Cigarette Smoking In Public: Why You're Opinion Is Wrong

[BainbridgeShred]

Vauge security threats aren't as important as civil liberties. Do I have to quote Franklin?

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

People who criticize Bush for doing shit need to look at themselves and what they support.

Don't tread on me.

[MegaFighter_X]

I've said it before and I'll say it again; government not allowing a private business to permit smoking, is Socialism.

Government not allowing smoking on public sidewalks but allowing there airways to be filled with pollution from giant corporations, is Consumerism.

American's (And a lot of the West) is just fucking ass-backwards as far as drug policy. It's been proven that second hand smoke is actually very harmless, unless you're around a smoker (Say a spouse or parent) for a very extended period of time. The guy on the elevetator lighting up isn't taking years off your life. Your lungs will heal themselves fine.

OK, I'll give you that. If you hang around one person who smokes once a month in an elevator, it won't affect you at all.

However, it's impossible to debate the second hand smoke isn't harmful, and is like saying asbestos is harmless.
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/conte ... or_Air.asp

We aren't talking about how harmful smoking is to people. We know it's bad for you. We are talking about the government limiting freedoms of private businesses to run how they see fit.

[Guest_2]

Well then, It's ridiculous that you would even consider it for that. The same reason you don't walk down the street naked is because of consideration of others. Even noise pollution-the cops will be called if your party is good [too loud ].

Your civil liberties are yours-but you can't utilize them to disturb other people's civil liberties

[BainbridgeShred]

Your civil liberties are yours-but you can't utilize them to disturb other people's civil liberties

We go around in circles, with you people saying that same shit over and over again: I show you how you're wrong, you can't respond to it and it's obvious, you repeat the same bullshit line over again.

We aren't even talking about walking down the street here, like your bullshit naked analogy alludes. The government is deciding what goes on inside private property.

And all of you guys analogies have sucked. If you're going to go around in circles again atleast drop the senseless analogies.

[Senor Grommet]

On page 1, Dan Fairy said:

This isn't a health issue. I admit smoke is bad for people who breath. This is an individual rights issue, and if you can't see this you either need to go back and read my original post or think about this issue more.

Certain "inalienable" rights exist to men and women as long as those rights do not directly negatively infringe on the health/well-being of others. In the case of smoking, the govm't must be making the case that a smoker no longer has the inalienable "right" to smoke because of the proven harmful effects smoking has on bystanders. This is also the reason that you don't have the right to shoot somebody is cold blood.

I am basically libertarian, so I like my rights and do not necessarily side with the government on this one, but it sure is nice not to have to be coughing all the time while in restaurants or walking down the street. I hate the smell of cigarette smoke.

[BainbridgeShred]

Yeah, you sure sound like some Libertarian.

You aren't even regarding my points anymore, because you can't respond to them. Let me spell it out for you real simple.

-A business is privately owned. The government shouldn't be able an owner of a business whether smoking is allowed inside his property.

-You're exposed to shit just as harmful as cigarette smoke everytime you walk down a street or passed a moving car. The government is fine with letting rampant pollution occur, and you guys let it, but when it comes to cigarette smoke, you all turn into big pussies. My cigarette isn't infringing on your rights anymore than they already are being infringed on.

You're not a Libertarian. Stop calling yourself one.

This is also the reason that you don't have the right to shoot somebody is cold blood.

Didn't I already say, enough with the bullshit analogies?

[Senor Grommet]

Let me spell it out for you real simple.

A business is privately owned. The government shouldn't be able an owner of a business whether smoking is allowed inside his property.

Whoa dude! That was an epic thought! You sure spelled it out for me and for the rest of modified. No more discussion I guess.

You're a fuckin' prick too.

[bigdirtyfoot]

I find the rights of smokers to be trampled on a lot more often than the rights of nonsmokers.

[MegaFighter_X]

point there, big dirty.

The same reason you don't walk down the street naked is because of consideration of others.

No that's more of a consideration for one's self I belive. Not everyone's built like a god or goddess. That, and streaking's illegal in most places. I know I wouldn't let my body go down the street in the shape it's in.

I smoke/not smoke for personal reasons. It's not prohibited in most places because it would more than likely lose business. The government has a right to make a place lose business? In the US capitalistic society?

I don't see how outlawing people's choices to smoke will help anything, much less forcing a business to outlaw the people's choice.

[cammel]

People who criticize Bush for doing shit need to look at themselves and what they support.

Asshole. i love how you use a blatant strawman argument after preaching shit like: "I suggest you look it up because you probably don't even know that what you're doing is so decieving." You're comparing minor government interfernce in private business to (i assume) Bush's wiretapping and/or preemptive invasion of middle eastern countries;a very easy invasion of liberties issue to attack. I cant beleive you could be so hypocritical.

Do I have to quote Franklin?

NO you pretentious asshole, you dont. We've all heard it many times before because we passed 3rd grade history. That is the most overused quote ever, i hope you didnt feel too superior using it.

It seems that you are only opposed to the ban on smoking because it has socialist characteristics since you agree that it is disgusting. The fact is though that government already can interfere with private businesses. Laws have been passes so that people cant sell rancid meat or other health hazards even though it is a private business. people also cant discriminate against people of different races in their own private businesses because of laws made by the gevernment. Dont get be wrong, im not trying to make one of your strwman arguments here im just giving examples show that there is already government interference in our private businesses and we have not turned in a totalitarian one-state or anything like that.

You're a fuckin' prick too.

[Switch Kicker]

I don't think this issue really got fully fleshed out in the topic in the Kicking Circle, so I decided to to remake it here. Strawmen arguments will get deleted, so don't even start with them. I'm not even sure how I'd delete them as I'm not Mod or an Admin, but I can easily figure out a way. That's my only rule. No strawmen arguments. No stupid analogies that don't work. That's all I ask.

Basically this argument breaks down into two parts: Smoking indoors, and smoking on street sidewalks in cities and towns. I'll start with the latter because I want to.

My argument for why smoking should be allowed on city streets is really simple. Since their is no precedent to allow for the government to ban other harmful, cancer causing toxins that pollute the air, their is no legal standpoint on which you can claim that I shouldn't be able to pollute the air with my own cigarette. If the Government really cared about allowing their populace to be safe, while walking on sidewalks for instance, (AKA public property) then indsutrial pollution would have to be banned as well. Of course this isn't the case, and everytime you breath in while in a major city, you're slowly advancing the day of your death.

The second part about smoking indoors is a bit more confusing. My stance is that since businesses are privately owned, that it should be the owners decision as to whether smoking should be allowed in their stores. The government has absolutely no right to come in and tell private (Repeat: Private) enterprises what they can and cannot do in the privacy of their store. If I own a bowling alley, the government is not entitled to say I can't walk down my favorite lane 7 smoking a cigarette. Also, let me make it clear that places like bowling alleys, restraunts, supermarkets, bars are not public places, like post offices and other governmental buildings. If the government wants to ban smoking in public places (AKA places owned by everyone), then that's fine by me. But to impose smoking regulations on private businesses is giving the government waaaay to much power, and is a step towards Totalitarianism.

The government isn't having a power trip silly. Restraunts are places where we go to eat. The food is protected for us by the government, to make sure our populous doesn't get infected with widespread disease. It's called the FDA.

The control the food, and medications that are allowed in our country. Without this part of our government... well, we would not last long at all, let's just say that. They make sure that restraunts and food markets are fallowing important procedures that keep our food and medications safe to use and eat.

Smoking, effects everything around you. Effects the air you breath, the food you eat, everything. Some people have allergic reactions, and others just have severe allergy problems when around smoke. Therefore, along with governing requirments for a restraunt to be able to be a restraunt, the government has every right in the world to tell them that smoking cannot be allowed in the restraunt.

And guess what buddy. The government can control whether or not you're allowed to drink alcohol, and they control whether or not you're allowed to smoke pot. Guess what, they can control whether or not you smoke cigarettes too.

I personally beleive no one should have the right to tell you what you can and can't do to yourself, it's your body, it's your life right? However, humans can't exist in a fair balanced society without government to help keep it in check. So either die mad, or get over it. This isn't even a debate. The government will do as they please to keep us safe, and keep us in check (meaning civilized to an extent), you're just going to have to live with it.

Smoking in public however is disrespectfull to the people around you, and it's a bad habit to be teaching to little ones around you. It's the same as being intoxicated in public. If you want to rot your brain, heart and lungs, then do it in the privacy of your own home, don't drag us in with your second hand smoke.

Your smoking in public effects everyone around you. In fact, I think people who should smoke shouldn't get tax refunds at the beginning of the year. Because you're all helping lung and heart cancer by polluting the air around us. Basicaly, murder, however it's severly indirect, it's still murder.

This is a stupid argument, worthy of no one's time and input. How about you go read up some facts about smoking in, and outdoors, and how it effect you, and other people around you. Then, go read up on what the government can, and cannot do, based on how we voted. This government is run by the people, whether you beleive it, or not. Don't like Bush, shouldn't have voted for him then, should you have? I don't like Bush at all, but I'm not bitching about it, because if the mojority of people wanted him, then he must've been better than Kerry, right? Makes sense right? The people don't want smoking in public or in the places that they eat or buy food. Guess what, we gave em the power to decide that for us. So again, die mad, or get over it.

Peace,
Fred.

[Switch Kicker]

This is also the reason that you don't have the right to shoot somebody is cold blood.

Didn't I already say, enough with the bullshit analogies?

It's not bullshit, it's fucking reality. But, no... Dan Feary's right... If he says it's bullshit, man, discussion over, he's right. Isn't he?

You have YET to make one statment that is either valid, or morally right on this subject.

Yes, smoking in public is the same as walking down the street shooting people. You are shortening their life expectency. You lose, now go back to wishing you were somebody else and quit annoying the people here.

Peace,
Fred.

(Sorry for double post.)

[Moxie]

Chuck Norris invented second hand smoke.

[RunAmuk]

imma just start smoking cigars at sessions untill everyone quits bitchin'

jk.

i can understand no smoking in some resturaunts.
but if i cant smoke in an ihop or wafflehouse(huddlehouse)
ill be damed. dennys is cigar worthy. oh and kenny rogers chicken shak.hookawothy

2nd hand smoke never hurt... nobody................(i know)

[james_dean]

2nd hand smoke never hurt... nobody................(i know)

You do? Oh, OK. Stop debating everyone! Runamuk knows, issue resolved. Heck we should've known just to ask him in the first place.

[Jeremy]

1. Secondhand Smoke (SHS) contains 133 known toxic substances, among which are a number of substances regulated by law in other settings, including: 33 Hazardous Air Pollutants (pollutants which can cause cancer), 47 that are classified as Hazardous Wastes whose disposal is restricted, and 68 others that are known human or animal carcinogens.
2. SHS exposure has been widely condemned as a hazardous substance by national and international occupational health, environmental health and public health authorities.
3. Australian design ventilation rates for bars have declined by 50% since 1991, while smoking prevalence has declined by 30% since 1992. Thus ventilation has declined >65% faster than smoking.
4. Australian ventilation engineers have issued an Environmental Tobacco Smoke Harm Index to predict the risk of SHS exposure as a function of smoking and ventilation rates. Although derived differently, its predictions closely match those of a published SHS risk model used by the author of this report.
5. A New South Wales (NSW) study by Cains et al.(2004) reported SHS particulate pollution levels which, by my analysis, exceeded SHS irritation thresholds by >90 fold in the smoking sections, and by ~35 fold in the nonsmoking sections of 17 gaming clubs due to smoke infiltration, despite meeting recommended ventilation rates as indicated by measured carbon dioxide levels.
6. Without restrictions on smoking in public places, an estimated 3500 nonsmoking Australians (never-smokers and ex-smokers) would die annually from SHS exposure at home at work and in other venues, much higher than the very conservative NHMRC estimates, which are based on spousal smoking and apply to never-smokers only.
7. A risk assessment generalizing the nicotine levels reported in the Cains et al.(2004) 17 Club study shows that, at the measured level of SHS exposure, an estimated 73-97 deaths per year occur among the 40,000 NSW Club, Pub, Tavern, and Bar workers for all nonsmokers and smokers combined. This range is reduced 18% for nonsmokers only. 97 deaths per year is an amount is equal to that of all annual occupational fatalities in NSW.
8. Even if the average nicotine levels in all NSW hospitality venues were half of those measured by Cains et al. (2004), SHS would still cause ~60 to 80 times the annual mesothelioma mortality caused by asbestos exposure among all Australian accommodation, café, and restaurant workers averaged for the period 1998-2000.
9. New York City reported that a workplace smoking ban improved air quality in bars and restaurants, decreased worker SHS dose by 85%, and that both business receipts and employment increased in bars and restaurants.
10. A total smoking ban extending to hotels, registered clubs, and nightclubs.

source

ESTIMATED MORTALITY FROM SECONDHAND SMOKE
AMONG CLUB, PUB, TAVERN, AND BAR WORKERS
IN NEW SOUTH WALES, AUSTRALIA
James L. Repace, MSc.
Repace Associates, Inc.
Secondhand Smoke Consultants
April 7, 2004

[RunAmuk]

wooooooow way to take a joke dickhead

[MegaFighter_X]

hehe... kinda like how I argued dihydrogen monoxide...

[sniikeri]

1. Secondhand Smoke (SHS) contains 133 known toxic substances, among which are a number of substances regulated by law in other settings, including: 33 Hazardous Air Pollutants (pollutants which can cause cancer), 47 that are classified as Hazardous Wastes whose disposal is restricted, and 68 others that are known human or animal carcinogens.
2. SHS exposure has been widely condemned as a hazardous substance by national and international occupational health, environmental health and public health authorities.
3. Australian design ventilation rates for bars have declined by 50% since 1991, while smoking prevalence has declined by 30% since 1992. Thus ventilation has declined >65% faster than smoking.
4. Australian ventilation engineers have issued an Environmental Tobacco Smoke Harm Index to predict the risk of SHS exposure as a function of smoking and ventilation rates. Although derived differently, its predictions closely match those of a published SHS risk model used by the author of this report.
5. A New South Wales (NSW) study by Cains et al.(2004) reported SHS particulate pollution levels which, by my analysis, exceeded SHS irritation thresholds by >90 fold in the smoking sections, and by ~35 fold in the nonsmoking sections of 17 gaming clubs due to smoke infiltration, despite meeting recommended ventilation rates as indicated by measured carbon dioxide levels.
6. Without restrictions on smoking in public places, an estimated 3500 nonsmoking Australians (never-smokers and ex-smokers) would die annually from SHS exposure at home at work and in other venues, much higher than the very conservative NHMRC estimates, which are based on spousal smoking and apply to never-smokers only.
7. A risk assessment generalizing the nicotine levels reported in the Cains et al.(2004) 17 Club study shows that, at the measured level of SHS exposure, an estimated 73-97 deaths per year occur among the 40,000 NSW Club, Pub, Tavern, and Bar workers for all nonsmokers and smokers combined. This range is reduced 18% for nonsmokers only. 97 deaths per year is an amount is equal to that of all annual occupational fatalities in NSW.
8. Even if the average nicotine levels in all NSW hospitality venues were half of those measured by Cains et al. (2004), SHS would still cause ~60 to 80 times the annual mesothelioma mortality caused by asbestos exposure among all Australian accommodation, café, and restaurant workers averaged for the period 1998-2000.
9. New York City reported that a workplace smoking ban improved air quality in bars and restaurants, decreased worker SHS dose by 85%, and that both business receipts and employment increased in bars and restaurants.
10. A total smoking ban extending to hotels, registered clubs, and nightclubs.

source

ESTIMATED MORTALITY FROM SECONDHAND SMOKE
AMONG CLUB, PUB, TAVERN, AND BAR WORKERS
IN NEW SOUTH WALES, AUSTRALIA
James L. Repace, MSc.
Repace Associates, Inc.
Secondhand Smoke Consultants
April 7, 2004

Please no strawman arguements.
Finland just illegalized smoking in the restaurants.

[james_dean]

wooooooow way to take a joke dickhead

ahahahahahahahahahaha




hahahaha



That was obviously not a joke. Way to make a fool of yourself, cockbite