has no risk of killing you unless you stay around second hand smoke so much, for such a long period of time that it's like you, yourself are smoking.

You're sure one to speak. "We ban something that is clearly detrimental, therefore we're on the road to banning everything!" That's hideous logic.

It's not clearly detrimental, I keep demonstrating that it's NOT and you keep saying that it is. You have presented no evidence that supports the idea that casual second hand smoke kills. Either show us a study that shows that casual exposure to second hand smoke kills, or stop the false assertion, which is the basis for your entire argument.


And I repeat, if you ban everything that poses 'a risk' you end up banning everything, because everything poses a risk, you can't use that logic because it doesn't work. Cars pose a risk, knifes to eat with pose a risk, **** if you're religious profanity poses a risk, EVERYTHING poses a risk.

 

[Digital Watches]

Casual second hand smoke DOES NOT pose a lung cancer risk. IT DOES NOT. Re-read blazedaces post every time you start spouting this bs, you have to be exposed to so much smoke to get lung cancer that it's like you smoke yourself. This is NOT COMPARABLE to walking by someone who is smoking. The logic is bad, please stop using it.

Blazedaces' study, again, says that the risk is weaker than previously believed, not nonexistant. Besides, under current regulations, people are going to walk by smokers all the time. I'm talking about prolonged, constant exposure caused by allowing smoking in most public places.

'Banning smoking in public places' implies outdoors. I care much more for the ability to smoke in a smoke designated place, such as a bar, though. Which you agree with.

"Public places" also implies any indoor place open to the general public, which is all I'm arguing.

I didn't say that every business needs a smoking section and a nonsmoking section, ventilation is just a possibility and isn't that cost inefficient. What I suggest is that there are smoking bars and nonsmoking bars, smoking restaurants and nonsmoking restaurants, etc.

Right, which, again, I'm not arguing against.

Wrong.

As soon as you show me a study that shows that the risk is not "less than generally believed" or "small, but present," but literally nonexistant, this will hold water.

 

[Digital Watches]

You don't get it, the actions I spoke of are illegal, but possession of damaging things isn't. You can drive, you can carry a knife, you can do all of these things, you just can't use them in a damaging fashion, but they do have damaging potential. That's my entire point, and you completely missed it.

No one is arguing for disallowing people from owning cigarettes, or carrying them in a public place, so long as the person is above the legal age minimum for buying them.

I've got to head out now, I'll be back in a few hours to continue this.

 

[Digital Watches]

It's not clearly detrimental, I keep demonstrating that it's NOT and you keep saying that it is. You have presented no evidence that supports the idea that casual second hand smoke kills. Either show us a study that shows that casual exposure to second hand smoke kills, or stop the false assertion, which is the basis for your entire argument.

The study you cite admits any risk, which is all that is necessary.

And I repeat, if you ban everything that poses 'a risk' you end up banning everything, because everything poses a risk, you can't use that logic because it doesn't work. Cars pose a risk, knifes to eat with pose a risk, **** if you're religious profanity poses a risk, EVERYTHING poses a risk.

Smoking has no utility and is fully preventable and unnecessary to have in public places. The other things you mention have uses which, if they are used for their intended purposes, cannot be prevented. In the case of profanity, I think we can both agree that there's no actual risk, only a percieved one.

 

[Kalypso]

Blazedaces' study, again, says that the risk is weaker than previously believed, not nonexistant. Besides, under current regulations, people are going to walk by smokers all the time. I'm talking about prolonged, constant exposure caused by allowing smoking in most public places.

We've been over this, you can easily go to nonsmoking establishments for anything you need and NEVER be exposed to smoke, that doesn't fly.

"Public places" also implies any indoor place open to the general public, which is all I'm arguing.

See above

Right, which, again, I'm not arguing against.

YES, YOU ARE

"Public places" also implies any indoor place open to the general public, which is all I'm arguing.

picard.jpg

As soon as you show me a study that shows that the risk is not "less than generally believed" or "small, but present," but literally nonexistent, this will hold water.

This is the last time I'm saying this. Everything has a risk attached to it. Everything. There is a barrier between a risk that is so low it pretty much won't hurt you, and a pertinent risk. Second hand smoking is not pertinent, you have to be exposed to so much of it to get any problems that it's like you're smoking yourself, WHY DO I HAVE TO KEEP REPEATING THIS.

The study you cite admits any risk, which is all that is necessary.

WRONG

Smoking has no utility and is fully preventable and unnecessary to have in public places.

If it had no utility no one would do it. No utility to YOU maybe, but plenty for someone else.

 

[Digital Watches]

We've been over this, you can easily go to nonsmoking establishments for anything you need and NEVER be exposed to smoke, that doesn't fly.

See above

YES, YOU ARE

picard.jpg

To make myself perfectly clear: I am arguing against blanket allowance of smoking in indoor, public places that are not generally considered to be a risk area for second-hand smoke (Bars, etc.) Exceptions to this, IE smoking-allowed establishments, are perfectly fine, so long as they are clearly labeled and do not permit those under the legal age for cigarettes inside.

This is the last time I'm saying this. Everything has a risk attached to it. Everything. There is a barrier between a risk that is so low it pretty much won't hurt you, and a pertinent risk. Second hand smoking is not pertinent, you have to be exposed to so much of it to get any problems that it's like you're smoking yourself, WHY DO I HAVE TO KEEP REPEATING THIS.

Because you can't come up with a better argument. No utility + Easily preventable (by not allowing it in the public places mentioned) + ANY FATAL RISK WHATSOEVER = reason enough to legislate.

 

[Digital Watches]

If it had no utility no one would do it. No utility to YOU maybe, but plenty for someone else.

Enjoyment is not utility, so that's complete bull. To argue that people don't do useless things is ridiculous.

And now I really have to go.

 

[Kalypso]

Because you can't come up with a better argument. No utility + Easily preventable (by not allowing it in the public places mentioned) + ANY FATAL RISK WHATSOEVER = reason enough to legislate.

I'm done talking to you. You completely ignore what I say and lambaste all my points and arguments as 'not good enough,' when they clearly are. Liberty is a perfectly sound argument. Reasonable debate ends when one side completely dismisses the other for no reason, which you are doing. Ignoring me, repeating your same bs that I've been addressing for 3 pages now.

Liberty is the only argument you need. And enjoyment isn't a utility? Enjoyment isn't a reason to allow someone to do something? What the **** are you talking about?

It does have utility.
It does not have any reasonable fatal risk.
You can close your ears and repeat mantra but that doesn't change anything.

I say that smoking should be allowed in smoking designated establishments and outdoors. 'Smoking designated' is based on the employers and property owners wishes, not the governments. I consider smoking a matter of liberty, that everyone has the right to do it so long as it doesn't unreasonably impose on someone else, which smoking outdoors or in a smoking establishment don't do. To try and enforce smoking regulations beyond this point seems unconstitutional to me,

The argument that it possesses 'risk' is ridiculous, because everything possesses risk. Smoking does not possess an unreasonable risk to those around the smoker, especially not those who avoid smoke and barely take it in casually. It's not a risk, it's an annoyance, and you don't go around banning everything that annoys you.

 

[snex]

regardless of what effects second-hand smoke has, and regardless of peoples' rights to not be "poisoned" by it, you are all missing a key point.

if *i* own a place of business, then *i* make the rules. not the government. it is not the government's job to tell *me* that i cannot have smokers in my own place of business. this is just government infringement on the rights of business-owners, plain and simple.

plenty of businesses already banned smoking on their own well before any legal bans were in place. fast food restaurants, grocery stores, etc would all eject you for smoking. the reason? because thats profitable for them! they can draw a better share of the market by disallowing smokers. bars, bowling alleys, fancy restaurants, and other places like that draw a bigger share of the market by allowing smoking, and therefore they do. government legislation is completely unnecessary. businesses will naturally ban whatever they like based on profits.

you do NOT have the right to walk into a business and demand that the businessowner cater to your own personal needs and wants. neither should the government.

 

[Kalypso]

regardless of what effects second-hand smoke has, and regardless of peoples' rights to not be "poisoned" by it, you are all missing a key point.

if *i* own a place of business, then *i* make the rules. not the government. it is not the government's job to tell *me* that i cannot have smokers in my own place of business. this is just government infringement on the rights of business-owners, plain and simple.

plenty of businesses already banned smoking on their own well before any legal bans were in place. fast food restaurants, grocery stores, etc would all eject you for smoking. the reason? because thats profitable for them! they can draw a better share of the market by disallowing smokers. bars, bowling alleys, fancy restaurants, and other places like that draw a bigger share of the market by allowing smoking, and therefore they do. government legislation is completely unnecessary. businesses will naturally ban whatever they like based on profits.

you do NOT have the right to walk into a business and demand that the businessowner cater to your own personal needs and wants. neither should the government.

Thank you, exactly. It's a good capitalistic idea for most businesses to ban smoking on their own, and as long as it's the employers decision it's completely just, the problem is when the government bans it and the employer wants it allowed. I've been saying this all along, the problem isn't a smoking ban, it's the government doing it over the employer.

 

[Digital Watches]

Alright, while I'm waiting around for my ride...

I'm done talking to you. You completely ignore what I say and lambaste all my points and arguments as 'not good enough,' when they clearly are. Liberty is a perfectly sound argument. Reasonable debate ends when one side completely dismisses the other for no reason, which you are doing. Ignoring me, repeating your same bs that I've been addressing for 3 pages now.

I hate to break it to you, but that doesn't make any sense. The fact that you've been saying things for three pages doesn't mean you've reasonably refuted anything I've said, and I'm not dismissing what you're saying for no reason at all.

Liberty is the only argument you need.

No liberty is being infringed upon. You've not yet made any statement that demonstrates that it is. Throwing the word "liberty" around does not constitute it being an actual issue! Explain exactly what rights are being infringed upon that outweigh even the tiniest possible smithereen of a risk of lung cancer.

And enjoyment isn't a utility?

No, it isn't.

Enjoyment isn't a reason to allow someone to do something?

It isn't, when faced with reasons why they shouldn't be allowed to.

It does have utility.

What is it used for?

It does not have any reasonable fatal risk.

Any fatal risk is reasonable fatal risk when the thing is unnecessary in every way and easily preventable.

You can close your ears and repeat mantra but that doesn't change anything.

You can continue to claim that my statements are meaningless mantras, but you are only doing what you seemed to be so emphatically accusing me of earlier in your post: Dismissing what I'm saying as nonsense for no real reason.

 

[Digital Watches]

regardless of what effects second-hand smoke has, and regardless of peoples' rights to not be "poisoned" by it, you are all missing a key point.

if *i* own a place of business, then *i* make the rules. not the government. it is not the government's job to tell *me* that i cannot have smokers in my own place of business. this is just government infringement on the rights of business-owners, plain and simple.

plenty of businesses already banned smoking on their own well before any legal bans were in place. fast food restaurants, grocery stores, etc would all eject you for smoking. the reason? because thats profitable for them! they can draw a better share of the market by disallowing smokers. bars, bowling alleys, fancy restaurants, and other places like that draw a bigger share of the market by allowing smoking, and therefore they do. government legislation is completely unnecessary. businesses will naturally ban whatever they like based on profits.

you do NOT have the right to walk into a business and demand that the businessowner cater to your own personal needs and wants. neither should the government.

All true and all reasonable, although any establishment that does not ban smoking should still be labelled as such, and should not permit those not otherwise allowed to smoke.

 

[AltF4]

Wow! I'm gone for a half hour, and we get this many posts. This is a crazy thread already!

There's been so many arguments and counter arguments that I think we're deviating from where we originally were. After a lunch break to think about things, I'll sum up my argument:

This whole thing is a matter of rights.

-Second hand smoke is potentially dangerous to those people in the area nearby the smoker. This is evidenced by mountains of sources, including the one Blazed posted. That study just says that it isn't quite as bad as others make it out to be.

-You have the right to visit public places with the expectation of it being a safe environment. Even if the risk is small, and only a minority of people will ever see the effects, it is the purpose of law to protect the rights of that minority. There are seas of laws and regulations that businesses must adhere to in order to ensure the health of their patrons. Anti-smoking laws are just another one of these regulations.

-You do have the right to smoke ONLY when it does not infringe upon other people's rights, such as the one above.

Thus, you may not smoke in public indoor places. In these places, it is unreasonable of you to inflict harm at random to those around you. It is NOT an acceptable solution to segregate smokers from non-smokers. Separate but equal is inherently unequal.

On a side not, don't use slippery slope arguments. It's like on the first page of the "flawed arguments" list that you see for any debate group.

SNEX: I already addressed this issue, but it was a while back. The owner of a business does not have the right to do whatever he pleases in his building. You can't for example segregate whites from blacks. There are MOUNTAINS of regulations that the government places on business owners about what they can and cannot do. Especially for restaurants, you have to comply very tightly with very specific codes in order to ensure the health of your patrons.

It would be illegal to have a section for example where "all the cooks didn't wash their hands". Even if you had big signs and warnings up. Even if everyone going in knew the risks. Even if you had a "clean" section. You're still not allowed to do it. Smoking falls in the same category. It is harmful to those around you, and no amount of warning is sufficient.

Yes, there are dangers associated to anything, but ones that are easily preventable are taken care of. You don't have the right to run around with a knife in public. At home? Sure, knock yourself out. But when it's a public place, the standards are different.

On a different note: The city of Tempe LOVES the smoking ban. Businesses, especially bars, are seeing a large influx of new patrons. Smokers are in the minority, and as it turns out now people who didn't use to go to bars now can and are. Those who want to smoke can simply, now get this: Step outside! Just go out onto the sidewalk where you're not hurting anyone.