Smoking bans in public places

Here's a post I've been meaning to make for a while. It's also been a while since we've had a good debate. Ohio has somewhat recently passed a law banning smoking indoors in public places. Many states have similar laws.

I think this is a fantastic law (it's not often I can say that). I mean, it's easy to say 'if you don't like it, leave', but what gives you the right to shit in somebody else's lungs? As I see it, it's an issue of comfort and health.

I am a non-smoker so I may be a little biased, but I'm also a libertarian, generally dislike government, and support many rights which would not personally benefit me.

I'm a non-smoker, and absolutely hate second hand smoke from cigarettes, but I think banning smoking in public places is wrong. If someone wants to make a restaurant non-smoking, then they should be allowed. However, why should they be forced to make their store/bar/whatever non-smoking?

Another example that recently came up, is the university on my hometown is going to be enforcing a smoking ban next school year. This means you can't have any form of smoke tobacco on campus, or else you get a ticket. I can definitely understand not allowing people to smoke inside the building, and maybe even outside where people walk between classes, but this ban includes even the parking lots and in your own car. You won't be able to go to your car to smoke, you would have to leave campus entirely. Just kind of seems like it's infringing on peoples rights. If people want to smoke and kill themselves, they should be able to do it, no matter how stupid it is... I guess?

But I'll be honest, I love that I can go into a poker room anywhere in the US and never have to smell cigarette smoke.

Being a nonsmoker and being allergic to smoke I had to give the Law in Washington banning smoking in public places the "slow clap that gets faster".

I fucking hate when someone is smoking near me, because it smells like shit. However, I firmly believe he or she has every right to smoke in public, and I also believe it should be 100% up to the business as to whether they will allow smoking or not. It is not the job of our legislators to decide what I do with my business or my body.

That said the dangers of second hand smoke have been grossly overstated and based upon bad misleading data and so I do not particularly worry about that aspect.

Also, I'm not anti-tobacco, as I smoke hookah regularly in my own home.

The casinos fucked the bars/restaurants in Vegas when I was there with this law.

Some good friends of mine lost their jobs because of it.

Oh I totally love the law, just think the entire US should ban smoking. It's a filthy disgusting habit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

Oh I totally love the law, just think the entire US should ban smoking. It's a filthy disgusting habit.

---

The .gov makes far too much money off of it for this to ever happen. I'm not even arguing that it should be made illegal, just banning it indoors in public places seems about right to me. I agree that it's a filthy discusting habit.

Owners discretion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by euphoricism

I fucking hate when someone is smoking near me, because it smells like shit. However, I firmly believe he or she has every right to smoke in public, and I also believe it should be 100% up to the business as to whether they will allow smoking or not. It is not the job of our legislators to decide what I do with my business or my body.

---

Might as well keep it legal in all places then (many states still do this). As a practical matter, you know as well as I do that no bar is going to ban smoking in their establishment if given the choice. Makes terrible business sense. I disagree that everyone should have the right to smoke in public-- it negatively affects the health and comfort of many people arond them.

Quote:

---

That said the dangers of second hand smoke have been grossly overstated and based upon bad misleading data and so I do not particularly worry about that aspect.

---

I've heard this argument many times. Care to offer up any credible sources? I'm not disagreeing you; I'd just like to learn more about the subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BankItDrew

Owners discretion.

---

http://www.scientificblogging.com/gr...pollution.jpeg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

Oh I totally love the law, just think the entire US should ban smoking. It's a filthy disgusting habit.

---

The .gov makes far too much money off of it for this to ever happen. I'm not even arguing that it should be made illegal, just banning it indoors in public places seems about right to me. I agree that it's a filthy discusting habit.

---

I feel the same way, but I also am a non smoker.
CT has passed this law a few years ago. Its just awesome to be able to go out to dinner or bars with my friends and not come home smelling like an Ashtray.
The law also states they need to stay 25ft away from entrance and exits to building which never happens.
Now its time to ban smoking on Construction sites!!

A similar law was recently passed in UK and as a non-smoker it has made pubs and clubs so much nicer to go in and I don't have to come home stinking. Also I think it's much better for the staff. Smokers would probs disagree but whatever I also think it should be banned.

Indoor smoking in public places has been banned in Norway since 2004. A bit of an uproar in the beginning but now everyone seem okay with it. Me, I love it.

Fucking smokers!

i think that it should be up to the private business'. i personally hate second hand smoke like everyone else, but i also think it would be hugely hypocritical of me to say that we should ban smoking in public places. i mean if you call yourself a libertarian, my feeling is you should be applying the method or theory or w/e you want to call it of having little to no govt, you should be applying it to all areas and not picking and choosing which ones necessarily convenience you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BankItDrew

Owners discretion.

---

http://www.scientificblogging.com/gr...pollution.jpeg

---

I was referring to smoking indoors within the walls owned by non-governmental officials within business. I hardly see how posting a link to a picture that depicts owners of vehicles on roads of public property that is outdoors that might contribute to this thread.

If you were me, you might instead reply with the following (a happy smoker n a train):
http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/4418/smokersb3.jpg
Take that ! YAY for no relation !

I'm a smoker and I do not approve of the indoor smoking ban of bars and restaurants, etc. I do not feel this way because I am a smoker, I feel this way because rights were taken away from more people than just the smokers - the owners of the establishments. Your rights and my rights should not increase just because we walked into a place with walls surrounding us. The decision of smoking/non-smoking should have continued to be under the approval of the people who own those walls. Maybe their business will suffer, maybe it won't.

Although your point is an unrelated one (I think your point was that: well, look at what happens when we let owners of things decide for themselves), I'll address it partially anyways... If you had your way, the following would take place:
1) You would no longer be allowed to drink alcohol outside of your own home because I am annoyed and stressed out when people who drink turn obnoxious and loud.
2) Country music and Disco would be illegal.
3) No more cup holders or cell phones in cars - cup holders hold drinks that hinder the quality of drivers when used, while cell phones are obvious.
4) The elimination of publicly owned mass transit.
5) No more airplanes owned by those other than the government, actually, we might as well throw in every form of transportation in there.

I know what you're thinking, that I may be getting a little out of hand, going over the top or too far. I am. I need to because otherwise lines are not drawn between personal rights and the rights of the masses.

Maybe I was wrong in my interpretation of the image you posted. Maybe it had nothing to do with the negatives of owners having rights. Maybe you're thinking, "If own a gun, should I have the right to kill you?" My concern is with the morality, which is dependent upon the overall feelings of the group. Now I'm rambling, even after I said I'd be partial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

Oh I totally love the law, just think the entire US should ban smoking. It's a filthy disgusting habit.

---

Are you serious?

First of all, smoking does not decrease the lifespan of everyone. Secondly, I mention this because I want to compare it to something: Online Poker! To most, it's a habit that hurts them financially, sometimes significantly. Which in turn, hurts those around them, especially if the addicted gambler has dipped into the income of his family. If you think that smoking should be banned because it's a 'filthy disgusting habit,' do not for a second think that this and online poker are completely unrelated. Believe it or not, this habit does affect many of the people around the user. Many families have been torn apart because of it. My lifespan would greatly decrease if every night I was woken up in the middle of the night to the noise of a family member banging on their desk with their mouse because they're fucking pissed off at the game. Online poker is an extremely economically negative habit to many of its users and to those around them.

[quote="BankItDrew"]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BankItDrew

Owners discretion.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

Oh I totally love the law, just think the entire US should ban smoking. It's a filthy disgusting habit.

---

Are you serious?

First of all, smoking does not decrease the lifespan of everyone. Secondly, I mention this because I want to compare it to something: Online Poker! To most, it's a habit that hurts them financially, sometimes significantly. Which in turn, hurts those around them, especially if the addicted gambler has dipped into the income of his family. If you think that smoking should be banned because it's a 'filthy disgusting habit,' do not for a second think that this and online poker are completely unrelated. Believe it or not, this habit does affect many of the people around the user. Many families have been torn apart because of it. My lifespan would greatly decrease if every night I was woken up in the middle of the night to the noise of a family member banging on their desk with their mouse because they're fucking pissed off at the game. Online poker is an extremely economically negative habit to many of its users and to those around them.

---

LOL! Sorry, but its not even close to the same thing. I don't know you, however, if I worked in a restaraunt that you went to often and waited on you while you smoked, you are affecting my quality of life. However, you can gamble all the money you have away and it doesn't affect me at all. And I don't mean this as a personal attack on you or anyone (although a lot of smokers seem to take it personally), but smoking is a habit that affects so many more people than just the smoker. To say that smoking doesn't decrease the lifespan of everyone is kinda laughable at this point in time (with all the research and data etc). Are there people that smoke every day of their life and live to be 90? Sure, but there are far more who start smoking at 14 and are dead or suffering at 40.

First I want to say that I believe in the philosophy that your right to swing your fist ends where my chin begins. People DO have the right to not breathe cigarette smoke if they don't want to. And they exercise that right by not going to an establishment that permits smoking. Simple.

I fully agree that it should be up to the business to decide whether they want smoking allowed inside or not. I don't see why they would, smokers are used to standing outside and smoking. But in any case I'm not fine with the government telling a business "YOU can't let YOUR customers smoke inside of a store YOU own on land YOU paid for." That's fundamentally against the spirit of our constitution and the concept of "individual liberty". The government needs to stop being my babysitter, protecting me from the evils of the world.

Quote:

---

As a practical matter, you know as well as I do that no bar is going to ban smoking in their establishment if given the choice. Makes terrible business sense.

---

If non-smokers don't like a smoking bar, they can find another one. It's that simple. If there are a significant number of people who are so bothered by cigarette smoke that they stop going to bars, then an industry of smoke-free bars will pop up and/or smoking bars will change to non-smoking bars. Its not like non-smokers are the minority.

Quote:

---

I've heard this argument many times. Care to offer up any credible sources? I'm not disagreeing you; I'd just like to learn more about the subject.

---

I like Penn & Teller's Bullshit episode on this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKcibsUqN2A

Theres more to that episode but i can only seem to find pieces. See if you can torrent it, it's good.

In any case the basic problems is that the studies that are often quoted (like the 38-year EPA one) treat people who live with a smoker and people who have ever stood next to a smoker as equally likely to get cancer, and they aren't. That is, they're not equal sample populations. Extracting the fact that people who have ingested huge quantities of second hand smoke every day for 15 years get cancer at X rate and then applying it to people who might visit a bar once a month to predict that they'll get cancer at the same rate is absolute foolishness, but that's exactly what they do.

The facts are that we don't have the facts and yet we're acting on rumors and say-so. I'm not saying second hand smoke can't hurt you. I'm saying we just don't know how much and for what length of time, and we should stop making public policy based upon "conventional wisdom". The amount of misinformation is absurd!

I mean look at these two sites I found after just googling "second hand smoke"

Quote:

---

According to the American Cancer society, secondhand smoke is the third leading preventable cause of death in the U.S. It kills some 38,000 to 65,000 yearly(from the Wisconson health center webpage)

---

Quote:

---

Every year environmental smoke (second-hand smoke) kills approximately 53,000 Americans. This is the same number of Americans who died in the Vietnam War! (from the VERY NEXT LINE IN THE SAME PAGE! Which is it?! They don't fucking know because no one fucking knows.)

---

It's all Bullshit! Even the 1994 EPA study says: "[The EPA] estimates that approximately 3,000 American nonsmokers die each year from lung cancer caused by secondhand smoke."

So where did those 58,000 deaths a year come from? Oh, another EPA study from 1997. In short, they don't fucking have a clue.

I think logic dictates that until enough research has been done, cigarette smoking should not be allowed in places frequented by minors. This would include restaurants unless they had a non-smoking section. Adults are capable of making their own choices.

I can understand people who would prefer that the guy behind him stop smoking. I agree, that shit smells terrible. But the answer is not for a police officer to run up and take it from him. The answer is, "Hey, you mind putting that out? Really bothers me. Thanks man." And if he refuses (which i have NEVER had happen and my girlfriend makes me ask everytime someone lights up around her), get up and move.




Again before someone makes claims that im defending smokers, I don't smoke cigarettes, but I do enjoy hookah approximately once a week.

From the skeptics magazine webpage:

World Health Organization published a study in 1998 that concluded: "Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS [environmental tobacco smoke/ Second Hand Smoke] and lung cancer risk." The WHO study also noted that there was only "weak evidence" for a risk of lung cancer from spousal or workplace ETS.

Fact: The study found a Relative Risk (RR) for spousal exposure of 1.16, with a Confidence Interval (CI) of .93 - 1.44. In layman's terms, that means

• Exposure to the ETS from a spouse increases the risk of getting lung cancer by 16%. • Where you'd normally find 100 cases of lung cancer, you'd find 116.

• The 1.16 number is not statistically significant.

Same site, doing the math provided by the Bullshit TV show:

here is a 25% higher risk of dying of lung cancer from being regularly exposed to passive smoke. For those regularly exposed to ETS, the death rate from lung cancer is 1 in 80,000. For those not exposed, it is 1 in 100,000. Looked at another way: For every million people exposed to ETS, there will be 12.5 deaths from lung cancer; for every million people not exposed to ETS, there will be 10 deaths due to lung cancer. This is statistically of no significance.

as a former smoker I think the law is terrible, but it worked out for me because it was right when I was quitting.

as euph says if people actually cared that much there would be a huge market for non smoking bars, there isn't. I have always found that whatever the % of smokers is (I think ~20%?) it goes up well over 50 when you start asking people who hang out in bars. Drinking 6+ beers isn't healthy either.

As for restaurants, they were all heading non smoking anyway so it's kinda a non issue to me.

Either way, vote with your feet. If the club stinks don't go, and feel free to call them and tell them why.

About the only thing I miss about smoking is getting outside more often.

well the good news for smokers is now they all get to congregate outside, so its an easy to pick up the opposite sex, or the same sex if thats how you are.

i am 100% against these laws for the sole reason that the force behind their progress is dishonest. there is definitely need to create and clarify laws regarding smoking, but 'the ends justifies the means' is a false philosophy, and we're all worse off when we allow it to be implemented.

actually euph, penn and teller admitted they were wrong in saying that second hand smoke wasnt dangerous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

actually euph, penn and teller admitted they were wrong in saying that second hand smoke wasnt dangerous.

---

Thats not true but that's how its being spun. All they have agreed in saying is that it seems like in the program they said that the study wasnt "statistically valid" (a 16% increase) when a 16% increase, while *statistically* valid, is still really unimpressive for non smokers living in a smokers household.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by euphoricism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

actually euph, penn and teller admitted they were wrong in saying that second hand smoke wasnt dangerous.

---

Thats not true but that's how its being spun. All they have agreed in saying is that it seems like in the program they said that the study wasnt "statistically valid" (a 16% increase) when a 16% increase, while *statistically* valid, is still really unimpressive for non smokers living in a smokers household.

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrub3...eature=related

i mean, it seems pretty clear to me that they admit they were wrong.

yea ive seen the clip, but re-listen to that thing they don't actually say *anything* useful.

The positions are clarified here:

http://skepdic.com/news/newsletter41.html#retraction

and its basically a semantical argument about the scientific definition of "statistically valid" and the laymans version of "statistically valid". And even if we accept the 3,000 number as "true", why put out the claims of 50,000 plus (which essentially blame second hand smoke for all the heart attacks ever).

It still remains that a 16% increased risk from people who don't smoke but live with heavy smokers is not remotely useful for public policy towards the general populace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by euphoricism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

actually euph, penn and teller admitted they were wrong in saying that second hand smoke wasnt dangerous.

---

Thats not true but that's how its being spun. All they have agreed in saying is that it seems like in the program they said that the study wasnt "statistically valid" (a 16% increase) when a 16% increase, while *statistically* valid, is still really unimpressive for non smokers living in a smokers household.

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrub3...eature=related

i mean, it seems pretty clear to me that they admit they were wrong.

---

couple things going on here. 1. new research providing a deeper understanding of the issue. 2. public eye isnt quantifying the research accurately.

1. thats how science works. in no field at any time does anybody have 100% of facts. its a progress thing. this very very rarely means that previous research that had strong factual content will later be known to be completely wrong, but that understanding of the facts just gets deeper.

2. the fallacy of equivocation is applicable here. euph already pointed out that growing up in a secondhand smoke environment is not the same as a guy smoking next to you on a bus. the public not understanding the difference (or more like ignoring the difference) is an example of common usage of the fallacy of equivocation

I live in Delaware, which is also a non-smoking state and I think the law is an excellent idea. The only problem is when I travel to states that do not have the same regulations, it is sooo much different, especially when going to AC, NJ.

Personally, as someone who almost lost their father due to cigarettes (he had a heart attack at age 40, smoked 3 packs a day and then quit cold turkey after this heart attack), I think these laws are a good idea, regardless of intent. Simply having a designated non-smoking area is not good enough.

every non smoker will say that they enjoy smoke free area's, thats a given. and yeah, this law conveniences us greatly, but its not right. its like if they say we cant smoke in public areas, next thing you know theyll say you can't smoke on your front porch. why give the government more power to regulate our lives?

after they successfully ban smoking, they'll start telling us we cant fart because farts contain methane which is terribad on the environment because of oh noes global warming!

Quote:

---

Personally, as someone who almost lost their father due to cigarettes (he had a heart attack at age 40, smoked 3 packs a day and then quit cold turkey after this heart attack), I think these laws are a good idea, regardless of intent. Simply having a designated non-smoking area is not good enough.

---

Repeat this out loud every day until you believe it: IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENTS JOB TO PROTECT YOUR FATHER FROM HIMSELF. THATS HIS JOB, AND THATS YOUR JOB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

every non smoker will say that they enjoy smoke free area's, thats a given. and yeah, this law conveniences us greatly, but its not right. its like if they say we cant smoke in public areas, next thing you know theyll say you can't smoke on your front porch.

---

will ,it's kinda like not being able to drink in public places. like at some beaches, parks, at a museam, in the theater.

the people who own those places decided on those rules. No one is arguing against the OPTION.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigmikea78

I live in Delaware, which is also a non-smoking state and I think the law is an excellent idea. The only problem is when I travel to states that do not have the same regulations, it is sooo much different, especially when going to AC, NJ.

Personally, as someone who almost lost their father due to cigarettes (he had a heart attack at age 40, smoked 3 packs a day and then quit cold turkey after this heart attack), I think these laws are a good idea, regardless of intent. Simply having a designated non-smoking area is not good enough.

---

you logic is exactly that which is used by the adversaries of legal internet poker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrhappy333

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

every non smoker will say that they enjoy smoke free area's, thats a given. and yeah, this law conveniences us greatly, but its not right. its like if they say we cant smoke in public areas, next thing you know theyll say you can't smoke on your front porch.

---

will ,it's kinda like not being able to drink in public places. like at some beaches, parks, at a museam, in the theater.

---

yes its exactly like that. its absurd that you cant walk around drinking or be drinking in a park. at the very least there should be parks where you can drink at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrhappy333

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

every non smoker will say that they enjoy smoke free area's, thats a given. and yeah, this law conveniences us greatly, but its not right. its like if they say we cant smoke in public areas, next thing you know theyll say you can't smoke on your front porch.

---

will ,it's kinda like not being able to drink in public places. like at some beaches, parks, at a museam, in the theater.

---

yes its exactly like that. its absurd that you cant walk around drinking or be drinking in a park. at the very least there should be parks where you can drink at.

---

werd up!
Holla!

im all for a smoking ban..but whats public,should stay that way. its only a law cuz a bunch of assholes dont know when to say when...(its afree country,ill do what i want)..thats the kind of thinking that ruins everything...and there are a lot of people that feel that way.

i smoke.. but i dont smoke to piss peeps off...
if someone is bothered by it,i move...
or ill put it out..
i can smoke any time i want.i choose not to smoke around people who dont. cuz its polite...i have manners. unlike the majority of america....

imo

I smoke and the ban doesn't bother me. I believe other people's right to clean air is more important than my nasty stupid addiction. If I worked in a bar i wouldn't want to be breathing in a carton of second hand smoke every night.

restaurants should be allowed to allow smoking. anything else is simply UNAMERICAN.

im not a smoker though and i dont like when people are smoking near me when im sober.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

restaurants should be allowed to allow smoking. anything else is simply UNAMERICAN.

---

America is pretty unamerican these days.

It's a Free country as long as you do what your told.

How is banning smoking in public places unamerican?

America is all about pursuing happiness while not negatively affecting other people who are also trying to pursue happiness. This is why murder, rape, and dwarfashacking are all illegal. Public smoking negatively affects others. Maybe not your average person but small children, older people, and people with breathing problems shouldn't be at risk because some dbag gave into peer pressure in high school and is now addicted.

Insert super exaggeration conclusion here to keep in theme of this thread: Banning slavery was viewed as unamerican too

Why is it not the property owners decision? I choose if someone can smoke in my home. If people don't like that then they shouldn't be at my place.

I think it is bullshit that the government can ban smoking in private businesses absolute tyrannical horse shit.

if a business wants to allow smoking then people who hate it can go to a business that decides to ban smoking, it is win win.

What if I decide people with eye brow piercing gross me out and ruin my day. Should the government be able to ban people wearing eyebrow piercings.

People allow government infringement so easily.

ohh and I do not smoke (unless I am shit faced sometimes I do then but that is only because I am trying to hide the fact that I am outside to puke)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ProZachNation

I think it is bullshit that the government can ban smoking in private businesses absolute tyrannical horse shit.

if a business wants to allow smoking then people who hate it can go to a business that decides to ban smoking, it is win win.

What if I decide people with eye brow piercing gross me out and ruin my day. Should the government be able to ban people wearing eyebrow piercings.

People allow government infringement so easily.

ohh and I do not smoke (unless I am shit faced sometimes I do then but that is only because I am trying to hide the fact that I am outside to puke)

---

Eyebrow piercing can't give the person sitting next to you cancer...or can it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ProZachNation

I think it is bullshit that the government can ban smoking in private businesses absolute tyrannical horse shit.

if a business wants to allow smoking then people who hate it can go to a business that decides to ban smoking, it is win win.

What if I decide people with eye brow piercing gross me out and ruin my day. Should the government be able to ban people wearing eyebrow piercings.

People allow government infringement so easily.

ohh and I do not smoke (unless I am shit faced sometimes I do then but that is only because I am trying to hide the fact that I am outside to puke)

---

Eyebrow piercing can't give the person sitting next to you cancer...or can it

---

It doesn't GIVE you cancer it is linked!! Big difference (not really)

I still stand by my argument of separate but equal, hey it worked before it can work again.

http://i538.photobucket.com/albums/f...tteashtray.jpg


http://i538.photobucket.com/albums/f...dhandsmoke.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2_Thumbs_Up

Why is it not the property owners decision? I choose if someone can smoke in my home. If people don't like that then they shouldn't be at my place.

---

It's illegal to have an unsanitary prep area in their establishments because that has been deemed unhealthy. Is it not a good idea to have such a rule in place instead of saying they can make food with as much fecal matter in it as they want? Yeah I know you can see smoking but not always a dirty kitchen but I'm sure there's an example that's a more accurate comparison but you get the drift.

And people that think if there's such a demand for non-smoking establishments that one should be made, it doesn't work like that. That's cutting out a huge part of your market. Every non-smoker isn't going to come flooding your way. They're still going to eat where the food/crowd/drinks/entertainment is good.

yay American freedom


and yes, I dislike second hand smoke, but I dislike this law even more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galapogos

And people that think if there's such a demand for non-smoking establishments that one should be made, it doesn't work like that. That's cutting out a huge part of your market. Every non-smoker isn't going to come flooding your way. They're still going to eat where the food/crowd/drinks/entertainment is good.

---

Well then to bad, if it makes you that upset wear a gas mask when you leave your house. :roll:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galapogos

And people that think if there's such a demand for non-smoking establishments that one should be made, it doesn't work like that.

---

Obviously it does work like that. It's just that the demand isn't high enough for it to happen in bars. In restaurants where demand for smoke free areas are higher you'll see it even without a law. You said it yourself. People sometimes prioritize other things such as crowd and entertainment above non-smoking areas. That's their own choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2_Thumbs_Up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galapogos

And people that think if there's such a demand for non-smoking establishments that one should be made, it doesn't work like that.

---

Obviously it does work like that. It's just that the demand isn't high enough for it to happen in bars. In restaurants where demand for smoke free areas are higher you'll see it even without a law. You said it yourself. People sometimes prioritize other things such as crowd and entertainment above non-smoking areas. That's their own choice.

---

Yeah but they shouldn't be forced to put their health at risk (sounds more dramatic than I mean) just to mingle with society. Higher ups decided that second hand smoke has poses enough of a risk to the non-smokers that it should not be allowed in closed areas. Not because non-smokers don't like the way it smells, that's just a bonus.

I honestly don't see what the huge debate is. Maybe I skimmed the thread too fast. Whoever made the law (in BC here it was the WCB) decided there was enough evidence to ban it indoors. Smokers can still smoke right outside. Saying they're being robbed of their rights/freedom (not saying you think that) seems a bit extreme.

if its between a smoking establishment and a non smoking one i would take the non smoking one every time. i dont think anyone non smoker would choose a smoking establishment, unless the food was too good to pass up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galapogos

Yeah but they shouldn't be forced to put their health at risk (sounds more dramatic than I mean) just to mingle with society. Higher ups decided that second hand smoke has poses enough of a risk to the non-smokers that it should not be allowed in closed areas. Not because non-smokers don't like the way it smells, that's just a bonus.

I honestly don't see what the huge debate is. Maybe I skimmed the thread too fast. Whoever made the law (in BC here it was the WCB) decided there was enough evidence to ban it indoors. Smokers can still smoke right outside. Saying they're being robbed of their rights/freedom (not saying you think that) seems a bit extreme.

---

For me the debate is more principal. It's not about whether it's a good decision or not. It's about who's decision it is. If it's not the owner of the property that sets the rules then it implies that someone else has a higher claim on the property. That's a step away from private ownership and towards collective ownership.

I'm a non smoker, but totally against smoking bans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by euphoricism

Quote:

---

Personally, as someone who almost lost their father due to cigarettes (he had a heart attack at age 40, smoked 3 packs a day and then quit cold turkey after this heart attack), I think these laws are a good idea, regardless of intent. Simply having a designated non-smoking area is not good enough.

---

Repeat this out loud every day until you believe it: IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENTS JOB TO PROTECT YOUR FATHER FROM HIMSELF. THATS HIS JOB, AND THATS YOUR JOB.

---

Your bold statement is incorrect....per the Food and Drug Administration's website, here is their mission statement..."The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation. The FDA is also responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medicines and foods more effective, safer, and more affordable; and helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health."

Considering the FDA is part of the US Department of Health and Human Services aka "the government" and their primary goal is protecting the public health, I would say it is part of the government to protect people from themselves.

Mike, I want to punch you in the face so hard right now.

I'm a smoker and don't object to the ban, I just wish they'd make smoking shelters nice like they do in casinos.

The problem is with any type of ban like this though is the lack of common sense excercised by nitty power-hungry smegma-ridden council jobsworth types; as seen here:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7543863.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7524526.stm

Quote:

---

I was referring to smoking indoors within the walls owned by non-governmental officials within business. I hardly see how posting a link to a picture that depicts owners of vehicles on roads of public property that is outdoors that might contribute to this thread.

---

The point was supposed to be this-- business owners (we're not just talking about bars but all businesses, e.g. grocery stores, family restaurants, malls, etc) are going to do whatever they can to maximize profit. This is understandable and the cornerstone of a capitalist economy. I do not have a problem with this.

How does this relate? Euphorism made a point that I absolutely agree with, it's NOT the government's job to protect you from yourself. It *is* however, the government's job, to some extent, to protect you from other people. Hence, laws dealing with murder, rape, assault, drunk driving, mass polution, and yes, even second-hand smoke (I'm not trying to put the last one on the same level as any of the others; I'm just making the point that I don't think the government is completely out of place here, despite being a libertarian myself).

Nobody is ever going to accuse me of being a left-wing, tree hugging liberal, believe me. Here's the thing though, I can control the food I eat, what I drink, what I do with my body, etc. What I can't control is air quality, which is why I tried to correlate pollution with the current topic. In hindsight, I probably shouldn't have. I like clean air.

Quote:

---

If you were me, you might instead reply with the following (a happy smoker n a train):
[img][image edited out]
Take that ! YAY for no relation !

---

:roll:

Quote:

---

I'm a smoker and I do not approve of the indoor smoking ban of bars and restaurants, etc. I do not feel this way because I am a smoker, I feel this way because rights were taken away from more people than just the smokers - the owners of the establishments. Your rights and my rights should not increase just because we walked into a place with walls surrounding us. The decision of smoking/non-smoking should have continued to be under the approval of the people who own those walls. Maybe their business will suffer, maybe it won't.

---

Were I the owner of an establishment (e.g. a bar) who's profit declined because of this new law, no doubt I would be upset. In my eyes, this is far and away the best argument you have. Maybe they will find happiness in that their patrons are likely now healthier people, but I doubt it.

Quote:

---

Although your point is an unrelated one (I think your point was that: well, look at what happens when we let owners of things decide for themselves), I'll address it partially anyways... If you had your way, the following would take place:

---

Without even reading past this yet, I can guarantee you that you are going to jump to a bunch of asanine conclusions about me or about what I think just because you don't agree with me on one issue. Remember, I'm a libertarian and this is one of the only issues I'll cross the line on!

Quote:

---

1) You would no longer be allowed to drink alcohol outside of your own home because I am annoyed and stressed out when people who drink turn obnoxious and loud.

---

a. http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/4418/smokersb3.jpg (unrelated)
b. I would not like to see this happen.

Quote:

---

2) Country music and Disco would be illegal.

---

a. http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/4418/smokersb3.jpg (unrelated)
b. I would not like to see this happen. (not that you'll ever find me listening to disco)

Quote:

---

3) No more cup holders or cell phones in cars - cup holders hold drinks that hinder the quality of drivers when used, while cell phones are obvious.

---

a. http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/4418/smokersb3.jpg (unrelated)
b. I would not like to see this happen. (random tidbit-- driving under the influence is a crime based upon the increased probability of getting into an accident. However statistics have shown that driving just over the legal limit is about as dangerous as driving while sober and talking on a cell phone. I'm not trying to make any point, just thought I'd add).

Quote:

---

4) The elimination of publicly owned mass transit.

---

What are you talking about? Have you ever read any of my posts outside this thread? Do you realize how much I think government ownership and government intervention generally sucks? I"d like to keep the absolute most stuff possible in the private sector. Remember when I predicted something about asanine conclusions? That was legit, fwiw.

Quote:

---

5) No more airplanes owned by those other than the government, actually, we might as well throw in every form of transportation in there.

---

*queue up your own stupid photo here*

that's enough for now

Quote:

---

First of all, smoking does not decrease the lifespan of everyone. Secondly, I mention this because I want to compare it to something: Online Poker! To most, it's a habit that hurts them financially, sometimes significantly. Which in turn, hurts those around them, especially if the addicted gambler has dipped into the income of his family. If you think that smoking should be banned because it's a 'filthy disgusting habit,' do not for a second think that this and online poker are completely unrelated. Believe it or not, this habit does affect many of the people around the user. Many families have been torn apart because of it. My lifespan would greatly decrease if every night I was woken up in the middle of the night to the noise of a family member banging on their desk with their mouse because they're fucking pissed off at the game. Online poker is an extremely economically negative habit to many of its users and to those around them.

---

Ok I just couldn't help myself, I had to read a little bit further.

Short answer: No. (I'm disputing the comparison you're making, not the factual legitimacy of what you posted).

Long answer: I abso-freaking-lutely hate comparisons that are based on the clever manipulation of language. You made it a bit harder to detect by working in the family crutch, implying the children are being hurt, etc.

You are trying to manipulate language and compare the two by saying something to the effect of, "people are both hurt by each of these things, so if you feel that one should be banned, you have no other option but to ban the other. but since this is a poker forum and everybody here is pro-poker, i'm going to pull this BS and try to pull people over to my side".

They are two *completely* different topics and should be discussed freely on their own merits. If you would like me to break down the differences in the two cases (I will try to be as objective and unbiased as possible, with the understanding that I'm a non-smoking poker player), I will.

Quote:

---

business owners (we're not just talking about bars but all businesses, e.g. grocery stores, family restaurants, malls, etc) are going to do whatever they can to maximize profit. This is understandable and the cornerstone of a capitalist economy. I do not have a problem with this.

How does this relate? Euphorism made a point that I absolutely agree with, it's NOT the government's job to protect you from yourself. It *is* however, the government's job, to some extent, to protect you from other people.

---

I could not agree more. So long as they do not take away rights from people who are not in the wrong ie. business owners.

Quote:

---

Re: elimination of publically owned mass transit: What are you talking about? Have you ever read any of my posts outside this thread? Do you realize how much I think government ownership and government intervention generally sucks? I"d like to keep the absolute most stuff possible in the private sector. Remember when I predicted something about asanine conclusions?

---

Glad to see we agree again here.
First of all, when I say things like "you are probably thinking," or "If you were me," I was playing sort of a devil's advocate but wish I hadn't because you seem offended. Secondly, I can't claim that I know what sort of person you are outside of the picture you posted of the cars. I do not know anything about you. I probably do not know much about you because most of your posts probably contain little to no content. For example, your first response to me. You basically made two points in your whole rant. They include: 1) I am a libertarian who believes in the protection of rights. 2) Government intervention sucks. Both of which, I agree with completely.

Then you post a picture of no relevance - which was you trying to mock me, yet I posted that picture to mock you. Then you begin to agree with me more when you berate points 1-5 (see: "I would not like to see this happen."). I'm so confused as to what argument you're trying to get across here.
Cliff Notes for your responses to 1-5:
Quote
Mock
Agree
Well done Lukie.

Quote:

---

They are two *completely* different topics and should be discussed freely on their own merits. If you would like me to break down the differences in the two cases (I will try to be as objective and unbiased as possible, with the understanding that I'm a non-smoking poker player), I will.

---

I know what the differences are, so no need to delve into that. I would however, love to read why you think that I should not compare the two, which was initially based upon the protection of 3rd party individuals that are negatively affected.

I'm a bit short on time but I'll come back later to address your points. Euph's too.

A quick question though:

What gives you the *right* (your word, not mine) to crap nicotine, tobacco, formaldehyde, ammonia, cyanide, et al. in MY lungs?

Please explain what gives you that right, be it if you feel it's an ethical right, legal right, etc. Personally, I think it's a joke.

I'm not up on all the nuances of this thread (tl;dr) but I'm a 'trying to quit' smoker and fully support smoking bans. When they came in here, all the usual businesses griped about it but in the end it's a public health issue and we need to make smoking a socially unacceptable behaviour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

I'm a bit short on time but I'll come back later to address your points. Euph's too.

A quick question though:

What gives you the *right* (your word, not mine) to crap nicotine, tobacco, formaldehyde, ammonia, cyanide, et al. in MY lungs?

Please explain what gives you that right, be it if you feel it's an ethical right, legal right, etc. Personally, I think it's a joke.

---

If someone is smoking take ten steps away. :roll:

Do you stand in traffic and demand that other people drive around you?

Some of this shit is common sense but obviously some people do not have enough common sense so the government steps in to save them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

What gives you the *right* (your word, not mine) to crap nicotine, tobacco, formaldehyde, ammonia, cyanide, et al. in MY lungs?

---

Nothing. If someone said that it is a smokers right to crap into your lungs, please show proof.

Everyone has rights. Some people will feel at a loss due to enforcing some rights over others. The only point that I was trying to make was that removing the rights of the owners of businesses regarding the option of smoking is wrong. Owners rights >Patrons rights because the establishment is their land, not the non-smokers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warpe

I'm not up on all the nuances of this thread (tl;dr) but I'm a 'trying to quit' smoker and fully support smoking bans. When they came in here, all the usual businesses griped about it but in the end it's a public health issue and we need to make smoking a socially unacceptable behaviour.

---

dude, you're like 90, why quit now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BankItDrew

The only point that I was trying to make was that removing the rights of the owners of businesses regarding the option of smoking is wrong. Owners rights >Patrons rights because the establishment is their land, not the non-smokers.

---

Disagree, and here's why: If business owners get to decide whether that their establishment is smoking, then anyone who works for them is forced to work in a smoking environment. It's a public health issue plus a workplace health issue. And, no, many people don't have the luxury of quitting and finding a new job.

FWIW, I don't agree about banning smoking in outdoor public areas, but indoors most definitely.

I agree no workplace should become smoking that is established non but the idea people have no choice on where to start working doesn't make much sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ProZachNation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

I'm a bit short on time but I'll come back later to address your points. Euph's too.

A quick question though:

What gives you the *right* (your word, not mine) to crap nicotine, tobacco, formaldehyde, ammonia, cyanide, et al. in MY lungs?

Please explain what gives you that right, be it if you feel it's an ethical right, legal right, etc. Personally, I think it's a joke.

---

If someone is smoking take ten steps away. :roll:

Do you stand in traffic and demand that other people drive around you?

Some of this shit is common sense but obviously some people do not have enough common sense so the government steps in to save them.

---

Take 10 steps away? Glad you're grossly misinformed. Do you think that crap just vanishes into thin air, never to be seen again?

Do I stand in traffic? Nope, although I'm not sure what the relevance is...

Re: government, again, on most issues, I would agree with you. I'd read Warpe's posts. He makes some great points and comes off as much smarter and more civil than I do.

This shit IS common sense. The rights of non-smokers to clean air should supercede the smoker's right to smoke whenever and wherever they want. Indoors you normally can't take 10 steps away to avoid the effects. Workers also have a right to a smoke-free environment.

GUYS

Do you realise how easily this debate could be applied to cars, pollution & drivers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ProZachNation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

I'm a bit short on time but I'll come back later to address your points. Euph's too.

A quick question though:

What gives you the *right* (your word, not mine) to crap nicotine, tobacco, formaldehyde, ammonia, cyanide, et al. in MY lungs?

Please explain what gives you that right, be it if you feel it's an ethical right, legal right, etc. Personally, I think it's a joke.

---

If someone is smoking take ten steps away. :roll:

Do you stand in traffic and demand that other people drive around you?

Some of this shit is common sense but obviously some people do not have enough common sense so the government steps in to save them.

---

You should stick to that machine of yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ash256

GUYS

Do you realise how easily this debate could be applied to cars, pollution & drivers?

---

...heavy industry, smelters, coal fired generating plants, gas fields....

^

Any gas really, as long as its not methane.

If its methane, we're all soooo fucked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigmikea78

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by euphoricism

Quote:

---

Personally, as someone who almost lost their father due to cigarettes (he had a heart attack at age 40, smoked 3 packs a day and then quit cold turkey after this heart attack), I think these laws are a good idea, regardless of intent. Simply having a designated non-smoking area is not good enough.

---

Repeat this out loud every day until you believe it: IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENTS JOB TO PROTECT YOUR FATHER FROM HIMSELF. THATS HIS JOB, AND THATS YOUR JOB.

---

Your bold statement is incorrect....per the Food and Drug Administration's website, here is their mission statement..."The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation. The FDA is also responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medicines and foods more effective, safer, and more affordable; and helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health."

Considering the FDA is part of the US Department of Health and Human Services aka "the government" and their primary goal is protecting the public health, I would say it is part of the government to protect people from themselves.

---

ill bet you think the government should outlaw the sale of tobacco and regulate everything in our lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

ill bet you think the government should outlaw the sale of tobacco and regulate everything in our lives.

---

smoking tobacco probably wouldn't be a legal activity for very long if the practice was introduced now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warpe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

ill bet you think the government should outlaw the sale of tobacco and regulate everything in our lives.

---

smoking tobacco probably wouldn't be a legal activity for very long if the practice was introduced now

---

yeah probably because some people want the government to regulate every aspect of our lives. but im not sure how much the idea of it being introduced now has much to do with it, because smoking weed as been around for a very long time as well, and its still illegal. idk, i guess the puritans were smoking cigs at the time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ash256

GUYS

Do you realise how easily this debate could be applied to cars, pollution & drivers?

---

That's actually something I've been meaning to read up on to be honest. I think our country (world) is better off with sensible emissions laws though. Where the line is drawn I have no idea. I'm not nearly informed enough to make an opinion on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warpe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

ill bet you think the government should outlaw the sale of tobacco and regulate everything in our lives.

---

smoking tobacco probably wouldn't be a legal activity for very long if the practice was introduced now

---

yeah probably because some people want the government to regulate every aspect of our lives. but im not sure how much the idea of it being introduced now has much to do with it, because smoking weed as been around for a very long time as well, and its still illegal. idk, i guess the puritans were smoking cigs at the time?

---

Stop with the whole 'we want government to regulate every aspect of our lives'. More specifically (or more correctly), I think this is a time where government is correct in regulating this aspect of *business*, which happens to affect the lives and health of many people.

I've never made the argument that smoking should be illegal, or that you shouldn't be able to do it in places were others are not affected (such as outdoors or in your own home).

I am very glad that someone brought up the rights of workers finally, which should basically end the thread. It is not an issue of the business owners rights, but of their employees to be allowed to work in as safe an environment as possible given their line of work.

besides, as long as all establishments are in the same non-smoking boat, then the smoking ban can only increase business. I for one am more likely (albeit only slightly) to go out if I don't have to come home smelling like smoke, and can stay and drink longer due to better lung capacity in non-smoking places. Whereas smokers will not be deterred from going out if all places are non-smoking, non-smokers may be tempted to go out (or stay longer) when there is no smoke to contend with.

everywhere that these sorts of laws are proposed, bar and restaurant owners claim that they will lose all sorts of business and go broke, and the end result is always the same, there is no long term negative impact on business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warpe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

ill bet you think the government should outlaw the sale of tobacco and regulate everything in our lives.

---

smoking tobacco probably wouldn't be a legal activity for very long if the practice was introduced now

---

yeah probably because some people want the government to regulate every aspect of our lives. but im not sure how much the idea of it being introduced now has much to do with it, because smoking weed as been around for a very long time as well, and its still illegal. idk, i guess the puritans were smoking cigs at the time?

---

tobacco lobby is huge, governments make tonnes of money from tobacco industry, and loads of people are very addicted to it, that is why it is still legal. I am assuming that warpe is stating that if cigarettes were to come out as a new product today, they would not pass mustard and would be deemed too dangerous to be legal. the same has been said of gasoline as a fuel source. If it weren't already in use, it would be deemed too dangerous to allow.

as for pot, there are a lot of reasons that isn't going to be legalized any time soon, many of them related to the US which blocks canada from legalizing (or decriminalizing) it. others relate to the difficulties that would be faced with regulating it's growth, and the related matter of who is going to profit from it if it's so easy to grow yourself? if noone will profit, then who is going to lobby for it? the answer is potheads, and they are notoriously bad lobbyists :)