Second Hand Smoke

[archbishopjabber]

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?

[jewpinthethird]

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.

[Relambrien]

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.

[twitching77]

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

[Master_of_the_Faster]

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

Would your friend have wanted to be a second hand smoker at first? If not, you are depriving your friend of life. Even still, I'm sure you're used to tossing what ever you smoke on the floor or polluting the environment for others. I've seen cigarettes and other things cause fires to happen. You would be putting others in unnecessary danger and causing damage to property. No smoker has the right to deprive others' life, liberty, or property just because they enjoy something that might not be so enjoyable if it didn't have ingredients to hook you to them. Like I once said before, I wouldn't care at all if you had something else to take that didn't cause others to be deprived of their life or if what ever you took didn't hurt the environment.

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.

[archbishopjabber]

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.

[devonin]

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

Those who regularly breathe second hand smoke have a 25 percent increased risk of both lung cancer and heart disease and an 80 percent increased risk of suffering a stroke.

And cite as their source:

Hackshaw et al. The accumulated evidence on lung cancer and environmental tobacco smoke. BMJ 1997; 315:980-988

For those of you playing at home, the BMJ is the British Medical Journal, a peer reviewd publication that has been in existance since 1840, and follows both the guidelines of the World Association of Medical Editors (www.wame.org/wamestmt.htm#independence) and the code on good publication practice produced by the Committee on Publication Ethics (www.publicationethics.org.uk/guidelines/).

Jiang He et al. Passive Smoking and the risk of Heart Disease - A meta-analysis of epidemiological studies. 1999,12,340:920-926

Jiang He is an associate professor in the Department of Epidemiology at the Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine. He has been twice nominated as finalist for the Jeremiah Stamler Research Award for New Investigators by the American Heart Association, Council on Epidemiology and Prevention

Bonita et al. Tobacco Control 8: 156-160(1999)

This article also seems to have been one that was published in the BMJ mentioned above.

Hardly "No evidence" and that's just the references for one claim made on one website once.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Second Hand Smoke

So you're essentially being forced to smoke, which infringes on your right not to harm yourself.

Wrong. You actively choose to go anywhere smoking is allowed. You put yourself in that situation, so why is it someone else's fault if you inhale secondhand smoke? It's not; it's your fault.

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

[devonin]

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.

THAT is an infringement on businesses' rights and is an atrocity.

Hyperbole is the greatest concept in the entire universe.

[archbishopjabber]

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.

[twitching77]

Re: Second Hand Smoke

Would your friend have wanted to be a second hand smoker at first? If not, you are depriving your friend of life. Even still, I'm sure you're used to tossing what ever you smoke on the floor or polluting the environment for others. I've seen cigarettes and other things cause fires to happen. You would be putting others in unnecessary danger and causing damage to property. No smoker has the right to deprive others' life, liberty, or property just because they enjoy something that might not be so enjoyable if it didn't have ingredients to hook you to them. Like I once said before, I wouldn't care at all if you had something else to take that didn't cause others to be deprived of their life or if what ever you took didn't hurt the environment.

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.

well put,
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.

[sarahxjane]

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.

[GuidoHunter]

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.

You can. Lots and lots of places don't allow smoking.

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

[Shashakiro]

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 >_>

[jakalope]

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 >_>

Depending on location and age of tenants, it is illegal to smoke in your own home. /laughs at people that dislike Government.