Smoking Bans

Because it only took Viking-Sensei three years (and the approaching end of Errant Story) to come up with a better name for "General Discussions"
Post Reply
User avatar
Imp-Chan
Not Yet Dead
Posts: 1407
Joined: August 10th, 2007, 11:03 am
Twitter @: ImpChan
Location: Seoul, South Korea
Contact:

Smoking Bans

Post by Imp-Chan »

This is a topic that came up briefly in Pop Culture, and it strikes me as a perfect topic to discuss here. My state, along with many others, has recently passed bans on public smoking. The personal freedoms vs public safety issue is definitely a hotbutton topic these days, and smoking bans strike me as a good starting place for discussion of the larger freedom issues that we're facing here in the U.S.

I personally have not yet made up my mind regarding the smoking bans. I'm a big believer in personal responsibility, private property, and private enterprise, and I fervently believe that there are many cases where legislation is neither appropriate nor the best solution to social issues... but at the same time, I can't walk past someone smoking on the street without having to worry that my allergies will have gotten even worse and that this time they will send me into anaphylactic shock or something instead of just making me sick and dizzy and short of breath. For me, it's a welcome relief to be able to go to any restaurant in my city and know that I'll be able to breathe there, even though I'm not sure I agree that we should be able to pass legislation to force the owners of said businesses to disallow it.

So, what do folks think? Are smoking bans reasonable or not, and why?

^-^'
Because scary little devil girls have to stick together.
Image
User avatar
finalcarrot
Forum Regular
Posts: 74
Joined: August 19th, 2007, 4:38 pm
Location: The Carolinas

Re: Smoking Bans

Post by finalcarrot »

I have a friend who adamantly denies that secondhand smoke causes health issues in others, yet I grew up with smoking parents and had chronic bronchitis until they stopped smoking. At that point, I became like you, Hil. I can't stand smoke. It makes my eyes water, makes my throat feel tighter, and I get headaches just from the stench alone.

As such, I know secondhand smoke is actively detrimental to others. It's not a matter of personal freedom once it starts harming others. Then it's a health concern. I favor any smoking ban, particularly in a restaurant. I'm sure someone would hate it if I was flicking lung-damaging asbestos in their food and rubbing it on their skin and clothes, so why would I want their lung-damaging smoke sticking to me and my food?

In the same way, if I worked with radioactive materials, and carried them around, I'm sure the government would put a stop to that instantly -- reason: it's a health risk to others. Why should smoking be any different?

We can use eminent domain to take over a person's land and home in the name of progress. Are we so above using governmental politicking and restrictions to take away the right to smoke where it can be of active harm to others?

What about smoker's rights, someone will ask. Smoker's have as much right to smoke as they want, but not to endanger the health of everyone around them. It's not the smoker's we wish to oppress, it's the health risks. Smoke, smoke as much as you want, just don't do it around the unwitting and unwilling. I don't know a single smoker who would get in my car and light up if I said there was no smoking in my car; why should they be upset if a restaurant said there was no smoking inside?
User avatar
Viking-Sensei
Evil Admin Overlord
Posts: 1193
Joined: August 14th, 2007, 12:18 pm
Twitter @: Kallisti_x
Location: Vikingopolis, USA
Contact:

Re: Smoking Bans

Post by Viking-Sensei »

I can't help but wonder if this isn't one of those instances of evolution-in-action that they theorize about but we rarely ever get to see in our lifetimes. The high percentage of people roughly my age who were exposed to serious amounts of second-hand smoke as children who are now allergic to it is staggering.

It only makes sense, though... if you were exposed to a toxic environment, but your body knew that you didn't have to be in it, it'd probably do all sorts of things to prevent you on a physiological level from returning to said detrimental environs.

The reason I don't think this was happeneing en masse until now is that it's not so much the cigarette smoke itself (not overly good for you) or even the nicotine (highly addictive, but in and of itself not that harmful) but instead all the chemicals and 'filler' they treat cigarettes with nowadays that they didn't do before. In a bid to make their smokes more addictive, I think the corps may have shot themselves in the foot by making an entire generation allergic to and/or repulsed by their product.
How could a plan this awesome possibly fail?
Image
User avatar
BandMan2K
Errant Scholar
Posts: 119
Joined: August 21st, 2007, 2:54 am
Location: 1280 College St. Arkham, MA.
Contact:

Re: Smoking Bans

Post by BandMan2K »

I am a smoker. Have been since I was 17 until about a month ago when I figured I'd test myself to see how bad Cold Turkey would be on me. Found out I don't go through DT's or have a massive craving. Prolonged exposure will bring out cravings but it's not to the point of begging for any smoke like a crack addict. The main reason I can guess is that I would limit my consumption to half a pack a day. I'm a bit compulsive in that regard. I'd smoke at regular times every day and used a cigarette case I got from my younger brother that held only 10 coffin nails at a time. Leave the rest of the pack at home and just work on that for the day.

Even though I'm not smoking at this time, I still consider myself an occasional smoker so I guess I'll be going with Devil's Advocate in this arguement. I don't think smokers have that much of a problem with being told, "There's no smoking here, sir/madam." The big problems come up with those that want America to become a non-smoking nation but yet they tax the living Hell out of a pack of smokes. That tax money goes into state coffers and then gets spent on God knows what. If people want us to stop smoking, then quit basing your state economies on what's considered "necessary commodities." Many states get funds from smoke taxes, alcohol taxes, lottery income and especially gasoline. By this logic, that gas you pump into your car is as vital to the economy as my pack of Camels or my fifth of 16 year old scotch. This double standard of "we want people to stop drinking heavily & smoking in public" coupled with the increasing dependency on those taxed funds is what really gets after us smokers. Nothing like the feeling of getting boned up the ass & getting that mouth stuffed at the same time.

You want to institute smoking bans in areas, alright...then quit taxing the shit out of my pack of smokes. I can remember back in 2000 when I was 18 and could get a pack of Camels for $2.50-$3.00 dollars, now it's fucking 5 dollars. A carton? Forget it. That takes the majority of a Benjamin.

So...that's my thoughts, refute them if you wish or not. Your call.
User avatar
Sareth
RPG All-Star
Posts: 2604
Joined: August 23rd, 2007, 8:54 pm

Re: Smoking Bans

Post by Sareth »

I am a Libertarian who does not smoke. This should help put my comments into perspective.

I can sympathize with those who feel that public places should be smoke free. Smoking is a health risk, and there is no disputing it. This is especially true for those such as yourselves, for whom actual allergic reactions occur. Trying to protect people in public areas such as public parks, sidewalks, and municipal buildings is imminently reasonable.

However restaurants, bars, movie theatres, and such are not public areas. They are privately owned businesses. As such it is the right of the business owner(s) to cater to the demographic of their choice. If a bar owner wishes to bar smoking from his premises, it's HIS PREMISES, not that of the state. Similarly, if he specifically wants to cater to the smoking crowd, it is, once again, HIS PREMISES, and not that of the state. If his catering to the smoking crowd bothers you (and rightly so) it is your right, neigh, it is your OBLIGATION to take your business elsewhere, and even to persuade others to join you. If enough people do so, then he'll either change his policy in order to stay afloat, or his business will fail. To legislate that he no longer may chose whether to permit smoking in the enclosure of what is private property, however, is a violation of his rights as a businessman and a property owner.
User avatar
Imp-Chan
Not Yet Dead
Posts: 1407
Joined: August 10th, 2007, 11:03 am
Twitter @: ImpChan
Location: Seoul, South Korea
Contact:

Re: Smoking Bans

Post by Imp-Chan »

SgtSareth wrote:Trying to protect people in public areas such as public parks, sidewalks, and municipal buildings is imminently reasonable.

However restaurants, bars, movie theatres, and such are not public areas. They are privately owned businesses. As such it is the right of the business owner(s) to cater to the demographic of their choice.
This most closely aligns with my personal viewpoint, though I do feel that since smoke is a toxic, airborne substance with potentially deadly reactions for large portions of the population, then requiring private businesses to display highly visible warning signs to keep people like me away, just as they would have to for radiation or peanut-ridden food or some such, is also perfectly reasonable, if perhaps a bit bad for business. Though it's probably less bad than being sued because the lack of a warning sign allowed someone with an allergy to be taken unaware.

However, while this does march closely with my personal ideas, it also hits close to what I consider the real issue here. What should be the limit of the government's authority over private property? I'm inclined to agree that much as I appreciate the results, the smoking bans that extend to private property are out of line (particularly because the legislation in my state appears more concerned with the private property bans than with bans on public property)... but then legislation such as that passed to promote desegregation, or legislation that requires handicapped accesssibility, would also be out of line under the same argument. Perhaps the legislation about equal opportunity employment could also be called into question. In short, this is a slippery slope, and I feel that before we tout the absolute sanctity of private property and private enterprise, we need to find a line at which we consider it reasonable for the government to intervene. By not defining that line more clearly to begin with, we've left the doors wide open for abuse, and it will be hard to close them now.

^-^'
Because scary little devil girls have to stick together.
Image
User avatar
Tiamat
Jordan's Lab Assistant
Posts: 449
Joined: August 20th, 2007, 7:41 am

Re: Smoking Bans

Post by Tiamat »

Viking-Sensei wrote:...even the nicotine (highly addictive, but in and of itself not that harmful)
I agree with pretty much everything you said except this. I wonder how many people know that the stuff they're inhaling is one of natures deadlier toxins. (.5 to 1mg/kg is a lethal dose. For reference, this makes it around 100x more lethal than cocaine and heroin.)

Anyway, on a more relevant note, you can't really allow privately owned businesses to run business as they please. We tried that once. Remember black lung? 'Course ya don't, but that was one of the very nasty side effects of not making laws for the mining industry. In my mind, this law benefits waiters and waitresses more than it does the customers who frequent restaurants, because at least a patron can (usually) choose to be in a non-smoking area. Someone who gets shifted into the smoking section to wait on tables is gonna be breathing that shit for several hours, rather than one or two.

That said, there are still limits to the safety-in-expense-of-freedom mindset that seems to have shot up in America about 7 years after I was born. From 1st grade to 6th I watched as 'concerned parents' gradually forced more and more hazardous playthings off the playground, had the place covered in shitty mulch, and generally made it less fun all around because they didn't want Timmy to get a sprained ankle. I grew up in the first generation where broken bones were an exception rather than just an occurrence in childhood. To my knowledge, nobody ever died in the 20 years the playground had been there - plenty of bruises, but that's normal, damnit.

Hmm. Side-tracked. Anyway, the point I was attempting to get at was that the answer to 'if it saves just a few more lives, isn't it worth it?' shouldn't always be 'yes.'
Last edited by Tiamat on August 29th, 2007, 9:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Viking-Sensei
Evil Admin Overlord
Posts: 1193
Joined: August 14th, 2007, 12:18 pm
Twitter @: Kallisti_x
Location: Vikingopolis, USA
Contact:

Re: Smoking Bans

Post by Viking-Sensei »

Sorry, yeah, I was thinking of something else. Nicotine is definately poison, you are correct.

I respect the ability of employers to decide what level of work conditions their employees work in... to a point. If WalMart could raise their profit margins by 10% by instigating a policy which might kill 10% of their workforce over the next 20 years, but they wouldn't be held accountable for those deaths... people would be dropping like flies in WalMart. Businesses... not all, but enough... don't care about their employees nearly as much as they do the bottom line, and generally only care about said employees when their vitality (or medical expenses/workers comp/insurance claims) will impact the bottom line.

Which brings me to another point... If you worked at a chemical plant where there was a regular leak of noxious, poisonous gasses, the EPA or some similar group would shut them down immediately. However, if those fumes happen to be caused by your customers... If, because of your job, you were knowingly exposed to a high level of cancer-making-chemicals, workers compensation ought to cover for it (see people who worked with asbestos)... but heaven forbid you expect your workers compensation to cover you, a non-smoker, getting lung cancer from working with smokers.

As to the 'Playground' thing... I personally think this is just one small symptom of a far larger complex. I absolutely loathe antibacterial soaps and stuff, and will not be using any such things on my child's playthings unless it's a) really really dirty or b) been contaminated by some obvious source of contagin. There will be no random spritzing of the every surface in the house with bleach, and while I won't openly encourage my child to lick doorknobs, if they do I won't get too terribly upset about it. As George Carlin once told the story, he and his friends swam regularly in one of the worst rivers in New York growing up... and never got sick. His cabal was the only one that didn't have a single person get TB - the reason, as he put it, was that "our immune systems were tempered in raw shit."
How could a plan this awesome possibly fail?
Image
User avatar
Sareth
RPG All-Star
Posts: 2604
Joined: August 23rd, 2007, 8:54 pm

Re: Smoking Bans

Post by Sareth »

Impy, you make a very good point. It is the dark side of the coin to libertarian beliefs.

I do believe that, if someone is so foolish as to alienate a substantial percentage of his customer base over something so idiotic as ethnicity, he has that right. But I also believe we have the right to sit on the sidewalk holding up signs asking everyone to boycott his business (forcing his damnfool ass to go bankrupt). Is it the right answer? Maybe not, but then, in real life, there is rarely a right answer, merely the best of a collection of wrong ones.

Getting back to the real topic, smoking, I would consider asking businesses to display whether they were smoking or non-smoking on the doors to be reasonable. Then it becomes a case of "buyer beware."

Viking, You are correct that historically businesses have not shown a good track record of caring for their employees. There are plenty of exceptions to that these days (UPS, for example, offers even part time employees health benefits even though no one else does so. It doesn't have to, but chooses to.) But because there are plenty that do does not mean that there would be plenty that wouldn't if not required to. However, historically, it was not initially the government that put an end to that. It was the workers themselves banding together and striking for better conditions. In fact, initially the government fought against this. But in the end the unions won, and the government followed in their wake.

Now, please note I am just as opposed to requiring union membership by law if you wish to work. To me that is nothing less than forcing people to join political parties just to put food on their children's plates, and thus a violation of political freedom. However I am a firm believer that organizing is the best way for workers to defend themselves against abusive employers.

So to go back to the original topic, in the case of waiters and waitresses risking their health, it is their right to try to convince their employer to change his policies to respect their health. If he refuses, they may seek employment elsewhere or organize.

Again, this is far from a perfect solution, but there are no perfect solutions.

Just my 2c... and probably overpriced at that.
pillar_of_hate
Forum Regular
Posts: 80
Joined: August 25th, 2007, 9:28 am
Location: Right here, where're you?
Contact:

Re: Smoking Bans

Post by pillar_of_hate »

I was about to say, "I believe in principle that business owners should be allowed to determine the rules that apply on their premises," but upon reflection, I realize that I don't. I've worked for smallish businesses; they do whatever it takes to make that dollar and nothing they don't think is necessary. If there was never any threat of health inspections, they wouldn't keep the place clean or sanitary. If there was no threat of a sting, they'd sell tobacco, alcohol, and God knows what else to minors. Therefore, I believe that it's appropriate for society (through duly elected officials, etc) to determine what is permissible for any sort of business open to the public, and if the business owner is unwilling to meet those standards, he can't run his business.

Additionally, it's important to remember that smoking tobacco isn't like being black, or worshipping Ganesha, or even like shooting heroin, drinking alcohol, or smoking cannabis. Smoking cigarettes and cigars actively causes harm to those around you by introducing a variety of carcinogens into the air that others breathe.

If there were a bar where a huge brawl happened every night that the management made no effort to control, and people got badly injured, the police would shut it down, right? You couldn't then say, "Gee, these people must not mind getting in fights every night because they keep coming back." Well, that's basically what happens with tobacco smoke indoors. The analogy is not to some guy who just happens to enjoy hooping crystal meth while drinking, but someone who forces it on everyone around him without so much as a how-do-you-do.

So, yeah, there's my opinion on why smoking indoors in public places should be illegal. There's some question as to what constitutes a public place, but in general bans are probably a good thing.
Post Reply