Should smoking be legal?

[GhostAnime]

i'm pretty sure that isn't the central issue but it allows for more choices to be made and less complaints to be heard simply because you simply go to the restaurants that suit your wants and needs.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

The problem isn't that people didn't know which establishments allowed smoking, it's that they allow it in the first place.

Well then we are at a fundamental disagreement as I don't even consider that a "problem." If nobody is unwittingly putting themselves at risk by entering a place that allows smoking (although tourists would still be at risk, so I think it's an oversimplification to say 'everyone already knows'), then there is no problem. The only possible justification that I can imagine is with that inane Interstate Commerce technicality that I don't agree with in the first place.

 

[AltF4]

Hah, no! That Interstate Commerce thing is BS, you're right.

Haven't you read what I've said previously about the subject? It's a public health issue. Everyone has the right to the expectation of safety and health in public establishments. That's why there are health codes, and why inspectors regularly check out restaurants to make sure they're not endangering the health of their customers. Smoking presents a health hazard to everyone in the location, it should not be allowed for the same reason that any other health code exists.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Hah, no! That Interstate Commerce thing is BS, you're right.

Haven't you read what I've said previously about the subject? It's a public health issue. Everyone has the right to the expectation of safety and health in public establishments. That's why there are health codes, and why inspectors regularly check out restaurants to make sure they're not endangering the health of their customers. Smoking presents a health hazard to everyone in the location, it should not be allowed for the same reason that any other health code exists.

But people that WANT to be in a smoke-filled restaurant are saying "we deliberately waive that right in order to enjoy ourselves in a certain way." If you have a sign that lets everyone outside KNOW what they are getting into, then nobody's rights are being violated. Everyone who goes in there knows what they are getting into. There isn't any demand for establishments where they don't have to follow general public health guidelines, but there IS demand for establishments where smoking is allowed, so I don't think the 'public health' comparison is apt. Unless you can show that having a smoke-filled restaurant affects the health of all the passers-by, etc.

 

[Vro]

That's what I've tried to argue for. How can an establishment with blatant warnings pose a danger if you voluntarily go? You acknowledge the fact that there will be smoke in the facility, and often times you smoke yourself. In this way, the owner could choose to follow the ban or not. Owners who felt a positive experience from the smoking ban would abide by it, while those owners who felt a negative experience wouldn't. This ensures voluntary choices to both parties, while also permitting a free market.

 

[derek.haines]

But people that WANT to be in a smoke-filled restaurant are saying "we deliberately waive that right in order to enjoy ourselves in a certain way." If you have a sign that lets everyone outside KNOW what they are getting into, then nobody's rights are being violated. Everyone who goes in there knows what they are getting into. There isn't any demand for establishments where they don't have to follow general public health guidelines, but there IS demand for establishments where smoking is allowed, so I don't think the 'public health' comparison is apt. Unless you can show that having a smoke-filled restaurant affects the health of all the passers-by, etc.

I'd like to add to that for a second and just say that in order for the 'public health' comparison to be appropriate in the least bit you'd have to be able to show that there was an IMMEDIATE danger to patrons of a bar in which smoking takes place, which is information I sincerely feel that you would be unable to come by. On the flip side, there is an immediate danger to the health of everyone who eats there if there's a rampant salmonella outbreak.

Even data for the argument of 'long-term exposure' is sketchy and biased at best.

 

[Crimson King]

Stop posting signatures. I am removing them all this afternoon.

 

[RDK]

The argument about letting establishments choose between allowing smoking and banning it solves nothing; what restaurant would actually ban it in this case? They'd most likely make more money off of having two separate sections.

But the point of "choice" is moot anyway; store owners don't get to choose whether or not they want to throw salmonella into their food before serving it. It's a health hazard, just like smoking.

And Hyuga, just because you want to pleasure yourself in a certain way doesn't mean you get the right to. I may want to take a piss in public (not really; hust an example), but I'll get knocked for indecent exposure and (in some states) get registered as a sex offender.

 

[GhostAnime]

The argument about letting establishments choose between allowing smoking and banning it solves nothing; what restaurant would actually ban it in this case? They'd most likely make more money off of having two separate sections.

not in a grocery store and the like.

And Hyuga, just because you want to pleasure yourself in a certain way doesn't mean you get the right to.

i'd say he has the right to since smoking is a legal activity.

 

[AltF4]

i'd say he has the right to since smoking is a legal activity.

I wasn't going to post in this thread anymore because I've pretty much said everything I have to say and already addressed every point being made... but his one is just plain idiocy.

The legality of smoking is the very thing we're debating. Then you go off and justify smoking in public by asserting that it's legal?! Bah!

 

[RDK]

not in a grocery store and the like.

i'd say he has the right to since smoking is a legal activity.

Apparently a lot of people don't think it should be a legal activity, which is why they're passing a ban law. Duh.

 

[GhostAnime]

no, that's not what i meant alt.

he said that he doesn't have the right to 'pleasure himself' when he clearly does since smoking is a legal activity. the legal activity that has nothing to do with the restaurant itself is what i consider more important than the safety of other citizens. if they want to avoid health hazards through a legal activity that has nothing to do with restaurant safety at that moment, then they shouldn't go to that said restaurant or other public place.

personally, when it comes to 'government vs people's personal responsibilities', i usually side with the people 9/10 times.

 

[AltF4]

...right... I still fail to see how you're not just saying "You should be allowed to smoke in public because it's legal".


Clearly that is not only an invalid argument, but strictly untrue in many places. (Like the entire state of Arizona)

 

[GhostAnime]

well it's not really an argument but rather just a way of saying that i think the government goes over their boundaries if they do force establishments to ban it even if they were going to on their own.

my main point is that i prefer the easier route: which is just taking responsibility.

 

[RDK]

What about MY right to not be poisoned in a public place?

I shouldn't have to choose a restaurant that I would rather not go to just because my favorite one allows smoking. If you want to have a smoke, do it outside, in a bar, or in your own home. Just not over my plate.

 

[GhostAnime]

I shouldn't have to choose a restaurant that I would rather not go to just because my favorite one allows smoking.

well i've never been in a restaurant that didn't at least have sections (that is, if you're talking about where you HAVE to sit down and eat).

If you want to have a smoke, do it outside, in a bar, or in your own home. Just not over my plate.

you do know banning smoking in all public places includes bars, right?

also, if somebody is smoking over your plate, why are you sitting near them?

and that does bring up another point i said earlier: if you ban smoking in all public places, i doubt the average person would really want to get up just to smoke. so smoking in their own home actually endangers family members such as kids. why do that?

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

But the point of "choice" is moot anyway; store owners don't get to choose whether or not they want to throw salmonella into their food before serving it. It's a health hazard, just like smoking.

I explained not two posts ago why this argument is invalid.

And Hyuga, just because you want to pleasure yourself in a certain way doesn't mean you get the right to. I may want to take a piss in public (not really; hust an example), but I'll get knocked for indecent exposure and (in some states) get registered as a sex offender.

I don't smoke. I suppose I should have said "one." And this still doesn't address what I proposed about posting that it is a smoking establishment conspicuously. This is about people wanting to enjoy themselves (or not, since you don't HAVE to smoke to go into a smoking restaurant) in a certain way in which they all agree to waive the right of not being assaulted by smoke. Nobody's rights are being violated, so that's really the bottom line for me. I feel that any activity that does not violate another's rights should be expressly permitted.

 

[AltF4]

Rights ARE being violated. I personally cannot be in a room full of smoke like in a typical bowling alley. (For some reason bowling alleys are typical spots to be filled with smoke) This is not from a personal preference, but from a need. My dad used to smoke a lot when I was a child, and I to this day come down with bronchitis at the drop of a hat when exposed to smoke.

I am being prohibited from entering these smoking establishments because of their atmosphere, and I am not a small minority. I literally did not go bowling at all for years because there was not a single one that I could be in. The concept of "finding a non-smoking establishment" is a joke.

Think of it like this: Stores are required by law to have a certain number of handicapped parking spots and must include wheelchair ramps in addition to stairs. This is because by not doing so, you do necessarily exclude a group of people from entering a place that should be public. The owner of the store cannot choose to not include these items, they are required.

There are so many instances of owners of these establishments being required to conform to various codes in order to ensure safety and equality. They are NOT things that can be left to the free market to decide. You cannot argue that a smoking ban is categorically wrong. It clearly fits under many other well established laws.

I have the right to be in a public place, and not be poisoned! That is the right that is being violated. Certainly I shouldn't be allowed to walk into a bowling alley and punch everyone I saw! In fact, that would be less harmful than smoking as I could punch them so that there's no long term damage!

 

[manhunter098]

Well I guess Im coming into this a bit late, but Ill just state my opinion on the matter being discussed at the moment.

In my opinion, I see no reason to ban smoking in public places. The main reason being that from what I know, unless you are quite close to someones cigarette, the damage you can suffer from secondhand smoke is in most cases negligible. I do however see some purpose in restricting the amount of people who can smoke at a given point in time an any given indoor establishment since if you have a lot of people smoking then it can build up to levels that become harmful. Now I do think that these restrictions should not be put in place on bars, and other similar establishments, and that the choice in those places should be left up to the owners discretion. I also feel that owners of other businesses can ban smoking in their establishments because in excess, even cigarette smoke can cause damage (or rather devalue) certain things, like furniture, wood, and other things which tend to retain the scent, and I dont think that smokers have the right to damage the property of a business owner without the owners permission. Though this is less of a problem in wide spaces unless too many people are smoking at once. Well that sums up my ideas for now, but Im probably forgetting some stuff.

As for outdoor areas Im completely clueless and dont have too much of an opinion since I cant come up with a fair idea of who deserves what rights when outside.

 

[GhostAnime]

alt, ever wondered why you're in that condition? it's because your dad smoked at home, right? how is banning it in all public places any better? he's going to be encouraged to do it at home.

 

[RDK]

alt, ever wondered why you're in that condition? it's because your dad smoked at home, right? how is banning it in all public places any better? he's going to be encouraged to do it at home.

Being able to smoke in restaurants and bars apparently didn't inhibit him from smoking at home before.

 

[GhostAnime]

that isn't the point. the point is you encourage the general smoking population to smoke at home since they can't hang out anymore; and hanging outside isn't exactly preferable to the average person.

 

[lonejedi]

that isn't the point. the point is you encourage the general smoking population to smoke at home since they can't hang out anymore; and hanging outside isn't exactly preferable to the average person.

People don't go to bars to smoke, people go to bars to enjoy themselves and drink. People smoke at bars because it's a habit. I work at a Restaurant, roughly 50-75% of the employees smoke there, outside. They don't go to work to hang out and have a smoke. Why do they do this? Because they can't go very long without smoking. If you ban smoking from these places, it will not cause the smoking in the home to go up, But it will make the places more clean, and will make the majority of the population happy because they can enjoy themselves at a bar/food establishment/ bowling alley.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Rights ARE being violated. I personally cannot be in a room full of smoke like in a typical bowling alley. (For some reason bowling alleys are typical spots to be filled with smoke) This is not from a personal preference, but from a need. My dad used to smoke a lot when I was a child, and I to this day come down with bronchitis at the drop of a hat when exposed to smoke.

I am being prohibited from entering these smoking establishments because of their atmosphere, and I am not a small minority. I literally did not go bowling at all for years because there was not a single one that I could be in. The concept of "finding a non-smoking establishment" is a joke.

You could use the SAME argument against any other kind of atmosphere you find displeasure with. Not only that but as far as I'm concerned the owners should have a right to prohibit you from entering in the first place (regardless of it being directly obstructing you or indirectly making the environment uncomfortable for you) if they feel like it, so again, this really isn't even a "problem" as far as I'm concerned, so I have no sympathy, sorry to say.

There are so many instances of owners of these establishments being required to conform to various codes in order to ensure safety and equality. They are NOT things that can be left to the free market to decide. You cannot argue that a smoking ban is categorically wrong. It clearly fits under many other well established laws.

And again, there is obviously no specific demand for establishments that violate health codes, while there is for those that would permit smoking. There is no demand for establishments that specifically make it difficult for handicapped people to get around them. This argument holds no water.

 

[AltF4]

You're being absurd, Hyuga. I've never argued for banning smoking on the basis of it being unpleasant. I'm arguing on the basis that it is unhealthy. You've now resorted to misrepresenting and distorting my points for the sake of straw-manning them?

If smoking were ONLY unpleasant, I wouldn't care. But this is not the case. It is physically harming everyone. I can't fathom why you seem to ignore this! Why do you feel justified in injuring everyone around you in a public place? A place that is supposed to be free and safe for everyone?


And furthermore, you just keep perpetuating your own either lies or misconceptions (I'm not sure which) about the free market and health codes.

And again, there is obviously no specific demand for establishments that violate health codes, while there is for those that would permit smoking. There is no demand for establishments that specifically make it difficult for handicapped people to get around them. This argument holds no water.

I just had to quote this to point out how ludicrous it is! Health codes are laws because they were not being enforced by the free market. I just can't wrap my head around why you so blindly believe that the free market is the solution to all problems. It cannot and does not ensure public health. Government must do that in the form of health codes.

Given the choice, businesses would not provide handicapped parking spots, wheelchair ramps, sanitary and safe working conditions for employees, sanitary and safe conditions for customers, decent pay for employees, the list goes on!

You're argument in favor of the free market ensuring public health is absolutely crazy. The free market does nothing more than ensure an equilibrium between supply and demand. Everyone else in the middle gets stepped on. Laws must be put in place.


Argument goes like this:

1) Smoking is bad for everyone around the smoker. (Worthy of some kind of debate perhaps)
2) Public places are to be free and safe for everyone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c) Smoking should not be allowed in public (indoor) places.

 

[derek.haines]

Health codes are laws because they were not being enforced by the free market.

Not necessarily. Health codes simply established guidelines that the governing bodies felt had the best interests of the public in mind. Nobody was specifically being punished by these codes--under the Constitution they couldn't be punished by the passing of health codes assuming they conformed to them--although they certainly might have felt like it.

Believe it or not, I'm completely on the side of Government and law here. These health codes are not set in place to restrict commerce, but instead merely to protect workers and patrons from potential harm.

Given the choice, businesses would not provide handicapped parking spots, wheelchair ramps, sanitary and safe working conditions for employees, sanitary and safe conditions for customers, decent pay for employees, the list goes on!

This is a bit of a blanket over-statement, though I completely concur in principle. Believe it or not, killing off customers and employees is generally frowned upon, and not truly an established business practice--in fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's quite bad for business. Also, denying anyone access to your place of business does little more than prevent a possible sale, so it's actually in a company's best interest to comply fully to disabilities acts. I just don't think that you can justify health codes and disabilities acts with the old "Business is Evil"-chestnut. Yeah, business probably is evil, but they'll do anything for a sale, including not killing off customers and denying entry to the handicapped.

But, back to the smoking issue before we get any farther off track. AltF4Warrior finally hit the nail on the head, the real crux of the issue, near the end of his last post:

1) Smoking is bad for everyone around the smoker. (Worthy of some kind of debate perhaps)

I think that the debate about this particular subject has fallen a bit to the wayside, but it really is the driving force behind whether or not smoking should be legal or illegal. If it is dangerous, then it should be banned outright. If it isn't dangerous, then it is merely a nuisance and the anti-second hand smoke zealots are little more than whiners. I'll step firmly on one side of the issue now, and say that it is not dangerous.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057

This is a study performed by the University of California over the course of 38 years about negative health effects from second hand smoke. It looked at non-smokers who were married to people with "known smoking habits". Because they're married, it's almost a sure thing that the non-smoker was exposed frequently to second hand smoke.

The result? "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." It also mentions that it "does not rule out a small effect", but then pretty much everything has a small effect that cannot be ruled out.

Smoking in bars and public places should be completely legal.

 

[AltF4]

... oh, no... Did you just link to that same "study" that others tried to earlier on in the thread?!

This time, try reading through the entire thing. It was funded by the tobacco companies. Ever hear of conflict of interest? The tobacco companies have lots of fake "scientists" put out bogus studies constantly that claim to debunk the dangers of smoking.

Meanwhile the surgeon general and every self respecting actual scientist scream bloody murder.



That study is bogus. Go back to the first couple of pages in this debate, and you'll see we already went over it too. Or in fact, just do a google search for that study! You'll get pages and pages of responses of well known and respected actual scientists describing in great detail why that study is full of ****.

I mean, come on... This isn't rocket science: Breathing smoke is bad for you. Are you seriously trying to tell me that I used to get bronchitis monthly for no good reason? And it stopped mysteriously the day my dad quit smoking? Or what about the MILLIONS of other people with the same situation.

 

[mzink*]

In my opinion banning smoking is a negation of liberty. Deal with the rules of the property or simply don't go there. It's the property owners choice if he wants to allow smoking, you cannot go onto someones property and expect them to conform to you. True having to find a non smoking establishment is annoying but that is just something that has to be dealt with. Certain places do ban smoking on their own, I've seen plenty of restaurants and such that do.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

You're being absurd, Hyuga. I've never argued for banning smoking on the basis of it being unpleasant. I'm arguing on the basis that it is unhealthy. You've now resorted to misrepresenting and distorting my points for the sake of straw-manning them?

If smoking were ONLY unpleasant, I wouldn't care. But this is not the case. It is physically harming everyone. I can't fathom why you seem to ignore this! Why do you feel justified in injuring everyone around you in a public place? A place that is supposed to be free and safe for everyone?

I am sorry I misunderstood you, but I don't think it was an unreasonable thing to take from the way you worded your post. Either way, the second part of the first paragraph of my other post still applies. I feel that most establishments (there are exceptions, but restaurants and bars aren't) should have the right to prevent you or anyone else from entering for any reason, or in any manner (so long as it is a legal manner of course).

I just had to quote this to point out how ludicrous it is! Health codes are laws because they were not being enforced by the free market. I just can't wrap my head around why you so blindly believe that the free market is the solution to all problems. It cannot and does not ensure public health. Government must do that in the form of health codes.

Given the choice, businesses would not provide handicapped parking spots, wheelchair ramps, sanitary and safe working conditions for employees, sanitary and safe conditions for customers, decent pay for employees, the list goes on!

You're argument in favor of the free market ensuring public health is absolutely crazy. The free market does nothing more than ensure an equilibrium between supply and demand. Everyone else in the middle gets stepped on. Laws must be put in place.

OK, for the 4th time, the difference is that there is absolutely NO demand for an establishment specifically because it violates health codes. There is NOBODY that says "I want to go to an establishment that doesn't keep their place sanitary for the VERY REASON that it is unsanitary." And furthermore what kind of possible direct enjoyment could they get directly from that? On the other hand, there ARE people who would go to an establishment SPECIFICALLY because smoking is allowed, and they DIRECTLY get enjoyment from that by being able to smoke. So the comparison to public health is not apt.

Argument goes like this:

1) Smoking is bad for everyone around the smoker. (Worthy of some kind of debate perhaps)
2) Public places are to be free and safe for everyone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c) Smoking should not be allowed in public (indoor) places.

OK, perhaps we should go from here instead of dealing with the arguments above. My issue with this argument is that I don't think establishments like restaurants should be "public" in the way you seem to describe them. That is to say, public and private are two ends of a spectrum, and not a binary thing. A restaurant is public to the extent that it in and of itself should not pose any danger to anyone that has nothing to do with it (hence fire and sanitary codes), and people who are about to enter should be advised of any potential health risks, c.f. my proposal about posting that it is a smoking establishment. That is where it ends as far as I'm concerned. The public at large does not have the right to dictate how the establishment should run beyond that.

In short, what you are claiming is a "right" is something I see instead as a violation of another's right. Whether that is the actual law on the books I don't know, but I think we're here to debate what should be, and not debate about what a book says.

 

[AltF4]

I feel that most establishments (there are exceptions, but restaurants and bars aren't) should have the right to prevent you or anyone else from entering for any reason, or in any manner (so long as it is a legal manner of course).

Clearly, yes. Essentially a business's right to refuse service. But this is done on an individual level, not a categorical one.

For instance you certainly can tell a person who is black that he cannot shop at your store. (For whatever reason) But you cannot categorically ban all black people from entering your store. That would be illegal, and wrong.

OK, perhaps we should go from here instead of dealing with the arguments above. My issue with this argument is that I don't think establishments like restaurants should be "public" in the way you seem to describe them..

Very well. The way the laws currently are, (I guess it depends from state to state, but they're largely the same) establishments such as bars, restaurants, etc... are considered public more than they are private.

I'd like to hear just how much freedom you'd like to give to establishment owners. Should they be able to do things like:

-Categorically exclude groups of people. (IE: No *enter ethnic group here* allowed)
-Gamble freely (Without need of a permit)
-Not provide certain basic utilities. (No bathrooms, no drinking fountains, etc...)
-Operate in a building not conforming to structural codes. (Even if it is made perfectly clear via signs and notifications)
-Not conform to fire regulations (maximum occupancy, fire alarms, emergency exits, etc...)

 

[pockyD]

aren't restaurant owners and store owners allowed to, for example, turn away anyone not wearing a shirt? there is certainly precedent for "categorically excluding a group of people"

 

[AltF4]

They're also allowed to categorically exclude people who like to shoot other people in the head with guns.

Don't be coy, you know what I mean.

 

[pockyD]

i know exactly what you mean, and I think it's perfectly reasonable to refuse people who insist on smoking in the same way they refuse people who are not wearing shoes

 

[derek.haines]

... oh, no... Did you just link to that same "study" that others tried to earlier on in the thread?!

This time, try reading through the entire thing. It was funded by the tobacco companies. Ever hear of conflict of interest? The tobacco companies have lots of fake "scientists" put out bogus studies constantly that claim to debunk the dangers of smoking.

Meanwhile the surgeon general and every self respecting actual scientist scream bloody murder.

Why in the world would a study funded by a tobacco company be any more bogus than a study funded by an anti-tobacco group? It's a conflict of interest either way, there is no neutrality on the issue. Every study that has ever "proved" or "concluded" anything has always been either funded by a tobacco company or a decidedly anti-tobacco government agency (e.g. the FDA or EPA). Congrats on that bronchitis thing, I'm extremely happy for you, but it's little more than a case study. My mother's health has been in rapid decline since she stopped smoking two years ago, and she often wishes she never had quit in the first place--regretfully the practice has become far too expensive to ever pick it back up again.

Your entire argument is based on the completely unproven assumption that it "isn't rocket science". If it were simply that easy, if smoking really was just that detrimental for your health then everyone who smoked would experience negative effects--which they don't. If it was just that easy then I--who grew up surrounded by smokers--should be dead by now from your "ill effects" of second hand smoke. If it were that cut and dry then these "bogus studies" that disprove your assumption wouldn't even hold enough water to be funded by anyone, even the tobacco companies, because it would simply be a waste of money. As it stands, however, the matter has not been proven one way or another and the studies continue to be made and continue to contradict one another.

In order for anything to be banned the government should be able to conclusively prove that there is a clear and present danger from exposure to a substance. You cannot prove this for tobacco, because it is not clear in the least bit.

 

[manhunter098]

Why in the world would a study funded by a tobacco company be any more bogus than a study funded by an anti-tobacco group? It's a conflict of interest either way, there is no neutrality on the issue. Every study that has ever "proved" or "concluded" anything has always been either funded by a tobacco company or a decidedly anti-tobacco government agency (e.g. the FDA or EPA). Congrats on that bronchitis thing, I'm extremely happy for you, but it's little more than a case study. My mother's health has been in rapid decline since she stopped smoking two years ago, and she often wishes she never had quit in the first place--regretfully the practice has become far too expensive to ever pick it back up again.

Your entire argument is based on the completely unproven assumption that it "isn't rocket science". If it were simply that easy, if smoking really was just that detrimental for your health then everyone who smoked would experience negative effects--which they don't. If it was just that easy then I--who grew up surrounded by smokers--should be dead by now from your "ill effects" of second hand smoke. If it were that cut and dry then these "bogus studies" that disprove your assumption wouldn't even hold enough water to be funded by anyone, even the tobacco companies, because it would simply be a waste of money. As it stands, however, the matter has not been proven one way or another and the studies continue to be made and continue to contradict one another.

In order for anything to be banned the government should be able to conclusively prove that there is a clear and present danger from exposure to a substance. You cannot prove this for tobacco, because it is not clear in the least bit.

Why would a group trying to prove that smoking is bad for you, object to evidence that shows it to be harmless? Arent they looking out for the public health? If they come to the conclusion that there isnt a problem with it why would the insist upon falsifying evidence to show that it is, what gain could they make? Tobacco companies on the other hand, have fortunes and mounds of money at stake. They have a much greater reason to falsify studies to favor tobacco than groups that are against tobacco.

For that reason, I will say that smoking IS unhealthy. Taking in any harmful chemical is BAD for you. That much we can definitely agree on. Now, not every chemical is as harmful for one person as it is the next, and other factors not necessarily relating to the chemicals but other non-toxic but still harmful compounds (like the tar in tobacco smoke) will also have a different degree of impact on different people. Basically, we know that cigarette smoke contains chemicals that damage DNA more-so than most chemicals. We also know that its not necessarily "good" for people to limit access to oxygen by inhaling other compounds. So it really isnt rocket science when it comes to saying, smoking is bad for you. Its a general statement, it may not apply as strongly for one person as it does the next, but it certainly applies in general.

The issue with secondhand smoke however, is concentration. If you are in a room completely filled with tobacco smoke and you inhale, the effect is essentially the same as would be if you were to inhale the smoke directly from the cigarette. However smokers do not necessarily inhale the smoke, take a cigar for example, you arent supposed to (though you certainly can) bring the smoke deep into your lungs, just a little breath (if you could call it that) to get the smoke into your mouth. But when people inhale secondhand smoke they are taking it deep into their lungs.

Now my example with the smoke filled room isnt really equivalent to secondhand smoke, since you obviously cant breathe much at all in a room entirely filled with smoke, but the point with that is that the concentration of smoke you inhale will depend greatly on how many people are smoking in a given establishment, since if you are going to receive any negative effects from tobacco smoke at all, its going to have a stronger effect in an atmosphere where there is more smoke, and less of everything that is there normally (well we have pollution and stuff now, but you understand the point).


But yeah, that was just me rambling sort of. Either way, I do hope to some extent we can agree that getting tobacco smoke into your lungs is unhealthy in high concentrations. Its good to have stuff we can agree on, even if the main point of a debate is to have opposing sides.

 

[AltF4]

So, wait... you're saying that since some crazy study funded by tobacco companies comes out that suddenly the topic is unclear? Obviously you've bitten on their bait! That's exactly the reason they come out with these things: to confuse the uninformed.

And I'm flabbergasted that you honestly believe the American Heart and Lung Association, the American Cancer Society, and the Surgeon General are not reputable sources for information! What nefarious purpose could these organizations possibly have?! They are government agencies. For what reason could they possibly have some kind of grudge against tobacco companies. Why in the world would they pursue such a campaign against tobacco even though they secretly knew smoking is safe? Think before you post wild accusations.

That study you're clinging on to was debunked not only for it's obvious issues with conflict of interest. It was blasted at every turn for its content. But you already know that because I already posted links to such arguments earlier on in this thread. You did read them before posting all this, didn't you?

 

[derek.haines]

So, wait... you're saying that since some crazy study funded by tobacco companies comes out that suddenly the topic is unclear? Obviously you've bitten on their bait! That's exactly the reason they come out with these things: to confuse the uninformed.

And I'm flabbergasted that you honestly believe the American Heart and Lung Association, the American Cancer Society, and the Surgeon General are not reputable sources for information! What nefarious purpose could these organizations possibly have?! They are government agencies. For what reason could they possibly have some kind of grudge against tobacco companies. Why in the world would they pursue such a campaign against tobacco even though they secretly knew smoking is safe? Think before you post wild accusations.

That study you're clinging on to was debunked not only for it's obvious issues with conflict of interest. It was blasted at every turn for its content. But you already know that because I already posted links to such arguments earlier on in this thread. You did read them before posting all this, didn't you?

Astoundingly, I've been participating in this discussion since the very beginning and as such I'm well aware of the ground that has been covered. I just don't think your point is correct, and as such I'm going to argue against it. This is the Debate Hall, and I think I'm entitled to that at the very least.

I've taken the bait, have I? Is anti-tobacco propaganda not still propaganda? Or, because it serves to further your opinion it's inherently good in nature? You're over there drinking the anti-tobacco kool-aid!

To a one, every single study ever done about tobacco consumption has featured the prominent smoking archetypes: 1-2 pack per day smokers. That's 20 to 30 cigarettes per day. Do you have any idea how long it takes to smoke that many cigarettes? Assuming 5 minutes per cigarette times 25 cigarettes and you've got over 2 hours spent smoking every day. With that sheer amount of smoking, of course it's bad for you! Anything done in that remarkable quantity is going to be bad for you, be it drinking alcohol or consuming caffeine.

So, yes, I'm going to agree with you for a second. Smoking 2 packs of cigarettes per day is bad for you. But why does a smoking tobacco in moderation have to be bad for you? Drinking a bottle of wine after work every day IS most certainly bad for you, but a glass or two in the evening is actually beneficial to your health. This is why tobacco studies cannot be trusted, because they're only studying the extremes. If any other subject were being studied at such levels you'd have nothing short of a dearth of scientists going "Duh. Of course it's bad at that amount--what in the world were you expecting?"

I absolutely hate the blanket statement "Cigarettes are bad for you". No, cigarettes are not bad for you. Being a nicotine-deprived maniac with no self-control and a lighter is bad for you. Call me when they do a study with 3 cigarette a day smokers, then we'll talk.

And I'm flabbergasted that you honestly believe the American Heart and Lung Association, the American Cancer Society, and the Surgeon General are not reputable sources for information! What nefarious purpose could these organizations possibly have?! They are government agencies. For what reason could they possibly have some kind of grudge against tobacco companies.

What grudge don't these aformentioned organizations and agencies have against tobacco companies? The way they've come to view it, these people are little short of devil-spawn and as such every opportunity should be taken to bring them to the ground. Plus, the money they get from anti-tobacco special interests groups probably shifts their opinion at least a tiny bit.

Why would a group trying to prove that smoking is bad for you, object to evidence that shows it to be harmless? Arent they looking out for the public health? If they come to the conclusion that there isnt a problem with it why would the insist upon falsifying evidence to show that it is, what gain could they make?

Wait--did you actually just say that? Seriously?

The groups trying to prove that smoking is bad for you ARE NOT going to simply accept that it's not. That's simply admitting that they've been wrong FOR THE LAST FIFTY YEARS. What's there to lose? Besides millions of dollars in funding for anti-tobacco campaigning? I dunno... probably not much. *sigh*

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

AltF4, what establishment owners are allowed to do, to me, would depend on how much they are supported by taxpayer money, and also on what kind of service they provide. But to keep it simple for the case of restaurants or bars not operating on a subsidy (if there even is such a thing for restaurants), yes I believe they should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, categorically or individually. Gambling I don't actually know why licenses are needed in the first place, so I'm not going to say one way or the other until I learn more about it. However anything that relates to public health, i.e. anything it does that can affect people that have nothing to do with its patrons, should be regulated. So it must conform to fire and sanitary codes. Any possible adverse health effect that there is no specific demand for should also be regulated because, while I think the free market will eventually take care of unclean places, it is not as efficient or timely as having a regulatory agency take care of it, because it is obvious that there is no demand for a restaurant that doesn't properly cook meat. Smoking doesn't fit this because there is clear demand for establishments that allow people to let them smoke.

 

[AltF4]

Interesting. I think your views on what should be allowed are very different than mine. I can't imagine going back on the civil rights movement and allowing stores to refuse service to all black people. Or buses forcing them to sit in the back.


But our disagreement about smoking in public seems to stem from the role of demand. I fail to see how the presence or absence of demand is relevant at all to our discussion about public health. Clearly there is a demand for child pornography. Should we allow that?

What about duels? You know, people shooting each other when they both agree. That used to be fairly popular too. If we allowed it today it would certainly have a demand. Should we allow dueling in public places?

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Interesting. I think your views on what should be allowed are very different than mine. I can't imagine going back on the civil rights movement and allowing stores to refuse service to all black people. Or buses forcing them to sit in the back.


But our disagreement about smoking in public seems to stem from the role of demand. I fail to see how the presence or absence of demand is relevant at all to our discussion about public health. Clearly there is a demand for child pornography. Should we allow that?

What about duels? You know, people shooting each other when they both agree. That used to be fairly popular too. If we allowed it today it would certainly have a demand. Should we allow dueling in public places?

Public transportation services wouldn't have that right; nothing that is a public good would, so energy, housing, sanitation, etc.

For the case of child pornography, the people who demand it aren't the same as the people whose rights are abridged/waived, like it is with the demand for smoking establishments, so obviously it's not allowed. Prostitution on the other hand should be legal, with the health caveats I've mentioned.

Duels I don't see why they should be illegal as long as both parties sign contracts absolving the other for whatever happens between them. They also would be restricted such that people who have nothing to do with them are prevented from being harmed, so a 'public place' would be off limits, while a warehouse wouldn't be.