Smoking or not smoking

[Benji]

Let's play what if.

 

OK- smoking is banned in all public places by and act of congress and a note from the surgeon general.

 

Consider this very carefully: who is to decide what is good for you? The senate? An industry panal?

 

What's next? What other products will be banned or freedoms recended because it's not good for you?

 

Will beef be bannned because of cholesterol? Will sugar be banned because its bad for your teeth? Will guns be banned because they hurt people? Will homosexuality be banned because you could catch HIV?

 

Before we fix the behavior of others, we should consider which of our behaviors others might seek to fix and if we should grant others such powers over us.

 

......me thinks Graeme, NicolasJames & I have started something!

[Menzoberranzen]

Let's play what if.

 

OK- smoking is banned in all public places by and act of congress and a note from the surgeon general.

 

Consider this very carefully: who is to decide what is good for you? The senate? An industry panal?

 

What's next? What other products will be banned or freedoms recended because it's not good for you?

 

Will beef be bannned because of cholesterol? Will sugar be banned because its bad for your teeth? Will guns be banned because they hurt people? Will homosexuality be banned because you could catch HIV?

 

Before we fix the behavior of others, we should consider which of our behaviors others might seek to fix and if we should grant others such powers over us.

 

Very well said.

 

I belive that individual freedom is paramount, and though I might find it distasteful when parents smoke around their children, so long as it does not descend into the realm of abuse or neglect, it is the parent's choice to smoke or not.

 

Menzo

[Graeme]

As the parent, that choice has to be up to you. If there's some kind of neglect, then the government would have to step in. But that example is unique. What about all households with children? Or all households in general? Would you support a smoking ban in those cases? The wife or husband is married to a smoker, and it would be hard to just leave them. Or what about kids? They don't have much of a choice. How far should the government reach?

So far, the government has been happy to let parents try to be responsible. If it is shown that there is a widespread problem, then, yes, I would support a smoking ban in households where there are children. The government has a duty of care to those members of society not able to defend themselves, such as children.

 

Consider this very carefully: who is to decide what is good for you? The senate? An industry panal?

This is the central point. I don't believe the government should be involved in deciding what is good for you. Where they come in is if your actions adversely affect others. In the arguments I have described above, I have never stated anything about the impact of smoking on the smoker. I have (hopefully) been consistent in talking about the impact of smoking on those around the smoker.

[Conner]

Smoking is essentially a public health issue. Yes, it does have civil rights elements, but the intrusion on civil rights is minor compared to the public health issues.

 

The only solution is basically what's being done already: education programs, particularly those that target youth, and increasing restrictions on where you can smoke.

 

I don't believe that smokers actually mind the increasing restrictions, even in bars. Most adjust and welcome the opportunity to smoke less. What a smoker can't tolerate is someone looking at them like they were an urine sample and telling (serminizing) them not to smoke at all.

 

Robbie, after we solve the smoking problem, we're going to start putting increasing restrictions on young people whose driving practices aren't what they could be. Excessive people in the car, excessive speeds, extremely loud music.....it's all going to go, Robbie. It's a public health issue. How are you feeling now, Robbie? A little hot under the collar?

 

Robbie, you need to blog!!!

 

Conner

[NickolasJames8]

Smoking is essentially a public health issue. Yes, it does have civil rights elements, but the intrusion on civil rights is minor compared to the public health issues.

The only solution is basically what's being done already: education programs, particularly those that target youth, and increasing restrictions on where you can smoke.

 

I don't believe that smokers actually mind the increasing restrictions, even in bars. Most adjust and welcome the opportunity to smoke less. What a smoker can't tolerate is someone looking at them like they were an urine sample and telling (serminizing) them not to smoke at all.

 

Robbie, after we solve the smoking problem, we're going to start putting increasing restrictions on young people whose driving practices aren't what they could be. Excessive people in the car, excessive speeds, extremely loud music.....it's all going to go, Robbie. It's a public health issue. How are you feeling now, Robbie? A little hot under the collar?

 

Robbie, you need to blog!!!

 

Conner

 

Obesity is a public health issue too. Do should we restrict when people should eat? I'm eating a bag of Doritos right nw. If I only eat 11 chips, I'll take in 8 grams of fat. if I eat the whole bag, I'll take in 20 grams (next stop, my thighs). Should there be a law that says I have to stop at 11, because I was planning on eating the whole thing.

I agree that smoking in public places should be restricted. But it should be done by the private business owners, not by the government. Even if 95% of the people want to ban smoking in public places, the private business owner should have the final say about her/his establishment. That's part of what makes it their business.

[sat8997]

I will quit one of these days ... maybe Sharon and I can do it together ...

 

 

I think you should start with James

 

Sharon

[Krista]

Obesity is a public health issue too. Do should we restrict when people should eat? I'm eating a bag of Doritos right nw. If I only eat 11 chips, I'll take in 8 grams of fat. if I eat the whole bag, I'll take in 20 grams (next stop, my thighs). Should there be a law that says I have to stop at 11, because I was planning on eating the whole thing.

I agree that smoking in public places should be restricted. But it should be done by the private business owners, not by the government. Even if 95% of the people want to ban smoking in public places, the private business owner should have the final say about her/his establishment. That's part of what makes it their business.

 

 

Obesity and smoking are two very different things. It only hurts the person who is over eating physically and there isn't that much a strain on the other dimensions of overall wellness to make a difference. Obesity can be reversed, but the effects of smoking cannot. Permanent organs like the heart, brain, and lungs will never heal or replace tissue with new tissue, only scar tissue which inhibits the function of the organ. So, I do think an outright smoking ban is and should be the governments decision. As it does harm innocent people easily. Both obesity and smoking are catalysts to heart disease so as far as both being harmful it's the same as they both have terrible consequences, but smoking definitely affects the environment more so than obesity.

 

Krista

[NickolasJames8]

Obesity and smoking are two very different things. It only hurts the person who is over eating physically and there isn't that much a strain on the other dimensions of overall wellness to make a difference. Obesity can be reversed, but the effects of smoking cannot. Permanent organs like the heart, brain, and lungs will never heal or replace tissue with new tissue, only scar tissue which inhibits the function of the organ. So, I do think an outright smoking ban is and should be the governments decision. As it does harm innocent people easily. Both obesity and smoking are catalysts to heart disease so as far as both being harmful it's the same as they both have terrible consequences, but smoking definitely affects the environment more so than obesity.

 

Krista

 

 

After the government bans smoking, what should they ban next? Over-eating? Gay sex? Pre-marital sex? Abortions? Will there be a ban on chewing tobacco? Heaven forbid that people should be expected to make choices about their bodies without the government's help.

 

Once you give them that kind of power, they'll find a way to abuse it. Just look around at what we're living through right now.

[Razor]

If you dare tell me I can't smoke, I will hold you down and blow the smoke in your face just to spite you. Then I just might put the cigarette out on you.

 

If you don't like the smoke, stay the hell away from the smokers. Most of us smoke outside, in the open, and you have to be standing downwind of us to get a lungful. Those of you who don't smoke, I'm happy for you. I'll quit some day when I can find the right motivation and circumstance (working on that). Until then, I'm gonna keep on doing it. You should all already be happy since they're assraping us as far as price goes just to give ourselves cancer.

[Graeme]

After the government bans smoking, what should they ban next? Over-eating? Gay sex? Pre-marital sex? Abortions? Will there be a ban on chewing tobacco? Heaven forbid that people should be expected to make choices about their bodies without the government's help.

 

Once you give them that kind of power, they'll find a way to abuse it. Just look around at what we're living through right now.

Just to make sure we're all arguing about the same thing, the government has not banned smoking. What they have done is ban smoking in places where secondary smoke is most likely to affect other members of the public. There is an important distinction between them.

 

However, the government has an incentive to discourage smoking, just like they have an incentive to discourage things that cause obesity. Both of these things have long term costs to the community in terms of healthcare, life expectancy, etc.

 

The government should not tell people that they can't do certain things that only affect themselves, but it can and should try to educate people on what those things are doing, especially in terms of long term effects, and to try to discourage behaviour that is not healthy. Banning and discouraging are not the same thing.

 

You raised abortion, which is a potential red-button issue, but I think both sides in that debate can agree that the government should work to try to minimise the number of situations where an abortion is even considered. It is after that point where differences arise

[NickolasJames8]

Actually, I only mentioned a smoking ban by the government because Krista posted that she thinks a smoking ban is and should be the government's decision. I only used the other examples because once you give the government that kind of power over your life, they'll happily (and forcefully) take a little more and a little more until they have total control.

[Graeme]

Actually, I only mentioned a smoking ban by the government because Krista posted that she thinks a smoking ban is and should be the government's decision. I only used the other examples because once you give the government that kind of power over your life, they'll happily (and forcefully) take a little more and a little more until they have total control.

Okay, I understand.

 

Changing the topic slightly, I remember reading several years ago that if caffeine, nicotine or alcohol were discovered now, they would almost certainly be placed under government control in a similar way to other drugs. It is only because they have been in society for millennia that they aren't.

[NickolasJames8]

Here's a little history lesson on the tobacco companies and how they hooked a whole genration on their product..it's really quite interesting.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0up4_HF9jYY

[colinian]

If I'm waiting at a bus stop, in the open, is it the smoker's right to impact me and everyone else who doesn't want to breath second hand smoke? To get away from the smoke I'd have to get out of line, meaning that I won't get a seat on the bus. Whose rights are paramount here? The smokers, or mine? Should the right to smoke at the bus stop be based on whether a majority of the people waiting for the bus are smokers or non-smokers? Smokers don't have to smoke at the bus stop to live. I have to breath at the bus stop to live, but I'm allergic to cigarette smoke, including second-hand smoke. Again, whose rights are paramount here?

 

I'm going to college now, and living in the dorm. Do they allow smoking in your dorm? They don't in mine, in common spaces or in rooms. There are 776 students in my dorm. Here at UC Berkeley, dorm rules prohibit a long list of fire hazards: candles, kerosene lamps, halogen lamps, propane cooking devices, hibachis, anything with Sterno in it, and smoking cigarettes and cigars. Many other colleges have similar rules. The ones who smoke have to go outside to a designated smoking area. My guess is that most schools have a similar policy. Here's part of the UC Berkeley smoking policy document:

 

Policy Summary

Smoking is not permitted inside any facility owned or leased by the University of California Berkeley, regardless of location. Smoking is not permitted in any outdoor campus facility used for spectator sports, meetings, entertainment, dining, or designated children

[NickolasJames8]

If I'm waiting at a bus stop, in the open, is it the smoker's right to impact me and everyone else who doesn't want to breath second hand smoke? To get away from the smoke I'd have to get out of line, meaning that I won't get a seat on the bus. Whose rights are paramount here? The smokers, or mine? Should the right to smoke at the bus stop be based on whether a majority of the people waiting for the bus are smokers or non-smokers? Smokers don't have to smoke at the bus stop to live. I have to breath at the bus stop to live, but I'm allergic to cigarette smoke, including second-hand smoke. Again, whose rights are paramount here?

 

I'm going to college now, and living in the dorm. Do they allow smoking in your dorm? They don't in mine, in common spaces or in rooms. There are 776 students in my dorm. Here at UC Berkeley, dorm rules prohibit a long list of fire hazards: candles, kerosene lamps, halogen lamps, propane cooking devices, hibachis, anything with Sterno in it, and smoking cigarettes and cigars. Many other colleges have similar rules. The ones who smoke have to go outside to a designated smoking area. My guess is that most schools have a similar policy. Here's part of the UC Berkeley smoking policy document:

 

Policy Summary

Smoking is not permitted inside any facility owned or leased by the University of California Berkeley, regardless of location. Smoking is not permitted in any outdoor campus facility used for spectator sports, meetings, entertainment, dining, or designated children

[colinian]

The rules of a University are what the rules are..if a store owner doesnt want people to smoke, he can make the same rules. That's been my point all along. Private businesses should make their own policy on smoking. As for the bus stop, sorry, but that's outside. Unless there's some city ordinance against it, you're probably out of luck. I think it's rude to smoke around others, but unless there's a law about it, it is what it is.

 

Actually, in the city where my home is, and in the city where I go to college, both in California, smoking is prohibited in any outdoor area where people congregate in close proximity, other than designated smoking areas. So it's not legal to smoke at a bus stop.

 

What about bars and restaurants? In California you cannot smoke in any bar or restaurant unless there's a designated outdoor smoking area. You can't smoke in any retail store other than stores that primarily sell tobacco products like Cigarettes Cheaper. These are laws that eliminate the option of business owners making their own policies on smoking.

 

Colin

[AFriendlyFace]

They recently outlawed smoking in bars, restaurants, and clubs in Houston. Personally I really like this law, and am pleased to not be around the smoking people. I readily agree that it wasn't that hard for me to simply ask for "non-smoking" and that if I were at a bar or club I should just accept that people will smoke, but nonetheless it makes my life more convenient and pleasant, and while I'm not a raving anti-smoking activist, I still do believe that people are better off not smoking so I'm simply not going to get upset about it. Basically it's in my best interest, and and even if the smokers don't like it I personally think it's in their best interest as well so I'm just not that upset on their behalf.

 

However, personally I do think it's ridiculous to prohibit smoking in bars and clubs (in restaurants I think it's sensible). People should definitely be allowed to smoke in bars and clubs, it's only natural, logical, and traditional. Again, I'm glad that they can't, because I really don't like being in smokey environments, and on several occasions I really did decide not to go to one of these establishments simply because I didn't want to deal with the smoke. So I'm fine with it being illegal, and it makes my life better, but I do think it's stupid.

 

As a gambler I'm also very very happy if smoking is illegal in casinos. I've often been stuck sitting next to a smoker whilst playing cards at a table or playing the slots. Sure I could just get up, and often I did, but it sucks to have to leave and go somewhere else when you're having fun with those people/machines. Again, I think it's very stupid to not be able to smoke in a casino though. People should be allowed to smoke in a casino. I'm glad if they can't. But they should be able to.

 

Some places it's reasonable to expect smoking, some places it's not. Bars, casinos, and clubs should be fine to smoke in. Churches, business offices, and movie theaters should be smoking prohibited. These are natural expectations for the respective localities.

 

 

Obesity and smoking are two very different things. It only hurts the person who is over eating physically and there isn't that much a strain on the other dimensions of overall wellness to make a difference. Obesity can be reversed, but the effects of smoking cannot. Permanent organs like the heart, brain, and lungs will never heal or replace tissue with new tissue, only scar tissue which inhibits the function of the organ. So, I do think an outright smoking ban is and should be the governments decision. As it does harm innocent people easily. Both obesity and smoking are catalysts to heart disease so as far as both being harmful it's the same as they both have terrible consequences, but smoking definitely affects the environment more so than obesity.

 

Krista

Well both obesity and smoking cause a huge financial burden on society which we all pay for. Also, while obese people are much better off loosing weight and smokers are much better off stopping, in many cases they've both done some irrevocable damage to their bodies.

 

I agree that obesity and smoking are different, but actually there are similarities. IMO.

 

Okay, I understand.

 

Changing the topic slightly, I remember reading several years ago that if caffeine, nicotine or alcohol were discovered now, they would almost certainly be placed under government control in a similar way to other drugs. It is only because they have been in society for millennia that they aren't.

Oh my gosh! Caffeine is so toxic! LOL, do not get me started!

 

As for the smoking at work issue...I actually think it depends on the work. In the typical examples cited - bars, taverns, diners, etc. - I actually think it's fine if some of them allow smoking and disregard an employees non-smoking status, because jobs of that nature aren't usually very difficult to find, and as long as some establishments are smoke free I think it's fine to place the burden on the employee to go work at one of those if he/she doesn't like the smoking. I think office buildings, and work places for specialty workers are a different story. Often these are people's "careers", and these jobs are more difficult to come by and to replace, so protecting the workers at these locations makes sense.

 

Not to be elitist - and keep in mind that I used to be a waiter - but if you're a non-smoking waiter at a smoking restaurant (and if non-smoking restaurants exist), then just suck it up or go find a job at another restaurant. If you're an accountant, however, it is unfair for your firm to expect you to just move along if you don't like the smoking. Anyway, that probably does seem snotty and elitist and probably indicates a double standard, but I think the key thing here is how widely available the job in question is, and how easily it can be replaced.

 

As far as the government restricting social liberties, well certainly this is completely against everything I believe in. However, as I said before, this just isn't my cause, and I truly do think the people in question are better off not smoking. So even though I may disagree in principle and think it's unfair...I'm fine with it and kinda like it. Call me a hypocrite if you like.

 

Also, I personally don't see this eroding civil liberties that are dear to me personally, or that I do think are completely innocent and non-harmful to others. In general it seems to me that with regards to gender, age, race, religious, and sexuality rights (the issues I hold nearest my heart, and which I think are almost universally "good") the government is moving toward being more liberal and tolerant. So if they want to stop people from doing something that I really do think is bad for themselves and others, then even if I do think it's unfair (and I do), I'm fine with it. I just don't see the trend moving toward those other issues (I know I might be wrong, and if I am you can all say "I toldja so" ).

 

Just my selfish, biased opinions

-Kevin

 

Edit: I hope I haven't offended or alienated any smokers. You guys know I still love ya Indeed I'm kinda on your side in principle, just not in personal application.

Edited September 18, 2007 by AFriendlyFace

[JamesSavik]

Hysteria. Fear. Point the finger, claim moral superiority, claim the public places.

 

As gay people, haven't we seen this crap before?

[old bob]

Hysteria. Fear. Point the finger, claim moral superiority, claim the public places.

As gay people, haven't we seen this crap before?

Very interesting discussions (till now).

3 observations from the "launcher" of this poll :

1. Which is more important : human rights or public health ?

2. The generation's gap is important : elder people trend to be more smoker-friendly than younger people (with some exceptions).

3.The word "hate" (I put it on purpose) was chosen by 20 % of the votes. What about tolerance and peace ?

As conclusion : the gay community is not better but not worst as others :P

BTW, after reading all these comments, i will NOT stop smoking pipe

[rknapp]

Nick you're forgetting a few very important things concerning smoking in the working environment. Getting another job depends on a lot of factors. Working ability, skills, area, insurance. Some people are on some kind of disability, and so their working options tends to be very limited. Some people's skill are limited to workplaces where smoking is prominent (Casino, bar, restaurant, night club, etc.). Some areas have a very low availability of jobs compared to others. It took my sisters boyfriend almost a full year to get a job after he got his degree. He lived with us in that time and could not find a job in our area, so he moved back to his parents house in Pittsburgh and later found a job there.

 

Another major reason for working for some place is health insurance. A lot of people in the US can't afford their own health insurance, so they must get it through their employer. It's not unusual for employers to use that as a means to keep the employee working for them and in the conditions the employer chooses. It doesn't matter if the job deals with guns, knives, asbestos, explosives, rickity catwalks, or smoke. I personally get my health insurance through my dads employer as his dependent. After the age of 24 I have to get my own. So, if you can't get your own health insurance, then you are stuck with the job you have since a new job ordinarily will not offer health insurance unless you have been employed by them for a certain amount of time. My job did not offer anything until a year after I had been employed.

 

Conner: I almost never have other people in the car... and 65 really means 80! And blogs are overrated

[Dalmatia]

I understand what you're saying, but freedom of choice should be universal. I mean, if we have the government telling us that we can't allow smoking in private buisinesses, what's next? Are they going to tell people how much they can eat? Or what vitamins to take? If you give a little bit a freedom away, it doesn't seem so bad. Then, you give a little more, then a little more. Before you know it, there are no more freedoms. I'd rather let people decide for themselves what they want to allow in their businesses than the government.

 

 

Well the government over here is fast becoming that, we are a nanny state, we all do as the government tells us like good little citizens, and if anyone argues then its a spanked bottom for them

 

Back to topic though everyone

[AFriendlyFace]

Very interesting discussions (till now).

3 observations from the "launcher" of this poll :

1. Which is more important : human rights or public health ?

I would say human rights!

2. The generation's gap is important : elder people trend to be more smoker-friendly than younger people (with some exceptions).

You're right, this does seem to be the case.

 

3.The word "hate" (I put it on purpose) was chosen by 20 % of the votes. What about tolerance and peace ?

LOL, I didn't choose that one!

 

As conclusion : the gay community is not better but not worst as others :P

BTW, after reading all these comments, i will NOT stop smoking pipe

LOL, good for you, Old Bob!!

[Graeme]

1. Which is more important : human rights or public health ?

What human rights are we talking about? The right to cause someone else to become sick? The right to potentially kill another person with secondary smoke? The right to indulge in a personal vice?

 

I'm happy to say the last one is more important than publichhealth, but not the first two.

 

When someone's activities impact negatively on someone else, then I don't believe they have a "right" to those activities. The problem is that there are a lot of grey areas. For example, in the majority of situations, a smoker will not impact negatively on someone else -- it may annoy them, irritate them, but that's not what I'm talking about. Threatening someone's health is impacting on them negatively. However, the law is a blunt instrument. It is very difficult to say that smoking is only banned if there is someone in the vicinity that would be adversely affected by a smoker.

 

2. The generation's gap is important : elder people trend to be more smoker-friendly than younger people (with some exceptions).

I've not looked for this, but I suspect you are correct. Smoking was socially acceptable for the older generations, but has become less acceptable with the younger generations. A similar change would probably be found when discussing driving while under the influence of alcohol, too.

 

3.The word "hate" (I put it on purpose) was chosen by 20 % of the votes. What about tolerance and peace ?

The word "hate" is the reason I didn't select that option. I dislike being in the same room as someone smoking, but I don't hate it.

[NickolasJames8]

I admit that I picked the option that stated that I hate to be in the room with smokers, but I should clarify something: It's not the smokers themselves I hate, it's the cigarrette smoke that grosses me out (and makes me sneeze ). That said, it's not up to me to tell the owner of a store or a restauruant to ban smoking in their place of business. If people don't like it, they'll find abother place to eat/shop. Those who do like it will most likely go to that store or restauruant over the one that doesn't allow smoking.

So to me, it's not about smoker's rights and non-smoker's rights. It's about the government staying out of our lives as much as possible.

[Dalmatia]

Well I agree that the government shouldnt tell us what to do, but we all know that isnt going to happen so you've either got to live with it or do something about it! Thats my way of thinking anyway