• Forum Moderator applications are now open! If you're interested in joining an active team of moderators for one of the biggest Pokémon forums on the internet, click here for info.

Smoking Bans - Redux

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mozz

Golden Wang of Justice
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Messages
2,114
Reaction score
24
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/251121_smoking07.html

When Initiative 901 takes effect Thursday, cigarettes will have to be snuffed out in all bars, public places and card rooms. There are no exceptions in the nation's strictest statewide ban, aside from Indian casinos, because they aren't subject to state law.

Not for tobacco-centric bars such as the Ballard Smoke Shop, not for ferry terminals, not for huge indoor-outdoor venues such as Qwest Stadium. Starting with this Sunday's Seahawks game, there will be no more smoking zones, and fans who wander out of the stadium to light up won't be allowed to re-enter, per league rules.

The new law also requires anyone who does step outside a bar or restaurant for a quick smoke to stay 25 feet from any door or window while lighting up, unless that business gets special dispensation from local health officials.

---------

Anyone think this is inherently flawed? I'm hoping this eventually gets overturned, preferably by the SCOTUS.
 
This is an act of public sanitation brought to you by the government. Whose job public sanitation happens to be.

Frankly, smoking around non-smokers, especially inside close space is one step removed from murder and about on-par with drinking & driving in my opinion.

Not only does the state have a right to stop such activity - even on premises belonging to private business - but they have a duty to do so.
 
Maybe this is a very carefully disguised attempt at genocide. By banning smoking in most other public places in the state, they're driving the smokers, and thus the secondhand smoke, into the tribal casinos.
 
Murg, do we have a tinfoil hat smiley on the forum? :)
 
Damian Silverblade said:
This is an act of public sanitation brought to you by the government. Whose job public sanitation happens to be.

Frankly, smoking around non-smokers, especially inside close space is one step removed from murder and about on-par with drinking & driving in my opinion.

Not only does the state have a right to stop such activity - even on premises belonging to private business - but they have a duty to do so.
Click to expand...
What if any bar that allowed smoking had to put a sign up informing potential customers that it was allowed? Then people would know not to even walk into those bars. Would that be okay?
 
Not particularly, because it's MUCH easier to convince non-smokers to come in a bar that has smokers than it is to convince smokers to come in a bar where they can't smoke, meaning that non-smokers (the majority) would only have a handful of "safe" bar whereas smokers (the minority) would have the vast majority of bars pandering to them.

Now then, if smoking only harmed the smokers, or harmed nobody, I would be *all for* such a situation. But given that smoking harms not only the smokers, but anyone who happens to be around them, I find that solution extremly unacceptable.

And Murg, making and selling (or taxing sales of) cigarettes is already a genocide-class crime against mankind, if you ask me. (It's not genocide proper, but roughly on the same level).
 
Damian Silverblade said:
Not particularly, because it's MUCH easier to convince non-smokers to come in a bar that has smokers than it is to convince smokers to come in a bar where they can't smoke, meaning that non-smokers (the majority) would only have a handful of "safe" bar whereas smokers (the minority) would have the vast majority of bars pandering to them.
Click to expand...
But if it's such a health risk, and it annoys people so much, why do they still go into the bar? I'm sure if they were so pissed, there would be even more non-smoking bars than there are now.

The reason this passed is the nanny-statism and lack of care about property rights in the liberal wunderland of Seattle. It's very easy to vote for something that you're not really offended about, but it'll help you out personally (and you might even think it's not "constitutional"). Say, for example, that there was a law on the ballot that would ban fat people from bars. That would help me out tremendously, but it's not constitutional. But what the hell, it helps me, and those fat people are bothering everyone with their lifestyles, and once, a fat person bumped into me and bruised my thorax.

Your personal health should mean nothing when you walk into a place of business, as long as you know the rules before entering.
 
Here's an old post from volokh.com (a well-known law blog):


[Orin Kerr, Wednesday June 15, 2005 at 4:33pm] 5 Trackbacks / Possibly More Trackbacks
Dialogue on the Merits of Smoking Bans:
Today's Washington Post reports that a proposed smoking ban in DC restaurants and bars is gaining ground. I have conflicting views on the proposed smoking ban. The debate in my head goes something like this:

CON: I can't believe DC wants to ban smoking in restaurants and bars. Does the government need to regulate everything? Why can't they just let restaurants and people do what they want?
PRO: Your ideological preconceptions are blinding you to something important. Being around smoke is a big annoyance for many non-smokers; the smell is very unpleasant, and non-smokers often need to pay to get their clothes dry-cleaned to get the smell out. The smoking ban is about stopping smokers from inflicting those costs and harms on innocent non-smokers.
CON: But we can let the market decide this. If some people want to smoke, they can go to a smoking bar or restaurant. If some people want to go to a place than bans smoking, some businesses will ban smoking on their own volition to cater to that audience. The market will adjust to have some smoking places and other non-smoking places. It's a win-win.
PRO: That sounds good in theory. But you're missing the fact that decisions to go to a particular restaurant or bar are usually group decisions, in which the least offensive option for the group wins out. Smokers usually are addicted to nicotine; if given the choice between a smoking place and a non-smoking place, they will voice a very strong preference for the smoking place. Non-smokers may strongly prefer going to a non-smoking place, but they'll voice less objection about going to a smoking place because it's not a chemical addiction for them. This means that even if most individual people prefer a non-smoking place, most groups will choose smoking places, and most bars will permit smoking.
CON: I think you're basing that argument on a paternalistic value judgment about the merits of smoking, though. If a group makes a collective decision to go to Smoking Bar A instead of Non-smoking Bar B, it presumably means that the members of that group on the whole are happier at A than at B. Non-smokers may be a little bit annoyed by being around smokers, but that annoyance is outweighed by the pleasure the smokers get from smoking. It sounds like you're valuing the views of non-smokers more than those of smokers; you discount the latter because to you they are just "feeding an addiction."
PRO: Maybe. But is that illegitimate? After all, an addiction could be defined as something that a person feels compelled to do repeatedly even if they realize it is against their best interests. Given that, I'm not sure it's unfair to treat nicotine urges as a less valued set of preferences than a non-smoker's preference to be in a smoke-free environment.
CON: What's next? Are you going to ban smoking altogether, even in private homes? I don't know where your principle stops.
PRO: Ah, the dreaded slippery slope argument. There's a good case for limiting the ban to bars and restaurants, actually. Bars and restaurants are enclosed spaces where people are physically close to others they don't know. Smokers often ask their friends if they mind them smoking before lighting up, as smokers realize that many non-smokers are annoyed by the practice. The smoking ban would just extend the same courtesy to strangers.
CON: That's not quite right, though. The proposed ban wouldn't just give non-smokers veto power. It imposes a ban that all smokers must follow even if everyone in the bar or restaurant wants to smoke. That interferes too much with personal choice for my taste.

So who has the stronger argument, PRO or CON? And what arguments are they missing? I have enabled comments. As always, civil and respectful comments only.

UPDATE: I should point out that I intentionally avoided the secondhand-smoke-is-dangerous argument and the bans-hurt-businesses argument because both are at bottom scentific/empirical questions that I am not equipped to answer or evaluate. Strong evidence in support of or against these arguments would shift the debate considerably, but my understanding is that the evidence on both issues presently is inconclusive.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...bans"+unconstitutional&hl=en&client=firefox-a
 
Actual evidence showing that spending a few hours a week in bars/restaurants/outdoor venues with secondhand smoke will kill you, plz.
 
Report from the WHO and IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer).

Linkie : http://www-cie.iarc.fr/htdocs/monographs/vol83/02-involuntary.html

Their conclusion : There is sufficient evidence that involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) causes lung cancer in humans.

Spending a few hours a week might not be the most risky thing, but it would still be a risk to your health.

And frankly, I see no reason to tolerate such increased risk just to please suicidal morons (ie, smokers).
 
It seems to me that that study says that if you are married to a smoker, as in you live with them for your whole life and are constantly exposed to it, you have a 20% higher risk of getting lung cancer.

Seriously, only 20% higher when you live with secondhand smoke for life? And it says no evidence that children of smokers have increased risk of cancer, unless the mother smoked while pregnant.

It sounds to me like there is basically zero evidence that being in restarauts/whatever for a few hours a week is going to have any affect on you. So don't go around saying people who smoke in public are practically murderers, it's totally ridiculous.

Please don't call me a "suicidal moron" either -_- There's tons of stuff that can kill you, you've got to live life. I mean what if I died in a car crash tomorrow, THEN I'd be sorry I didn't smoke. Well that and it's more likely that I'll die of drug addiction before I die of smoking, but whatever.

Anyways I think this, and gun control, are some instances where the democrats really lose sight of the personal social freedom they're supposed to stand for. If someone is really that convinced that it's a risk, they don't have to go into the restaurants that allow smoking.
 
The thing ALSO say that working in a smoke heavy environment result in about a 15% (studies ranging from 12 to 19%) increase in lung cancer risks. (and the studies for spouse said 20 to 30%, not 20%)

A 15% increase in lung cancer risks for waitresses, bartenders, etc just so smokers don't have to step outside to kill themselves is not acceptable.

And that's not even getting into the fact that smoking in people's face shows a total lack of anything approaching respect for others, since being an asshole isn't enough to justify a law against you.
 
Such a ban has existed here in Ottawa for quite some time now. I'm quite happy that they've implemented it. I agree with Damian on this one 100%.

Do not forget that there are more negative effects from second-hand smoke than just increasing the risk of lung cancer, which is what the study addressed, in addition to many possible yet unknown negative effects.

I've also seen something amusing/disturbing on the Discovery channel a while ago. They had an SUV run with an engine idling in a sealed garage for some time (30 min, or more? doesn't matter) and measured the air quality inside. They then brought in fresh air and lit a cigarette at a time so that one would be burning for the duration of the same period of time. When they compared the levels of toxins in the air, the cigarette air was several magnitudes more toxic! Sure, it may not be the most scientific method, but it does an excellent job at displaying just how much people underestimate smoke from cigarettes.

Either way, I see no reason why people like myself, who value their own health, should be inconvinienced by people who don't give a damn about theirs. Smokers control their own homes, so they can feel free to stink it up as much as they like...but not places which normal people tend to visit, kthxbi.

EDIT:
Please don't call me a "suicidal moron" either -_- There's tons of stuff that can kill you, you've got to live life. I mean what if I died in a car crash tomorrow, THEN I'd be sorry I didn't smoke. Well that and it's more likely that I'll die of drug addiction before I die of smoking, but whatever.
Click to expand...
I don't think Damian would have made such a comment directed at you, since personal issues have no place in this thread. Yes, there are many other ways to die, but you're still deliberately stabbing yourself by smoking, and saying "OMG you shouldn't say that because I happen to be a smoker!111oeneone" doesn't exclude you from the morons. Nobody cares whether or not you happen to be a smoker.
 
Last edited:
*sigh* I agree with Mozz this time.

Private businesses should be allowed to decide for themselves if they want to allow smokers in, or to set up smoking and non-smoking sections of said businesses. What's next, banning smoking in private homes?
 
Ketsuban said:
*sigh* I agree with Mozz this time.

Private businesses should be allowed to decide for themselves if they want to allow smokers in, or to set up smoking and non-smoking sections of said businesses. What's next, banning smoking in private homes?
Click to expand...
The private business is providing a public service. Unless you're running a service business out of your home, there's a big difference.
 
But people can choose not to go into businesses that allow smoking.

I've been a waitress several different times and I have *never* met one who didn't smoke. Believe me, 99% of waitresses would HATE this law because the only "break" you get as a waitress during your 8-10 hour shift is sneaking in the back to smoke for 2-3 minutes at a time every once in a while. The tiny percentage of waitresses who don't smoke can only apply to nonsmoking restaraunts, or a different job altogether.

So a 15% increase in risk...as compared to what, a nonsmoker who is not exposed to secondhand smoke? I'd imagine that the rate of lung cancer for a nonsmoker not exposed to secondhand smoke is virtually zero, so 15% more than virtually zero is still negligible.
 
Last edited:
"I mean, what's a couple thousand more deaths and millions in hospital fees just so I can apply what once was a legitimate idea of business rights to an outrageous situation?"
 
I don't know why people think this is such a bad thing. Simply put, secondhand smoke is roughly the same as indoor air pollution. Would anyone oppose a law reducing automobile emissions? I think not. Smoking is the same way. I know all the shit about "we have the right to smoke, you can't tell us how to live" but I have rights too... how about the right NOT to end up being forced to breathe the noxious chemicals you're spewing.
If a smoker wants to go and screw themselves over and inhale a bunch of toxins, fine with me, they can do that in the privacy of their own home. But I really don't want them personally and it's my right not to be exposed to that crap.
 
The tiny percentage of waitresses who don't smoke can only apply to nonsmoking restaraunts, or a different job altogether.
Click to expand...
That's a pretty funny statement, considering your stance on jobs in the other thread. Why should smoking waitresses force non-smoking ones out? I've actually seen very few ones that smoked, or ones who looked/smelled like they were. It depends on the area.
...
I happen to study at both college and university. Something else I find amusing is that the number of people smoking in college appears to be much, much higher compared to the number of smokers I've seen on the university campus. They even built shelters for smokers at college...they look like bus stops, to prevent them from stinking up the buinding entrances (Which many do anyway...even though there is a sign forbidding smoking within 9 meters or something. I've seen a cigarette burn mark on one of the signs, too..........) I guess that the "morons" comment was correct in more than one way. :p


EDIT: That sloganizer.net sig pic is quite...for a lack of a better word...annoying; looks like a cigarette. >.< At least it doesn't smell...
 
Why anyone would pay good money to poison themselves is beyond me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom