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

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 12 Feb 2006 18:52

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.

Johnny · Post by **Johnny** » 12 Feb 2006 19:03

BainbridgeShred wrote: 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.

[shrug]

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 12 Feb 2006 19:16

I was talking about indoor's and outdoor's in the respective paragraphs. The difference is obvious.

jon · Post by **jon** » 12 Feb 2006 20:19

Johnny wrote:
BainbridgeShred wrote: 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.
[shrug]

lol. I am sorry but I think the correct expression is OWNED!

junkyardjew · Post by **junkyardjew** » 12 Feb 2006 20:32

you should edit the first post so that the subject says your and not you're.

also, buildings with unregulated access (ie places like bowling alleys, restraunts, supermarkets, bars) ARE public spaces, by definition. In canada most cities have smoking by-laws that can be circumvented by designating your business a PRIVATE business, and requiring membership to enter.

Bander87 · Post by **Bander87** » 12 Feb 2006 21:51

How do smoking laws get passed? Is it congress or the public voting? If it's the public voting, then the government has more of a fair reason to make smoking laws. I know where I live, in New Hampshire, we have smoking and non smoking areas in resturants. I thought this was normal until other people find it suprising.

Bagira · Post by **Bagira** » 12 Feb 2006 22:04

Well, hmm. It's your government. Partially at least. If you aren't happy that your representative voted for disallowing smoking in privately owned areas, then, if you find that to be the very important, vote for someone else. Or run for whatever position.

Too much power, you say? I think that the government has as much power as the people put into it. Any government by the way. Including totalitarian governments. Because the vast majority of the people who are living under a totalitatian government are not rejecting it and fighting it means that because of their inaction they are supporting it. Thus they are giving as much power as they have to tthe government. Pretty simple.

You have a few choices. Vote for someone who can represent you better. Or stock up on weapons and take the <insert your country's name>'s government via coup-de-grace. Or influence others to take one of the previously mentioned paths. Or sit idly, do nothing, and complain.

Pretty simple. While you are doing one of these, I strongly urge you to pick up and read some Political Theory. Start with Hannah Arendt.

Bagira · Post by **Bagira** » 12 Feb 2006 22:10

To Bander, anti-smoking laws probably get passed by the city/town's legislative body. Unless you live in a small town, this is almost always someone who has been appointed by the people to decide such things.

For example, in NYC, we have like Slaa'nesh knows how many people living here and pretty few City Councilors. They are the ones who pass the antismoking laws. I can guesstimate that we have around 100-300ish councilors.

The federal government lacks the power to regulate smoking laws. I doubt the states have much power either with the exception of not selling it to minors, etc.

Also, to the OP, what are some cancer-causing toxins that pollute YOUR town/city's air?

shredzilla · Post by **shredzilla** » 13 Feb 2006 00:59

The smoking ban is weird. As much as I like to appreciate the whole constitutional rights of smokers and all that, I just want to say "GODAMNIT STOP SMOKING YOU STUPID IDIOTS!!!!" You're right, the government shouldn't have the power to ban smoking. But people should have enough common sense NOT TO SMOKE. There's just nothing glorifying about smoking. You're an addict, to garbage. It's disgusting. Stop being a garbage-addict.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 13 Feb 2006 08:39

Smokers are great , you can treat them like dirt, like sub-humans, AND you can take advantage of their addiction, picking their pocket.

Local or state government are so drunk on power, that they restrict smoking, while depending on the taxes for their continuing existence.

p.s.

There are Patriot Act provisions dedicated to cigarette smuggling or counterfeiting.

-n

Guest_2 · Post by **Guest_2** » 13 Feb 2006 13:42

Second hand smoke is harmful:Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet
November 2004

Secondhand smoke, also know as environmental tobacco smoke, is a mixture of the smoke given off by the burning end of a cigarette, pipe or cigar and the smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers. It is involuntarily inhaled by nonsmokers, lingers in the air hours after cigarettes have been extinguished and can cause or exacerbates a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections, and asthma.

Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen).

Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 35,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.

A study found that nonsmokers exposed to environmental smoke were 25 percent more likely to have coronary heart diseases compared to nonsmokers not exposed to smoke.

Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at work are at increased risk for adverse health effects. Levels of ETS in restaurants and bars were found to be 2 to 5 times higher than in residences with smokers and 2 to 6 times higher than in office workplaces.

Since 1999, 70 percent of the U.S. workforce worked under a smoke-free policy, ranging from 83.9 percent in Utah to 48.7 percent in Nevada.6 Workplace productivity was increased and absenteeism was decreased among former smokers compared with current smokers.

Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. Secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year, and causes 1,900 to 2,700 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths in the United States annually.

Secondhand smoke exposure may cause buildup of fluid in the middle ear, resulting in 700,000 to 1.6 million physician office visits per year. Secondhand smoke can also aggravate symptoms in 200,000 to 1,000,000 children with asthma.

In the United States, 21 million, or 35 percent of, children live in homes where residents or visitors smoke in the home on a regular basis.11 Approximately 50-75 percent of children in the United States have detectable levels of cotinine, the breakdown product of nicotine in the blood.

New research indicates that secret research conducted by cigarette company Philip Morris in the 1980s showed that secondhand smoke was highly toxic, yet the company suppressed the finding during the next two decades.

For more information on secondhand smoke, please review the Tobacco Morbidity and Mortality Trend Report as well as our Lung Disease Data publication in the Data and Statistics section of our website, or call the American Lung Association at 1-800-LUNG-USA (1-800-586-4872).

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

It is harmful. No one has the right to subject other people to harm. Plus, it aggrivates my asthma and smells disgusting. I hate when I'm walking down the street and I get a huge wiff of smoke in my face

I think it should be banned everywhere public

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 13 Feb 2006 14:10

Vind, the debate isn't about whether or not second hand smoke is harmful. It's generally accepted that it is. If you aren't going to argue the point layed out in the beggining of my post, then don't post in my thread at all. So far no one else has had this problem but you.

Guest_2 · Post by **Guest_2** » 13 Feb 2006 15:56

I suppose private businesses with a seperate smoking lounge would be fly. That way, the public isn't subject to any of the harmful effects.

Otherwise, it's harmful indoors and outdoors. So it should be banned in all places where people would be unwillingly subjected to it.

Clarified?

pips · Post by **pips** » 13 Feb 2006 17:01

TheVindicator wrote:It is harmful. No one has the right to subject other people to harm.

I think that was his main point. I didn't say anything in here earlier, because I couldn't come up with anything good to fight about, but I agree with TheVindicator now.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 13 Feb 2006 18:33

I regret making this thread. Everyone's arguments amount to "smoke is bad for you so it should be banned in all public places". You honestly couldn't come up with a point if what you were trying to express was that simple, Pips? 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.

I suppose private businesses with a seperate smoking lounge would be fly. That way, the public isn't subject to any of the harmful effects.

If the owner of a private business wants to create a seperate section, that's his choice. It's also his choice if he wants to allow smoking in every section of his business.

Here comes the kicker though. It's YOUR choice whether you want to go in to an individuals privately owned business, and give him your dollars.

Otherwise, it's harmful indoors and outdoors. So it should be banned in all places where people would be unwillingly subjected to it.

Such simple logic usually reveals a very simple person behind the words. You are subjected to harmful chemicals everytime you breath in deep, and thus you have no precedent to claim the government can say that I can't pollute the air with my own harmful chemicals. Like I said earlier, if you want to ban smoking in indoor, public places, that is fine. Otherwise, you have no right to claim that I can't walk on the sidewalk smoking a cig.

dp · Post by dp » 13 Feb 2006 19:10

"You are subjected to harmful chemicals everytime you breath in deep, and thus you have no precedent to claim the government can say that I can't pollute the air with my own harmful chemicals."

So basically what you're saying there is that, since the air is already polluted, I have every right to pollute it even more, should you want.

dp · Post by dp » 13 Feb 2006 19:20

Urgh! No edit button.

So basically what you're saying there is that, since the air is already polluted, you have every right to pollute it even more, should you want.

^ That's what I meant to say above.

shredzilla · Post by **shredzilla** » 13 Feb 2006 19:30

Yeah, I completely agree with what you're saying Dan. My friend just lost the battle against the smoking ban here in Washington DC. He headed the entire campaign, and spent the last 4 months of his life working on it. He's also a heavy chain-smoker and runs a club 1 night a week. He claims that now his business will plummet drastically and he'll have to find another way to make money.

It's a Catch 22 though: Why should we care if this man is making money off of destroying the health of others whether or not his business goes under? Smoking sucks, and everyone hates coming home from a smokey bar coughing and such, and they haven't even smoked a cigarrette.

And while we should fight for the rights of Americans, this is just one that I don't want to fight because I hate coming home coughing and stinking because I was out at a bar. Yes, it's my choice. I chose to go there. But that's the point. I'm still choosing to go there, even though I'm suffering from the smoke. If smokers are that selfish that they can't go out to a bar and step outside once in a while to smoke, then the burden is on them. They will be the ones who kill my friend's business if they decide not to show up anymore. Not me, because I will continue to support it when it's a clean place to hang out as I did when it was bad for cardio-vascular health.

Is the smoking ban unfair? Yes. But it's the lesser of two evils for me.

Keep in mind, that some states will allow smoking in private 'Membership Only' clubs and lodges. All those die-hard smokers can now PAY to do their smoking in a club.

professor · Post by **professor** » 13 Feb 2006 19:33

Like I said earlier, if you want to ban smoking in indoor, public places, that is fine. Otherwise, you have no right to claim that I can't walk on the sidewalk smoking a cig.

Actually since smoking has been proven to be harmful to your body, I think you have no right to walk beside me on the sidewalk smoking a cig.

I like analogies, so let's use one. Why is assault outlawed in almost every country, if not all? Because it is an infringement on the rights of another person. But in a way outlawing assault is also an infringement on the rights of the assaulter to do as he/she pleases. But the rights of the victim to live a healthy life without the threat of harm far outway the assaulter's rights.

So, my right to live a healthy, smoke-free life outways the right of the smoker to smoke beside me on the street.

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."
-Oliver Wendell Holmes

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 13 Feb 2006 20:25

so basically what you're saying there is that, since the air is already polluted, you have every right to pollute it even more, should you want.

Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying actually. Whether or not it is right or wrong is one thing. We all do plenty of things that are "wrong" just to please our own urges every day. I have a right to smoke on the sidewalks, and it isnt the governments place to stop me. Like I said though, whether it's morale or not is another topic.

actually since smoking has been proven to be harmful to your body, I think you have no right to walk beside me on the sidewalk smoking a cig.

Hahaha. It's obvious that you've never read the consitution. Just because what I do is harmful to your body doesn't mean anything. God this statement made me laugh.

I like analogies, so let's use one. Why is assault outlawed in almost every country, if not all? Because it is an infringement on the rights of another person. But in a way outlawing assault is also an infringement on the rights of the assaulter to do as he/she pleases. But the rights of the victim to live a healthy life without the threat of harm far outway the assaulter's rights.

I already said that I wouldn't allow strawman arguments in my thread, so don't expect me to respond to idiocy like this.

So, my right to live a healthy, smoke-free life outways the right of the smoker to smoke beside me on the street.

Show me what right you have as an American to live a healthy live, and I'll concede my point. Basically, you have no right to live a healthy life. If you did corporations wouldn't be able to pollute the air with toxins like they do. Stop pulling "rights" out of your ass. It's obvious you've never actually examined the constitution.

And while we should fight for the rights of Americans, this is just one that I don't want to fight because I hate coming home coughing and stinking because I was out at a bar. Yes, it's my choice. I chose to go there. But that's the point. I'm still choosing to go there, even though I'm suffering from the smoke. If smokers are that selfish that they can't go out to a bar and step outside once in a while to smoke, then the burden is on them. They will be the ones who kill my friend's business if they decide not to show up anymore. Not me, because I will continue to support it when it's a clean place to hang out as I did when it was bad for cardio-vascular health.

Dude, the saddest part is, you agree with my point but still are arguing with me. The burden isn't on the smokers, the burden is on the owner of the club and the people who choice to give it their business. If the owner wants to allow smoking, people can simply stop going. It is your right to do whatever you want with yuor money. If you want to use your cash to be in a smokey club, go ahead. If you don't, then don't go to the club. It's as easy as that. Maybe I'm too drunk, but your post honestly makes no sense to me, and seems very very very contradictory.

Also, looking at your first sentence in the paragraph above seem's very scary to me. You're honestly willing to trample on the rights of an individual just because you don't like breathing in smoke? This is the same argument American's used when interning the Japanese during WW2. I'm too tipsy to explain now, but if you don't understand what I'm saying say so and I'll tell you tomorrow.

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

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

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

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