Smoking Ban

[Yo Ma Ma]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Vic
You need to be careful about your desire to legislate tyranny. There is no reason that a democracy cannot be as tyrannical as the worst despot, if not more so. Once the idea comes across that "I don't like what my neighbor does, and even though his actions harm no one else, I'm gonna stop him just because I don't like it", then you are down the path to tyranny. One reason why our country does not have a true democracy is because the best possible example of a true democracy is a lynch mob.

Your healthcare friends should be thankful that the smokers keep them in a job. Would they prefer everyone was always healthy and they were out of work? Don't let them get all altruistic and lie to you. And as smokers die younger (on average), they collect less old age benefits, so they create less of a strain on our stretched Social Security system. It balances out. Plus, almost everyone will incur huge healthcare costs before they die, smokers and non-smokers alike, so putting the blame on smokers is not looking at the big picture.
In the meantime, you are suggesting a massively expensive plan to force people to stop harming themselves simply because you don't like it, and defending the expense on the premise "there will always be people who will break the law" while ignoring that your proposed law is so contrary to the basic ideals of freedom that Thoreau himself would probably rise from his grave just to light one up and spite you.

You completely ignore my point, that smoking is yet another one of those 'it doesn't harm anyone else' fluffballs that people keep flinging around in this forum. If I'm paying for someone who voluntarily gave himself lung cancer, then I am hurt by his actions. I would much rather give that money to fund research for diseases that aren't chosen by those who contract them. If that's tyranny then so be it.

My healthcare friends will have a job regardless. The difference being that they would be able to treat people who didn't choose to be sick. Again, it comes down to choice and personal responsibility in my mind. Try reading what I say before you attack it - you'll be able to attack it much more effectively if you do.

I think obesity and all its related illesses must give smoking-related illnesses a awfully good run for their money. Then all the drinking-related disease. Then there's the drug abuse, poor eating, venereal disease, all self-imposed I guess.

I'd rather take on the burden of treating the smoking population (as we do now) as opposed to the intrusion of more nanny government.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
You failed to mention anything regarding why my viewpoint 'annoys' you. You also failed to read my post as to why there is a significant difference between food/driving and smoking.

Cyclo,

I find this stance of yours to be very interesting as IMHO it is boarderline socialist and I always figured you for a die hard conservative....

What do I dislike about Isla and your viewpoints?? mainly the fact that you are trying to mandate social behavior under the guise of being for the better good of the community...if you have a problem with pollutants in the air causing health problems then why not put your effort into bitching about the older transportation systems which harm the envornment and peoples health far more than that of second hand smokers...or complain about those who are grossly overweight, get diabetes and then cost you as a taxpayer more money in healthcare....

I understand that you see this as an unfair penalty on you being a non smoker both financially and physically but honestly there are so many other things to bitch about in terms of wasted money I personally find this minor at best.....

My question is should smoking be banned as you suggest then what is next? I could see trying to tax smokers at a higher rate to make up for their increased burden but good luck with that one...but an all out ban IMHO isn't fair, nor is it right....if people want to smoke, as long as they know full well the risks then they should be allowed to plain and simple.

 

[Yo Ma Ma]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Yo_Ma-Ma
When you say support a ban on smoking tobacco, what are you proposing? It's a legal substance now, so in what way would it be banned?

It's legal now, so a ban would make it... illegal.

OK, I thought you meant just stopping it in specific places or something. Since you just meant to make it illegal, then no I would not support a "ban."

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: alchemize
In restaurants and public places, yes. In bars, no.

Even at this I disagree. It is attitudes like Cyclo and Isla which annoy me the most....

owners who pay the property taxes should ALWAYS have the final say over what goes on in their establishments within reason, if people are allowed under the law to buy said items and use them then the owners should decide if their use is allowed in their facilities....

I live in Massachusetts, we recently passed a statewide smoking ban, and while it is nice to go into a bar or place to eat and not be smoked out, I also realize that it is WRONG of the state to have mandated such a change, business owners are now complaining of lost revinue as are employees who work on tips, in many cases people ignore the rule....

I think Vic makes the best points, if people want to talk about slippery slopes then this is an ideal example....as Vic said, how long before we start to punish those who are overweight? or until we ban all fatty and or bad for you foods?...why stop with smoking?

We regulate buffets to have "sneeze shields" over them, and to serve clean plates. They have to wear gloves in many areas, and keep foods at a certain temperatures. So why can we regulate the public health in those cases, but not in the case of smoking?

 

[judasmachine]

personal freedom anyone? .......................anyone?

OK, if something offends you, does that give you the right to take it away from everyone? I think most restaurants do a good job of seperating the smoking from the non smoking. Well at least the bigger chains here. But if you go into Bennigan's, it's a TAVERN, that means people smoke, drink, and cuss. It is NOT a family oriented establishment, take your kids to Chuckee Cheese.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: thelordemperor
Smoking should banned under such circumstances as it could effect another person, including children, babies, old people, whoever. It should be considered a form of poisoning, you're welcome to poison yourself, but not others. Smokers would have to go damn far out of their way to smoke and GOOD RIDDANCE to 'em.

and honestly how would you police that? have cops who walk into people's houses to insure they are not smoking with their children around??

While I agree it is WRONG for people to be inconsiterate and or stupid with the health and welfare of their children and elders I also think it is EQUALLY STUPID to make such assinine statements....what if something you enjoyed which was bad for you were proposed to be banned? I am sure you would feel differently. Like I said, if you are worried about others being poisioned then work on legislation to ban the outdated busses and trucks on the road which pollute far more than smokers do...

 

[DealMonkey]

Now that I've quit (3 years ago) I could care less if smoking is banned.

Just kidding, I have no problem with people smoking, although I strongly suggest that they give it up for the obvious health reasons. It's also nice to have area-specific bans (indoor, public places for instance) as even though I don't mind people smoking around me for the most part, it's tough indoors. I had to stop playing poker with the guys 3 years ago for that very reason. I haven't been back . . .

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: alchemize
We regulate buffets to have "sneeze shields" over them, and to serve clean plates. They have to wear gloves in many areas, and keep foods at a certain temperatures. So why can we regulate the public health in those cases, but not in the case of smoking?

Alchemize,

I have nothing against them regulating seperate smoking sections with highly effective filtration systems installed at the expense of the owner and required checks on said systems, which they did in Mass prior to instituting the ban....essentially your sneeze shield for smoking...I even don't have much of an issue with them banning smoking in eateries which are family oriented....HOWEVER (and that is a big however) I have a huge problem with them banning smoking from bars and nightclubs where the minimum age of admittance is 18+, the legal age to smoke....which they have also done here in MA.

If the owner takes more than adequate precautions then IMHO there is no need to ban it entirely.

 

[Yo Ma Ma]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: alchemize
In restaurants and public places, yes. In bars, no.

Even at this I disagree. It is attitudes like Cyclo and Isla which annoy me the most....

owners who pay the property taxes should ALWAYS have the final say over what goes on in their establishments within reason, if people are allowed under the law to buy said items and use them then the owners should decide if their use is allowed in their facilities....

I live in Massachusetts, we recently passed a statewide smoking ban, and while it is nice to go into a bar or place to eat and not be smoked out, I also realize that it is WRONG of the state to have mandated such a change, business owners are now complaining of lost revinue as are employees who work on tips, in many cases people ignore the rule....

I think Vic makes the best points, if people want to talk about slippery slopes then this is an ideal example....as Vic said, how long before we start to punish those who are overweight? or until we ban all fatty and or bad for you foods?...why stop with smoking?

We regulate buffets to have "sneeze shields" over them, and to serve clean plates. They have to wear gloves in many areas, and keep foods at a certain temperatures. So why can we regulate the public health in those cases, but not in the case of smoking?

I guess because you can see and smell the cigar and cigarette smoke, but the little germies are microscopic and we don't know the salad will kill us.

How about if we do away with the health dept, but instead require the restaurant to post sign saying what health precautions they DO take?

What idiot will be going to the smoking, no sneeze shield, dirty plates, no washed hands, pubes in the soups restaurants? NOT ME.

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: alchemize
We regulate buffets to have "sneeze shields" over them, and to serve clean plates. They have to wear gloves in many areas, and keep foods at a certain temperatures. So why can we regulate the public health in those cases, but not in the case of smoking?

Alchemize,

I have nothing against them regulating seperate smoking sections with highly effective filtration systems installed at the expense of the owner and required checks on said systems, which they did in Mass prior to instituting the ban....essentially your sneeze shield for smoking...I even don't have much of an issue with them banning smoking in eateries which are family oriented....HOWEVER (and that is a big however) I have a huge problem with them banning smoking from bars and nightclubs where the minimum age of admittance is 18+, the legal age to smoke....which they have also done here in MA.

If the owner takes more than adequate precautions then IMHO there is no need to ban it entirely.

I think the air filters would be great. I wouldn't want to see it legislated, but it could pull in more business than the restaurants that allowed non-stop free range smoking. Still not as much as the smoke-free places I'll bet, but probably worth the investment from the business owner.

 

[LunarRay]

I think it is reasonable for folks to enjoy breathing in public places without the air filled with all manner of poison. I figure a store, a bar and the like are private and should be able to conduct their business as they see fit. Public places are those owned by the people ... all the people... and this is appropriate for a ban, as I see it. In private places the people will decide if they wish to enter or not and this will cause the owner to adopt a policy one way or another.
I don't see a ban as making the sale or consumption of cigarettes illegal. It simply mandates that in the public's interest public places are to be smoke free. Why... well because folks know second hand smoke causes damage to their lungs.. as does smog and the like.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: bozack
Cyclo,

I find this stance of yours to be very interesting as IMHO it is boarderline socialist and I always figured you for a die hard conservative....

What do I dislike about Isla and your viewpoints?? mainly the fact that you are trying to mandate social behavior under the guise of being for the better good of the community...if you have a problem with pollutants in the air causing health problems then why not put your effort into bitching about the older transportation systems which harm the envornment and peoples health far more than that of second hand smokers...or complain about those who are grossly overweight, get diabetes and then cost you as a taxpayer more money in healthcare....

I understand that you see this as an unfair penalty on you being a non smoker both financially and physically but honestly there are so many other things to bitch about in terms of wasted money I personally find this minor at best.....

My question is should smoking be banned as you suggest then what is next? I could see trying to tax smokers at a higher rate to make up for their increased burden but good luck with that one...but an all out ban IMHO isn't fair, nor is it right....if people want to smoke, as long as they know full well the risks then they should be allowed to plain and simple.

Actually, I'd put myself more on the liberal side of the financial spectrum, though I consider a balance of socialism and capitalism the ideal (which is what we have, though I think the balance needs to be shifted/reformed). Problem is, whether a fiscal conservative or not, I still have to recognize that our medical system is socialized - everyone must and will be treated regardless of their ability to pay for their treatments. So, recognizing this, society has the ability to decide if it will allow people to destroy themselves in certain ways as it affects the pocketbooks of others.

That said, I have a vested interest in certain social behaviors as they directly affect myself and society as a whole through our support of this behavior through taxation. Since I have made an investment in this, I should have a say in how those funds are used. No one is entitled to absolute control over his or her body - many laws restrict this. Further, many laws exist regulating things based on financial utilitarianism, which is more or less what I'm suggesting here.

As stated, I have many friends (and even family members) who smoke. At least some of them agree that it should probably be banned. They all want to quit, and this would give them the swift kick they need to finish quitting.

I have regularly stated my displeasure with the current transportation system in the US. I am a huge fan of mass transit and wish that it would be implemented in every city. I also support the use of alternative fuels, particularly in these mass transit systems as a way to introduce infrastructure and fund research. However, that's largely irrelevant to this discussion, as you're not going to contract cancer from breathing in carbon dioxide.

I appreciate that the savings this may incur could be minor, but I think that this, combined with many other reforms, could really turn this country around. I think we have a good thing going, but it needs to be put back on track.

As for taxing obesity and such, that doesn't really stand up to inspection. Taxing sweets and so on doesn't necessarily follow from banning smokes because people can eat anything they want and not be overweight, given the proper metabolism. Point being, no food will necessarily make you sick in and of itself, while smoking will.

Reading the rest of your posts, it looks like you're arguing that it should be allowed when it doesn't impact others. I'm arguing that it always affects others financially, if that helps. I think this is the part that most people are missing.

 

[Martin]

Yes, on most places (malls, offices, coffee places etc). In essence, I support very tough and gradual measures (like not smoking in front of entrances, then movign on to not smokign ont he whole property etc). I know an outright ban would not work, but these gradual restrictions do work.

I was in Bulgaria for the summer, where there are no such laws, and I tell ya, its hard for non-smokers. 50%+ of the population smokes (compare to 20-25% in canada), so its impossible to go out and eat or drink without constantly breathing their sh!t. And that's without the huge cost to the health system and the lives it ruins (I also know about that first hand, as smoking played a significant part in my dad's death last year)

 

[pac1085]

Smoking in public - no
Smoking in private (ie, somones house, car...etc)- sure

 

[thelordemperor]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: thelordemperor
Smoking should banned under such circumstances as it could effect another person, including children, babies, old people, whoever. It should be considered a form of poisoning, you're welcome to poison yourself, but not others. Smokers would have to go damn far out of their way to smoke and GOOD RIDDANCE to 'em.

and honestly how would you police that? have cops who walk into people's houses to insure they are not smoking with their children around??

The same way anything is policed, there is no cop watching your 24/7 stopping you from assaulting people or stealing things, but presumably, you don't go around smacking people and stealing stuff because it is not legal and it's against your morals.

It need necessarily be a criminal offense, a financial penalty would do, like a speeding ticket.

While I agree it is WRONG for people to be inconsiterate and or stupid with the health and welfare of their children and elders I also think it is EQUALLY STUPID to make such assinine statements....what if something you enjoyed which was bad for you were proposed to be banned?

AFAIK the only thing I do which is a threat to someone else's health is drive a car, and for the moment a ban on gasoline engines is unfeasable, and operating a motor vehicle is almost a necessity in our culture, wheras smoking is... luxury, entertainment?

 

[Kibbo]

Two things:

First, smoking bans in restaurants and bars are justified by the fact that it protects the emplyee's health, not the patron's. Your average restaurant customer is not going to spend enough time exposed to smoke to be seriously harmed. Also, they can just go to places that ban smoke voluntarily. I believe, however, that employees should be protected from harm in the workplace. To argue against that is to also allow all manner of toxins be thrown around in industrial workplaces. Personally, I think the law should ensure that those who work in car plants don't inhale the toxins from the paints.

Second, Cyclo, the only way that smoking affects you is your pocket book. That kind of externality can easily be taken care of with taxation. Smokers pay the government millions. If it's not enough cover the bills, then the taxes should be raised.

 

[Alistar7]

Cigarettes are the only product on the market that if used in the manner intended, will kill you. I smoke and would support the ban, let the tobaccco companies grow something a little more usefull.......

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: Sentinel
I would support one for indoors, like resturants, mainly because i am allergic to the smoke.

Then maybe you should move to oregon? We already have that in place!

 

[BenSkywalker]

I'd rather take on the burden of treating the smoking population (as we do now) as opposed to the intrusion of more nanny government.

Burden of treating smokers? Start off with a few various factors. One is that on average smokers die five years sooner then non-smokers. This means that five years worth of medicaid, medicare and social security remain in the fund for the non smokers. If you take a very low ball estimate of $10K a year total for those five years, multiplied by the 400,000 smokers who die per year we are looking at a quick $4Billion dollars(per year), but that's chump change.

Next up we have the cost directly paid in by the smokers. Taxes on cigarettes are closing in on $2.00 per pack average(very wide range there, some states are much higher, some are much lower although the most populous states tend to have the highest taxes). You figure the average smoker consumes a pack and a half a day and there is an additional $3 per day they are paying in for taxes. A token amount, until we calculate out that there are ~50Million smokers which has us looking at $150Million a day in additional revenue from smokers or $54.75Billion a year. Add it up and we aren't too short of $60Billion a year gain from smokers habits(between direct taxes and lessened expenses).

Another factor is 'smoking related illnesses' and their associated medical costs. Someone who worked in an asbestos filled environment that ends up with lung cancer is deemed to be a smoking related illness no matter if he ever smoked in his life or not. Likewise with nearly any cardiovascular ailment. These factors may not be a major issue to the younger generations, but the ones that are incurring major medical costs now are precisely those people who used to work in very hazardous situations that in and of themselves cause serious medical problems(although on the flip side of this to be fair, a good deal of the 400K "smokers" who die a year are also in this category although that starts tilting the numbers even more in lines with smokers are more then paying their own way).

Smokers are nothing resembling a drain on the non smoking population, quite the contrary. You force States and the Fed to put every cent of smoke taxes into general medical expenses and you end up with smokers subsidizing non smokers. They pay for themselves and then some, it's not their fault the politicians like to use that money for any budget shrtfall they come across.

 

[dguy6789]

The laws of the government should NOT be based on "moral" and religion. That said, smoking should be banned imo.

Everyone here is forgetting that smoking is not like other things. Smoking harms the user the most, but it DOES harm the entire environment around it. You can get cancer just by breathing in the smoke from a smoker. Thousands of people die every year because of this.

If someone had a way of making sure their smoke never left their property, then let them do it. But until then, I dont think so.


Letting people smoke is like letting you get a gun, stand in the middle of a city, and spin around shooting it on auto fire.

 

[broon]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
The laws of the government should NOT be based on "moral" and religion. That said, smoking should be banned imo.

Everyone here is forgetting that smoking is not like other things. Smoking harms the user the most, but it DOES harm the entire environment around it. You can get cancer just by breathing in the smoke from a smoker. Thousands of people die every year because of this.

If someone had a way of making sure their smoke never left their property, then let them do it. But until then, I dont think so.


Letting people smoke is like letting you get a gun, stand in the middle of a city, and spin around shooting it on auto fire.

You are insane. Show proof of thousands of deaths due to second hand smoke. BenSkywalker hit it on the head. If you ban smoking the government loses billions of dollars.

I see this issue the same as many see abortion. Don't tell me what to do with my body. We also shouldn't take away the business owner's right to have a smoking allowed bar.

Should we also add a $2 tax to fast food? How many people die "prematurely" due to clogged arteries or high cholesterol? This country is one of the most overweight. Think of the cost that puts on healthcare. Lets not only over tax smokers, lets also over tax overweight people.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Cigarettes are the only product on the market that if used in the manner intended, will kill you. I smoke and would support the ban, let the tobaccco companies grow something a little more usefull.......

Out of all the BS in this thread, I find this argument the most interesting. Just curious, do you believe that, if you didn't smoke, you would live forever? Because cigaretes are not "the only product on the market that if used in the manner intended, will kill you". Drink a 12-pack of Coca-Cola or Pepsi a day for decades and you'll probably die 5 years sooner too.

One thing I like about AT and find so amusing but so sad at the same time... you people do not not live in reality. Instead, you live in this fantasy world where you think your ideal can be created simply by legislation, and all will quickly fall into line with your whims. And those who break the laws created by your superior morals? Nuts to them, you will crush them under your thumb and imprison them for life. It's lovely... little petty tyrants in your mind. 99% of the internet represents the worst of humanity thinking they're the best.

About the smoking issue:
- Don't bring up the cost. Smokers pay higher tax, the cost is less than what you have been made to believe, almost everyone will rack up huge medical costs before they die, and the cost of enforcing any type of tobacco prohibition would be 100 times more than any smoking cost now.
- Don't bring up the pollution. That's hypocritical beyond words. Your car spews more and deadlier pollutants in one minute of operation than any smoker will in a week of smoking. There have actually been very few documented cases of people actually dying of 2nd-hand smoke. If smoking is letting someone shoot a gun into a city, then smog is a tank.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Vic

One thing I like about AT and find so amusing but so sad at the same time... you people do not not live in reality. Instead, you live in this fantasy world where you think your ideal can be created simply by legislation, and all will quickly fall into line with your whims. And those who break the laws created by your superior morals? Nuts to them, you will crush them under your thumb and imprison them for life. It's lovely... little petty tyrants in your mind. 99% of the internet represents the worst of humanity thinking they're the best.

:thumbsup:

Vic just hit the nail on the head, as far as I am concerned.

Edit

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Two things:

First, smoking bans in restaurants and bars are justified by the fact that it protects the emplyee's health, not the patron's. Your average restaurant customer is not going to spend enough time exposed to smoke to be seriously harmed. Also, they can just go to places that ban smoke voluntarily. I believe, however, that employees should be protected from harm in the workplace. To argue against that is to also allow all manner of toxins be thrown around in industrial workplaces. Personally, I think the law should ensure that those who work in car plants don't inhale the toxins from the paints.

Second, Cyclo, the only way that smoking affects you is your pocket book. That kind of externality can easily be taken care of with taxation. Smokers pay the government millions. If it's not enough cover the bills, then the taxes should be raised.

Agreed.

Originally posted by: Vic
One thing I like about AT and find so amusing but so sad at the same time... you people do not not live in reality. Instead, you live in this fantasy world where you think your ideal can be created simply by legislation, and all will quickly fall into line with your whims. And those who break the laws created by your superior morals? Nuts to them, you will crush them under your thumb and imprison them for life. It's lovely... little petty tyrants in your mind. 99% of the internet represents the worst of humanity thinking they're the best.

I don't think anyone here believes what you claim we believe. Instead, we're capable of discussing hypothetical ideas even if they won't necessarily ever happen. One thing I find amusing about you is that you think you have all the answers and that anyone who might disagree is living in a fantasy world. This lack of humility and closed-minded thinking is the exact cause of this perception of fantasy, and it looks like you're more guilty than anyone. On top of that, you keep spouting out complete untruths like "Your car spews more and deadlier pollutants in one minute of operation than any smoker will in a week of smoking." If I thought it would do any good, I would actually list what can come out of your car's exhaust and what comes out of cigarettes and in what quantity and completely disprove this statement. However, anyone with half a brain realizes that it's completely untrue without that, so I'm not going to bother.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: broon
I see this issue the same as many see abortion. Don't tell me what to do with my body.

The two aren't equivalent at all. Smoking around other people is analogous to aborting your neighbor's baby, not your own.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I don't think anyone here believes what you claim we believe. Instead, we're capable of discussing hypothetical ideas even if they won't necessarily ever happen. One thing I find amusing about you is that you think you have all the answers and that anyone who might disagree is living in a fantasy world. This lack of humility and closed-minded thinking is the exact cause of this perception of fantasy, and it looks like you're more guilty than anyone. On top of that, you keep spouting out complete untruths like "Your car spews more and deadlier pollutants in one minute of operation than any smoker will in a week of smoking." If I thought it would do any good, I would actually list what can come out of your car's exhaust and what comes out of cigarettes and in what quantity and completely disprove this statement. However, anyone with half a brain realizes that it's completely untrue without that, so I'm not going to bother.

It is close-minded for me to say that I think it's wrong for you to wish to enforce your personal ideal of morals on everyone? That's amusing.

Do you know what comes out of a car? 500 cubic feet per minute of some really deadly stuff. You think LA and all those major cities get that smog from the smokers?