Second Hand Smoke

[aperson]

Re: Second Hand Smoke

It's a pretty good album imo

[gnr61]

Re: Second Hand Smoke

Sublime is overrated.

[Sir_Thomas]

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.

[Kit-]

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.

[Sir_Thomas]

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.

No ****. Guido obviously doesn't like the government doing what the government thinks is best for the people. It infringes on their rights to screw themselves over.

Wow Carbo. No...
Youre rights are void if what you are doing infringes on multiple peoples rights.
That one is common sense, and common legislation.

[Shashakiro]

Re: Second Hand Smoke

There's no way all restaurants could ever be monopolized by smoking. Basically anyone can make food and open a restaurant, and if all the restaurants allowed smoking for some reason, someone could just open a non-smoking restaurant and instantly get business from everyone who detests secondhand smoke, which would be an awful lot of people.

[Sir_Thomas]

Re: Second Hand Smoke

Yeah true but thats like saying "Hey! No blacks are allowed here! MAKE YOUR OWN RESTARAUNT!"

Some people like fast food like Tacobell, McDonalds, Burgerking, etc... and before laws were passed you had a smokers section in everyone of them.

I quote my friends... "A smoking debate is combining the worst. Its like rolling a Global Warming and Religious debate all into one."

Honestly, if they had a well ventilated, seperate room for smokers, I would be all for it.
The only problem with that would be when a family goes out to eat the parents who smoke would probably end up dragging her kid into the room too.

Like I said, you CAN go to an Non Smoking restaurant, sure... Most upclass restaurant are probably non smoking.. Business wise though, it would bad move.

People are used to smoking sections... and smoking in bars... They wont leave because they know that it will be the same no matter where they go, so they wont leave. Opening one restaurant wouldnt really change that much... Now sure, if they did that nation wide, and it ended up evening out the ratio of smoking establishments to non smoking establishments thats cool... Right now it doesnt have enough support, and wont get enough support because society is too used to it.

A smoker walks into a restaurant or a fast food place and sees a Non Smoking sign.
He walks out and finds another one with smoking. They are losing business.

A non smoker walks into a restaurant and sees people smoking. He wont walk out because he knows it will be pretty much anywhere he goes.

In both situations the customer isnt happy, but in the first persons case, he can and knows he can just walk out and find a dozen other places with smoking. The person would lose business... In the second persons case though, he will end up staying because he knows this as well, and leaving would cut down his options a ton.

The service industry knows this too, im sure. Think of it like this.
-If we dont allow smoking, we will lose business from smokers and will hardly increase our business from non smokers.
-If we do allow smoking we would hardly lose business from non smokers, because smoking is such a common place, and will keep our business with the smoking population.

Its a downhill spiral, an uphill battle. It's pretty much a huge paradox. One thinks "I cant go anywhere else." and the other thinks "Well they wont go anywhere else so why change?". Same with gas.

[flawofhumanity]

Re: Second Hand Smoke

Yeah true but thats like saying "Hey! No blacks are allowed here! MAKE YOUR OWN RESTARAUNT!"

Bad comparison. The color of your skin isn't optional, and it's the non-smokers choice to not be around smoking, not a necessity. I definitely maintain that it should be the choice of the owner of the business to allow smoking or not, until cigarettes are illegal the government shouldn't interfere with what is and isn't allowed on the private business premises.

Some people like fast food like Tacobell, McDonalds, Burgerking, etc... and before laws were passed you had a smokers section in everyone of them.

Drive Thru, take out, and they even have places to eat outside in most cases.

[lord_carbo]

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 ****. Guido obviously doesn't like the government doing what the government thinks is best for the people. It infringes on their rights to screw themselves over.

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.

Taken other things he's said about smoking in other threads, I take it Guido has never smoked nor does he plan to. He is just against limiting freedoms by regulation. Naturally, being a libertarian, I am, too.

With that said, it should be the owner's choice. Your ultimatum is wrong--it truly comes down to the right for a building owner to choose or not choose what the people inside are allowed to do. By allowing smoking in public space, it does not need to be granted everywhere. By all means, ban smoke from your own public space. Or allow it.

Don't like the people smoking there? Don't go. It's as simple as that. You do not need to go anywhere you do not want to for any reason. And if people stop going because of the smoke, wouldn't it be good business practice to ban it from your restaurant? See how the whole system balances itself out without limiting the freedom for an owner to do what they want? In this model with more freedoms, they can do what is more practical for their business. This opens up competition--maybe X restaurant doesn't have a smoking section. That's the owner's choice. But, hey, Y restaurant does, and you want to go to a restaurant with a smoking section. To restrict or not promotes business and appeal to consumers, and you can give people more incentives to come to Y over X, even if X has slightly better food and prices and you'd get overran by them without your choice to open a smoking section.

And, by the way, it is not crazy to assume people would go to a restaurant because it has a smoking section. I mean, some people wouldn't go to one because they have them. And that's the magic of capitalism and the free market--let people nitpick. No reason is a bad reason.

Not hyperbole.

Hyperbole is the greatest concept in the entire universe.

Hyperbole is the greatest concept in the entire universe.

[BzT]

Re: Second Hand Smoke

...

BzT

[teh_masterers]

Re: Second Hand Smoke

it kinda likes men when u here all of the stories about people dying, but then u realize most of them hung around smokers all of the time lol which is pretty funny when u look at it, but u shouldnt smoke anyway cause its crap 4 your body an the environment... oh screw this!!!! why do i care. yours truly,

[Sir_Thomas]

Re: Second Hand Smoke

Bad comparison. The color of your skin isn't optional, and it's the non-smokers choice to not be around smoking, not a necessity.

The fact that people have no choice on what the color of there skin is, is not as relevant to the comparison really. The comparison was aimed an example on how the choices of private businesses breach someones constitutional rights and how the mindset "You can go somewhere else.." is the equivalenet to the mindset of Jim Crow laws. A black person cannot eat at a white mans restaurant, but they can eat at black restaurants." What black restaraunts? What non-smoking restaraunts? One out of every 20? Some crappy cafe that you may not even like?

While the blacks had no choice whether to stay or go whatsoever while smokers can.. but like I said before, we are back to the issue that both examples have in common "What other places?"

Drive Thru, take out, and they even have places to eat outside in most cases.

When you are limiting people to the extreme, in America at least, that is a breach of ones constitutional rights. You are allowed to live your life how you want as long as you do not put intrude on someone elses rights to live how they want. Now even if you arent living in America, its a common sensed, and humanist right. Everyone should be able to live there life how they want, as long as they dont intude on others rights. One may say that a business owner has rights as well, but by setting certain rules, and allowing certain activities to take place, he is is intruding on others rights as well.


This breach of rights is to the extreme when people cant sit or eat where they want without enhaling non productive and harmful chemicals (That are not produced by natural minds, mind you...).

[flawofhumanity]

Re: Second Hand Smoke

The fact that people have no choice on what the color of there skin is, is not as relevant to the comparison really. The comparison was aimed an example on how the choices of private businesses breach someones constitutional rights and how the mindset "You can go somewhere else.." is the equivalenet to the mindset of Jim Crow laws. A black person cannot eat at a white mans restaurant, but they can eat at black restaurants." What black restaraunts? What non-smoking restaraunts? One out of every 20? Some crappy cafe that you may not even like?

While the blacks had no choice whether to stay or go whatsoever while smokers can.. but like I said before, we are back to the issue that both examples have in common "What other places?"

Actually, it's not equivalent to the Jim Crow laws at all. A non-smoker can eat at a smoking restaurant, he just chooses not to. Also, there isn't a difference between what a smoker and non smoker earn in terms of wages that is nearly as significant of that between blacks and whites during the Jim Crow Laws.

As for the health problems, I'm not saying that it should be allowed, I'm saying that it should be the choice of the private business owner on whether to allow it or not. By government interference and disallowing it at all, you effectively make it impossible for smokers to fully enjoy their time in a bar, club, restaurants, or even cafes. Why don't smokers have the right to have facilities in which they can both have a bite to eat and maybe a smoke afterwards?

[lord_carbo]

Re: Second Hand Smoke

Wow Carbo. No...
Youre rights are void if what you are doing infringes on multiple peoples rights.
That one is common sense, and common legislation.

What? Newsflash: NOBODY IS INFRINGING ON YOUR RIGHTS! You have the right to go by them and they have the right to smoke. Don't like the smoke? Stay away from them! Your rights are infringed when they are taken away from you by the government.

[Sir_Thomas]

Re: Second Hand Smoke

What? Newsflash: NOBODY IS INFRINGING ON YOUR RIGHTS! You have the right to go by them and they have the right to smoke. Don't like the smoke? Stay away from them! Your rights are infringed when they are taken away from you by the government.

Wow...
You need to take legislation classes.
Read my arguement because THE REBUTTAL ALL YOU SAID IS THERE!

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The phrase is based on the writings of John Locke, who expressed a similar concept of "life, liberty, and estate (or property)". While Locke said that "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions", Adam Smith coined the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property". The expression "pursuit of happiness" was coined by Dr. Samuel Johnson in his 1759 novel Rasselas.

By owners of private business (In a capitalist nation where all businesses are private) to allow smoking, you are infringing on peoples rights.

Owners are infringing on peoples rights because they are enabling customers to infringe on non smokers rights.
Smokers are infringing on others rights because they are hurting the well being of others around them.

Owning a business does not make you immune from the constitution, hence why the JIM CROWE LAWS were banned.
And for the last time. WHERE ELSE CAN YOU GO? Before smoking laws were being past, almost EVERYWHERE had smoking sections.

By extremely limiting someones choices of where someone can go, the owners are infringing on your rights. The Jim Crowe laws were bant because of the same thing. While the owners have the right to choose what or who they want, they cant do so if it is over riding others rights.