Anti-Smoking Laws. Good or Bad?

[Digital Watches]

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.

Ah, really? Then there's nothing really to argue about here.

Unless of course you're against such regulations as labelling the establishment as such, which I doubt.

 

[Kalypso]

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.

I've refuted everything you've said, multiple times.

You say 'Second hand smoke kills.' I show you logical reasons why it absolutely does not, and then present a study that shows that it doesn't provide a reasonable risk.

You ignore this, and continue to say it kills, when it doesn't. Aside from the fact that it does not kill, by the terms of my argument you still NEVER have to be around it. Some businesses will allow it, some won't, use the ones that don't. You never have to breathe in smoke, except when passing by someone outside who is smoking, and in that case you barely even smell it due to how fast it disperses. And you agree with me, that there should be smoking-allowed establishments.

Then you say that it has a risk, and therefore should be banned. I've already been over 100 times that EVERYTHING has a risk, it's a matter of whether or not it's a reasonable risk, in the case of second hand smoke NO, there is no reasonable risk to fatality. See said study, and logic. If you avoid smoke, there's simply no way you can take in enough to be damaged by it. That small risk inherent in smoke is inherent in anything else as well, you don't ban cars because they can get into accidents, you don't ban sharp objects because they may hurt people. Small risk is no reason to globally ban smoking in public places.

Then, you say that smoking is annoying. OK, I agree, it is, but that's no reason to ban it, you tolerate it. Just like I tolerate morons, people who blast loud rap music and people who sit in public and have a long text conversation on my phone. I overcome the desire to yell at them to just ****ing call the person, and go on with my day. Something annoying you is no reason to ban anything.

You say that it has no utility, but if people like it IT OBVIOUSLY HAS UTILITY. This isn't even an argument, you're just wrong, saying smoking is pointless and provides nothing is just ignorant. It obviously does, or millions of people wouldn't pay tons of money to do it...

You don't have any arguments past those, which I have repeatedly refuted. You don't even respond to most of it. I am simply saying that second hand smoke does not pose a risk to you, at all unless you choose to be around it. Smokers have the right to smoke, and employers have the right to allow or disallow smoking in their establishments. Most places will ban it, some will allow it, and if you don't like smoking then don't go into the few places that allow it. For the most part, what you say agrees with what I say, except you keep insisting, with no proof that second hand smoke just kills you. It doesn't. That doesn't even make sense, as I've demonstrated, and am not going to continue to argue, because you clearly aren't listening. The only way to get the problems of smoking is either to smoke, or to be around second hand smoking so much that you develop the problems a smoker would, and you choose whether or not to be in that situation. The only exception is a parent smoking around a kid, which is another issue entirely.

 

[Kalypso]

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.

That doesn't mean anything. If people wanted the bans, the businesses would have largely banned it before, and OBVIOUSLY you are only speaking from a non-smokers point of view, which is pretty short-sighted. 'The city of Tempe' really means 'The non-smoking members of the city of Tempe.' Obviously those who used to smoke and now can't don't like the change...

If the city was largely nonsmoking the businesses could have banned it on their own.

Nothing you say combats my argument that a business should be allowed to allow smoking. All you say is that 'it poses a risk, so it should be banned.' That's ridiculous, what's wrong with a bar allowing smoking, and another bar disallowing it? You can use either, but probably choose the one that disallows it, and smokers can use the one that allows it. You're not taking a smokers liberties into mind at all, you just seek to stop smoking in its entirety instead of making reasonable compromise. There's no reason not to allow a business to provide smoking when it's advertised.

 

[AltF4]

You didn't address my argument at all. I even laid it out with bulletins and everything in hopes you'd try to say something about it. But I guess you don't have any reasonable response.

You're making the assumption that smokers have the right to smoke. That is simply untrue. You're seeing this as if everyone has some sort of right to just go off and smoke wherever they please.

And that paragraph about the city of Tempe was concerning the argument along the lines of "a smoking ban will hurt the business of bars and restaurants". It has nothing to do whether it SHOULD be allowed or not. Don't think it was supposed to, hence me saying "on a different note" before it.

By the way:

American Lung Association

The EPA

The National Cancer Institute

Center for Disease Control and Prevention

The Surgeon General

Seriously... I got these in 10 minutes. Give me a day and I'll fill an entire page with sources about the dangerous effects of second hand smoke.

 

[Kalypso]

You're making the assumption that smokers have the right to smoke. That is simply untrue. You're seeing this as if everyone has some sort of right to just go off and smoke wherever they please.

No, I assume that businesses have a right to allow smoking. It's the right of the business more than the right of people, but yes, being that smoking is legal people DO have a right to do it. If I didn't respond to something in your post it either means that I've addressed it 100 times or I agree with it.

The first source is very non-specific. I want something that adresses casual exposure to second-hand smoke, not the fact that second-hand smoke has the potential to cause the same problems as smoking. No ****, if you sit in a room with smokers for your whole life you'll develop the same problems.

Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. Secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year, and causes 430 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths in the United States annually.9

This is the only part of the first link I largely agree with, which is why you prohibit people under 18 from entering a smoking-allowed establishment, as me and DigitalWatches have asserted.

EPA has concluded that exposure to secondhand smoke can cause lung cancer in adults who do not smoke. EPA estimates that exposure to secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths per year in nonsmokers.

'Can.' Again, no ****ing **** it CAN cause lung cancer, if you have longterm exposure. 3000 is an obscenely small number for a year, and it's just an estimate. I'll bet those 3000 were in very smoky environments for long periods of time, living with a smoker or working in a smoke-filled environment by choice, and therefore essentially choosing to smoke without lighting up. This doesn't effect someone who avoids smoking, especially not the casual exposure of running into someone in the street smoking. The assertion that that is going to kill you because second hand smoke possesses the same possibilities as smoking with longterm exposure is ridiculous.

 

[AltF4]

You can exercise a right only if it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Really, it's right in the argument that I laid out a couple of posts back. I haven't even seen you mention it. Just pick out one of my bulletins and try to refute them. Because unless you do, it's a sound argument.

You have the right because it's legal? The legality of smoking is exactly what we're debating. You can't use it as an argument. Furthermore, in many places (Like the entire state of Arizona as I've been referencing) smoking in indoor public places IS illegal, so that logic works against you anyway in many cases.

 

[Kalypso]

You can exercise a right only if it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Really, it's right in the argument that I laid out a couple of posts back. I haven't even seen you mention it. Just pick out one of my bulletins and try to refute them. Because unless you do, it's a sound argument.

Smoking in a smoking-established place is not hurting anyone that doesn't smoke. Smoking in a smoking-established place is not hurting anyone that doesn't smoke. Smoking in a smoking-established place is not hurting anyone that doesn't smoke.

You choose to be there, or not to be there. If you don't like smoke, don't go into a smoking-established area, like a smoking allowed bar. There will always be other areas offering identical services who disallow smoking, for capitalistic reasons.

I don't need to quote a bulletin, your entire point is hinged on the idea that 'A non-smoker should be able to enter any public place with no risk of smoke, ever.' That's... completely short-sighted. If you allow a business to choose whether or not to allow smoking, everything works itself out. There are smoking allowed areas for smokers, and many, many more smoking disallowed areas for nonsmokers. Nonsmokers can still go into a smoking area if they want, but they choose to be exposed to smoke. Smokers are allowed areas to exercise their freedoms and not impose on nonsmokers. What exactly is wrong with that? Why do you advocate global bans over compromise? I don't get it. You keep saying 'It's bad, ban it everywhere,' but you completely fail to recognize reasonable compromises that could be made.

 

[AltF4]

There is no compromising when it comes to rights. You're advocating segregation. You can't just separate two groups of people and say that it's equal and fair, because it's not.

 

[Kalypso]

There is no compromising when it comes to rights. You're advocating segregation. You can't just separate two groups of people and say that it's equal and fair, because it's not.

Don't use the word 'segregation,' it has an extreme negative connotation instead of the use of a word that separates two groups of people. And no, 'segregation' is not illegal, nor wrong, segregation based on race etc. is. If you think segregation is illegal, you're fooling yourself. There are countless exclusive establishments that only allow certain people in, or only allow certain people to work.

Hooters
Strip Club
Exclusive Restaurant
Night Club
etc.

And yes, you CAN segregate people like that, and it is perfectly fair. I like how your definition of 'rights' involves yours being imposed on other people, which is completely contradictory to the nature of rights. Smokers have a right to smoke, to say they don't is to either say that A) it negatively impacts you or B) you know what's better for them more than they do. B is 100% ignorance, A doesn't effect a smoking establishment that you know is smoking and don't have to enter.

This isn't an 'all or nothing' issue. If it were, you'd be moving to make smoking illegal...

 

[AltF4]

I don't understand how you you can seriously say that you have the right to smoke wherever you please. I mean, it's just such a blatantly false statement. There is no law that gives you this right. The only thing that allows someone to smoke is the basic premise that you're allowed to do anything as long as it doesn't infringe upon other people's rights. (Or is otherwise prohibited)

If there were some sort of law that stated that citizens had the right to smoke, then maybe you'd have an argument. But this is not the case. Anything that isn't explicitly stated as a right isn't one. I'll repeat: You do not have a "right to smoke" . You DO have a right to do what you please as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's rights.

But wait! Smoking in a public indoor place DOES infringe on other people's rights! What right? The right of expectation of safety in a public place. This right is protected in so many other countless ways, anti-smoking laws are just another. It's nothing new, nothing unreasonable. What's unreasonable is how a smoker would rather sit inside and harm everyone in the building, rather than just step outside and smoke safely.

 

[snex]

altf4 you have it completely backwards. anything that isnt explicitly BANNED is a right. cigarettes are legal, therefore there is no justification to force private businesses to make a choice on whether or not its patrons can smoke.

having people drinking alcohol around you is just as dangerous, if not moreso, than cigarette smoke, so that is simply not an argument.

 

[AltF4]

"cigarettes are legal, therefore there is no justification to force private businesses to make a choice on whether or not its patrons can smoke."

Bah! I've already addressed this. We are debating the legality of smoking! You can't use it as an argument.

Drinking has dangers as well, and guess what? There are laws to govern their use as well! Thanks for bringing up a good point for me. Alcohol consumption directly only affects the person who is drinking, but indirectly can harm others. Using alcohol in such a way that would be detrimental to the health of others (ie drinking and driving) is illegal. Same goes for smoking, only rather than an indirect harm to others, there is a direct one.

Snex, I really don't know how many time's I've posted this, so read up. Things that are not explicitly given to you as a right in a law are allowed as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. Giving those around you cancer is certainly infringing on their rights to enjoy a safe environment in a public place.

 

[snex]

you can address it as many times as you like. it doesnt make you correct. every single court in the nation agrees that any right not addressed by any law is automatically open. laws restrict rights, not grant them.

and, there is no such thing as a sweeping ban on alcohol sales in public places!

 

[AltF4]

Perhaps I haven't been explaining myself well enough then...

Yes, you are correct in saying that the right you have to smoke exists because it is not explicitly prohibited in general. (IE: Cigarettes and their use in general are not illegal) You may choose to exercise this right, so long as it does not infringe on any other people's rights. Etc, etc... *insert rest of my argument here*

And I never said there were bans on selling alcohol. Neither am I suggesting one for cigarettes. I am saying that like alcohol, there ought to be regulations that prohibit the use of the substance in ways that harm others.

 

[snex]

you do not have an inherent right to go to any public (but privately owned) building. if i own a bar, i can eject anybody i want for any reason - whether its because he smokes, swears, is a member of a race i dont like, or even whether he *refuses* to smoke - or for no reason at all.

because of this, it should be the owner's discretion on what legal activities he wishes to allow or disallow in his own building.

 

[AltF4]

Look, you've already given this argument:


"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."


And I've already responded:


"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."

So unless you've got something new, or would like to try and give counter arguments, I'm gonna head out. This has been fun. Good times, everyone.

 

[Kalypso]

Altf4 the problem is that you keep repeating something that's plain wrong. A business owner CAN eject someone because they're a race they don't like. "I'm going to have to ask you to leave" pretty much blanket covers anything the business owner doesn't like. The business owner is god in his establishment.

I've already addressed this probably 4 times, and you are starting to frustrate me.

Places that only certain people for seemingly 'segregated' reasons-
Hooters
Strip Clubs

Places that only allow certain people inside, for seemingly 'segregated' reasons-
Night Club
Exclusive Restaurant
Womens Clubs/Gyms/Etc

You seem to think that as a person you have a right to be anywhere, but that's not true, the business owner decides who comes and goes unless explicitly stated otherwise, as is the rule with race. Your argument is completely wrong. Business owners DO have the powers you seem to deny.

 

[AltF4]

Dude, you're talking about the right to refuse service. Yes, congratulations, a store owner has the right to refuse service to someone. How does the right to refuse service extend to the right to provide hazardous health conditions?

And if so, why is it that a restaurant's chefs MUST wash their hands? They should be able to choose for their selves whether they should wash their hands or not right? Wrong! When it comes to public safety, the government sure as hell can and does place restrictions on what a business owner can do. You're claiming that restaurants can choose whether to obey health codes or not? Because that is the claim that I am making that in your words: "Business owners DO have the powers you seem to deny."

I never said the word segregation since you last talked about it. You're arguing against a claim I never made. Dunno what to say about that.

EDIT: Completely off topic (almost): I was looking up some info on smoking bans and I came across this site. It has an FAQ, and near the bottom of it, there's the question: "What will happen if I'm caught ***-in-hand?" Lol, the site is from the UK, hence the... terminology... used. And I know it's horribly insensitive... but lol, that is just such a funny sentence.

EDIT2: LOL, the boards censored the line! Haha

EDIT3: *snickers* ... hehe, still chuckling from that. Don't know why I found it so funny. Maybe because we've been so serious back and forth all day. I <3 you guys.

 

[Kalypso]

EDIT: Completely off topic (almost): I was looking up some info on smoking bans and I came across this site. It has an FAQ, and near the bottom of it, there's the question: "What will happen if I'm caught ***-in-hand?" Lol, the site is from the UK, hence the... terminology... used. And I know it's horribly insensitive... but lol, that is just such a funny sentence..

.

 

[blazedaces]

Snex, why are you and Kalypso claiming things without even trying to research it?

Here's a link to the Civil Rights Act of 1964: http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/civilr19.htm

The first clause of Title II states

SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation [highlight]on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin[/highlight].

(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the

premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

The first clause under title VII states

SEC. 703. (a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer--

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, [highlight]because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin[/highlight]; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, [highlight]because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin[/highlight].

Prior to this act, yes, people could refuse service to someone just because they were of a certain race/gender. Oh, I almost forgot, there's also a certain act/federal law that I did not look up, but pertains to not being allowed to refuse service to a disabled person/lower their standards to them because they are disabled...

-blazed

 

[snex]

blazedaces, you must think businessowners are stupid. all they have to do is eject the person without any stated reason. golf courses still do it all the time.

 

[blazedaces]

blazedaces, you must think businessowners are stupid. all they have to do is eject the person without any stated reason. golf courses still do it all the time.

And then we have a lawsuit on our hands...

And to add to that, I do think most business owners are stupid, but in the same sense that I think most people are stupid.

Still, what you said earlier, word for word, was wrong:

you do not have an inherent right to go to any public (but privately owned) building. if i own a bar, i can eject anybody i want for any reason - whether its because he smokes, swears, is a member of a race i dont like, or even whether he *refuses* to smoke - or for no reason at all.

because of this, it should be the owner's discretion on what legal activities he wishes to allow or disallow in his own building.

Could the owner still do something illegal and against your rights and kick you out because of many of these reasons? Yes, you are correct that he can. But he certainly doesn't have the right to do it. I'll even quote you word for word about what the law supposedly does:

laws restrict rights, not grant them.

The law in this case I would say is granting rights to people, but if you want to see it your way it's certainly restricting the "so-called" rights of the business owners to refuse service to anyone for the aforementioned reasons.

-blazed

 

[Kalypso]

Snex, why are you and Kalypso claiming things without even trying to research it?

Because it's not a matter of legality. It's illegal but people do it anyway. I never said it was legal, I said people do it.

And this is only in regards to the race issue.

Some people in Florida tried to sue Hooters because they wouldn't hire men, it got thrown out. The same would happen if a man tried to apply to a female strip club or vis versa. When you go to a club or something and they tell you you can't come in, they don't need to tell you why, they just say gtfo, it's an exclusive establishment.

It's not a matter of legality. And even though it's illegal, it's largely unenforced, and in some ways unenforceable.

 

[Blackadder]

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.

The smell is utterly awful, I agree with you FULLY there.
What I don't really agree with is that for the smell alone it should be considered
vandalism. The smell is fine compared to what it does to you lungs, and heart, and OTHER people’s lungs and heart at that too.
I can see how people seem to think it would affect the economy, but the way smoking is heading now, it seems most people apparently have common sense, and are quitting, or just never trying them. The business looks like it'll hit the ground one day anyway, so putting in laws is only really bringing in an earlier end to it.
I'm all up for laws against it, and anything to do with it.