![]() |
Second Hand Smoke
The threat of second hand smoke to nonsmokers health has been used to spearhead many legal movements to ban it from public places. Now I have never smoked in my life and think that it is a disgusting habit, but I have encountered no evidence that warrants legal action to ban smoking from bars and other public places. It would seem to me that if the free market were to be allowed to run, if people really didn't enjoy second hand smoking, it would drive away business and lead to the banning of smoking in these places naturally. Obviously in places such as parks and public buildings it can create nasty smells and litter and can be banned for that reason, but this does not explain the pan in privately owned businesses. Why is the government interfering? What threat are they protecting people from?
|
Re: Second Hand Smoke
I don't think the government should be allowed to dictate to private organizations about how they run their business (assuming it isn't hurting anyone). In a sense, if you don't like a place because of the smoke, don't go to it.
|
Re: Second Hand Smoke
According to Wikipedia (search "Passive smoking"), second-hand smoke causes the same risks as first-hand smoke in those who are exposed to it. So you're essentially being forced to smoke, which infringes on your right not to harm yourself. This is probably the legal basis for the bans.
Injuring or harming another person isn't legal anywhere except in sports where it's a necessity (e.g. boxing). The various studies on Wikipedia state that second-hand smoke can greatly harm the person who experiences it, so saying something like "By smoking, you are harming those around you, so smoking in closed spaces that anyone can enter should not be permissible" doesn't seem that illogical to me. In open spaces, the smoke easily escapes the area, so there isn't too much of a problem with smoking on the street or something. But smoking inside a building which anyone is allowed to enter (which includes most private businesses) effectively says, "You can't come here if you choose not to be harmed by smoke." Forcing someone to forfeit their right not to be exposed to something that can harm them in order to receive a good or service seems wrong, in my opinion. |
Re: Second Hand Smoke
i don't believe the government should be able to step in and ban smoking from places either. . .then again, i'm an avid smoker who enjoys smoking when i go out. . .so my opinion is very swayed.
heh my friend doesn't smoke, but i smoke around him all the time. i've asked him several times if it bugs him (and if it did, i'd stop smoking around him). . .he's always replied that because of me he's now addicted to "second hand" smoking. . .lol, he needs his fixxes. :0 |
Re: Second Hand Smoke
Quote:
Edit: I can understand that private organizations should be able to have the liberty to allow smoke on their own property, but smoking is bound to be done in public places even if such an instance was illegal. In a world without legally producing things to smoke with, there would be more life and property for everyone than in the world we live in today. If we ban smoking for everyone, it would be good because the amount of life and property left would probably weigh more than the liberty of people in private organizations. This is, of course, assuming that what ever people smoke would cause damage to property because of the way they dispose of what ever they smoked or the way people smoke and if people are being deprived of life because of the second hand smoke exposed in public places. Not that I know too much about global warming or anything, but if global warming is influenced by smoking greatly then allowing people to smoke wouldn't be good for the environment. |
Re: Second Hand Smoke
No evidence has ever been found that second hand smoke causes cancer. One study by the EPA that did find that was discredited by a federal court because the data was tampered with.
|
Re: Second Hand Smoke
Well, the Canadian Cancer society among others state multiple times that second hand smoke increases the chance of contracting lung cancer. So I mean...they -could- all just be lying.
The World Heart Federation states in its move for a World No Tobacco Day, that Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Hardly "No evidence" and that's just the references for one claim made on one website once. |
Re: Second Hand Smoke
Quote:
I can understand banning smoking in critical resource buildings (supermarkets) or other places of important commerce (shopping malls), but bars and restaurants? No. Nobody is ever required to go to a smoking restaurant. Whether it allows smoking or not is simply a factor to weigh against or for it when deciding to go there or not, much like if they have bad food or a good atmosphere. I agree that nobody should be required to be around smoking in a closed area. I do NOT agree, however, that people should be able to go anywhere they damn well please and never have to encounter smokers. THAT is an infringement on businesses' rights and is an atrocity. --Guido http://andy.mikee385.com |
Re: Second Hand Smoke
Government making smoking illegal = Government making taxes on cigarettes higher = Governments legislating towards the health of the population.
If you are ok with governments making such decisions in general, you'd support a smoking ban. If you are not ok with governments making such decisions on general, you'd not support a smoking ban. No matter what you want to say, you cannot deny that smoking is -bad- for you and those around you. It comes down to which right is "more important" My right to go to all the same buildings you do without being made to second-hand smoke, or your right to create an atmosphere where a large segment of the population won't want to go, and which is intrinsically harmful to you as a person. And as an aside, there's already a work-around in Canadian smoking-ban legislation. Smoking bans apply only to places of public access. If you file your establishment as a private organisation, and thus keep a membership for a fee, you can smoke. So you get a guy with a laptop at the door, take a 5 cent lifetime membership fee, and jot the name down, and voila, you can have smoking there all you want. Quote:
|
Re: Second Hand Smoke
Eh nevermind- post voided.
I'll come back and finish this later, just realized the argument was flawed, don't have time to fix now. |
Re: Second Hand Smoke
Quote:
i would stop smoking around my friend if i thought it bothered him, but i really don't think it bothers him. . .i've asked him repeatedly, and have offered to stop smoking around him, but he insists that i'm fine. i do not smoke around other's who don't want to deal with it. when me and my dad go out to eat, i always insist on sitting in the non-smoking sections of the restraunts, even though he insists for me not to. but again, i'll be the first to admit that i'm not very good to argue on this subject. . .i enjoy smoking (which can be argued that i enjoy it because i'm addicted. . .that being said though, i have no desire to quit, even if there was some way i could do it without going through cravings and what not. . .i still don't think i'd want to quit, i enjoy it too much). people become addicted to these things, but i don't think they're being forced to smoke. . .though quitting is tough, one who smokes can make the choice to at least attempt to quit. banning smoking is hitting my town in the last couple of years (i live in a very small town). . .there's only 1 restraunt in town that still lets people smoke in it, and let me tell you. . .it's constantly packed. . .much more so then all the other places that have banned smoking in the past couple of years (one restraunt even shut down shortly after they no longer allowed smoking. . .though i don't think the banning smoking was the sole reason they shut down shop, it sure didn't help much). again i don't know where i'm going with this. . .heh i stand with my belief that it should be an individual business's choice on whether to ban smoking from their place. . .not the government's. thnx. |
Re: Second Hand Smoke
I think smoking is disgusting and I'd like to be able to go places and not have it blowing in my face.
I'd rather not die from second hand smoke, or develop problems because of it. I wish smoking was banned worldwide. There are enough people dying a year without having smoking on the list as well. I'm sure there are other ways to relieve stress. Take up yoga... chew gum... sit down and read a book. I've never smoked and I don't ever intend on starting so I can't say I understand what the craving feels like and how withdrawl would be. People have quit though, so it's not impossible. |
Re: Second Hand Smoke
Quote:
I think Ferraris are cool and I'd like to have one. I'd also like to have an air purifier, cheaper healthy food, and an anti-intruder system in my house, but that doesn't mean the government should force people to give them to me. --Guido http://andy.mikee385.com |
Re: Second Hand Smoke
There's no reason whatsoever to ban it from private businesses if it's legal to do it in your own home. Makes no sense whatsoever--no one's forcing you to go to any place where there's secondhand smoke. And banning it from BARS? Give me a break, that's incredibly stupid, anyone with a brain ought to expect that in a place like a bar there's going to be some smoke, and if they can't accept that then they just shouldn't go there in the first place.
So yeah, basically I agree with Guido, although I have to agree that "atrocity" is a little too strong a word >_> |
Re: Second Hand Smoke
Quote:
|
Re: Second Hand Smoke
It's a pretty good album imo
|
Re: Second Hand Smoke
Sublime is overrated.
|
Re: Second Hand Smoke
See Jewpin, the problem with that mindset is fine, but when you are in a place such as America, a capitalist nation, where everything is privately owned businesses, then no.. its not.
What private business will you find second hand smoke in? One that the public frequents. Restaurants, bars, etc. What is the goal of a business? To succeed and make a profit, expand, etc. In order to do this, a business has to appeal to their customers... When millions of people smoke, its obvious that a business is going to allow or make a smoking section for those millions... just like a school would make a handicapped ramps if they have dozens of disabled kids in the school. Sure you can say "Well a business wouldnt appeal to non smokers if they allowed smoking.".. "Quite right!" I would say. Yes. A business wouldnt be appealing to non-smokers if it had a smoking section?" Ok, what can they do about it? If the world wasnt made smoker friendly before we were told facts of what smoke and second hand smoke does to you, then that would be a good point. The fact is, the restaurant industry, bars, etc. have all been made "smoker friendly" decades before anyone even knew what ciggaretes did to you, so much to where you cant walk into ten restaurants in a row without seeing smoke or hearing the words "Smoking or Non?". A person will walk into Burger King and sees a Smoking Section. Do you think him leaving Burger King and going to Mcdonalds will make a difference? No it wont, because most likely, there will be a smokers section at Mcdonald; same with the next place they would go, and the next. The world and society has normalized smoking long before any scientific proof on what ciggaretes and second hand smoke does to people and they have made it so smoker enabled that saying "Go to another place without smoking." is like saying "Go to an ocean without sharks!". You cant, its everywhere. And if not everywhere, most places. When a person can't go into one or two restaurants because he does not feel to sit and deteriorate his health by sitting in a room full of smoke, then ok; but when you have a monopoly on smoking in public places, and a person can't go into 99/100 restaraunts or bars without being able to avoid a cancerous cloud of death , then I would consider that a breach of ones constitutional rights... Monopolies are banned for the same reason. Its unfair if you have a company who owns all of the gas stations within a 20 mile radius raise the price of gas to extremely high prices, just like it is unfair that someone cant go to any of the bars/restaurants around, because they want to preserve their health, and avoid second hand smoke. In both situations, its not like the person can leave, walk 5 miles, and get cheaper prices, no a smoke free establishment. The big difference with those two comparisons is that at least with a monopoly, you can drive out passed those 20 miles of monopolized gas stations, with cigarette smoking, it's world wide. Do we all have to pay 150 dollars a meal, at a 4 star restaurant, to keep our longs free of smoke and enjoy a meal? Because thats most likely the only place you would find a smoke free environment (Prior to the ban of course)... Saying "Well you can go somewhere else." is not even a valid rebuttal anymore (nor has it for about oh, hundreds of years). If you want to be more politically correct, saying "Well, then don't go out to any public establishments." would be closer to what one would have to do to avoid the health deteriorating clutches of second hand smoke. Sorry for the wall of text, as well as any spelling, punctuation, or grammatical mistakes (Not to mention the lack of structure). Anyways... I hope that was insightful. End Wall of Text. |
Re: Second Hand Smoke
Couldn't you make these very same arguments about automobiles? I'm sure that people don't appreciate breathing in the carbon monoxide and particulate matter generated by burning fossil fuels. Does that make driving illegal? No. You can argue that driving is vital, whereas smoking is a pastime, but the fact remains that by driving, you're generating a "cloud of death" as well.
|
Re: Second Hand Smoke
Yes. But in order to get rid of the problem with automobiles you would have to get rid of fossil fuels altogether (Unless another method arises.) and yes, we could say the same thing for cars. We didnt know what the gas would do to the atmosphere before it became so highly used.
Like you said. Cars can be argued as vital... but the two are almost on a completely different level. We use fossil fuels for multiple things, things that can be considered even MORE vital than cars. While smoke may have a pleasurable feeling to you, it does not only hurt others, it hurts you to. When you smoke, you are smoking for yourself, and only YOU are gettomg the "benefits" of smoking the cigarette. For many, when fossil fuels are being burned, they are benefiting more than one person. While personal vehicles may only benefit you; the bus, boats, factories, etc... they at least benefit people. With fossil fuels, it is more of a medium... With smoking you really do only have cigarettes, cigarettes, and well... cigarettes... which, once again, benefits only the smoke (While hurting anyone around it.). Yes, some people, like homeless Idonesians, Africans, etc. not reap the benefits of what fossil fuels do for us... but like I said before, when it comes to ciggaretes you see no shared benefit. Maybe if Ciggaretes smoking can power a single building ok. Then it would be more understandable... but it cant be. Not only that, unlike cars, cigarettes are also a more controllable harmful substance. You can always smoke your cigarettes at home (Even though if you have kids, I dont agree with that either), but you cant necessarily drive your automobile there. I was going to mention this as my original first post, but thought this was more bantering on how this thread could most likely end but... Yes. There are TONS of things that harm us. We can go on for 100 pages on a dozen things we should get rid, but in general, smoking is probably up there with one of the most nonsensical, anti productive, harmful habits that exists, up there with drugs and alcohol. Quote:
Youre rights are void if what you are doing infringes on multiple peoples rights. That one is common sense, and common legislation. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:00 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution