I think the annoyance factor is what it all boils down to. The problem is that there are things that I find annoying that people do too. An example is too much perfume or cologne. The smell of it makes me sick to my stomach. But would I support a law that banned it? Absolutely not. I do not think that we should be passing laws based on just what we like and don’t like. Unless someone wants to pass a law outlawing the Backstreet Boys. Then I could make an exception;)
And let’s be real. The government doesn’t really want smoking to be illegal. They have grown far too accustomed to the tax money it generates. If everyone in this country stopped smoking today, we would be healthier as a people. We would also have to scramble to find ways to fund all of things that the cigarette taxes provide.
BO is, to one degree or another, an inevitiable part of being human. It is largely involuntary. Smoking is a voluntary habit.
This is why ivylass’s analogy is a non-starter.
What, like annoying behaviour like playing your stereo really loudly in the middle of the night? Behaviour that you don’t have to do, annoys others, but you do anyway 'cos your selfish pleasure is more important to you. That’s criminal, so why not smoking in public around others who don’t want to share your exhaust fumes?
Since when is B.O. involuntary? Except in the case of a rare medical condition, a water, soap, and deodorant will prevent it.
Since when is playing your stereo loud enough to annoy your neighbors? And speaking of exhaust fumes, your car is hazardous to my health, so stop driving.
Here is a sampling of annoying behaviors I have recently encountered that I would like to do away with, divided into four categories:[ul][li]olfactory: excessive/cheap perfume, garbage, restaurant kitchen fumes, dog urine, excessive charcoal from BBQ, fish markets[/li][li]auditory: car alarms, loud trucks and motorcycles, annoying laughs, loud conversations, any conversations by stupid people, dog barking, baby crying, heavy walking upstairs, car doors slamming, bad music, coughing during movies[/li][li]visual: ugly people, bad haircuts, bad fashion, shirtless men with fat hairy bellies[/li][li]locational: people who walk too slow and won’t get out of the way, people hanging out on my front porch, people who take up too much space on the subway[/li][/ul]What’s the difference between these things and smoking? Smoking is not voluntary for addicts. I suppose being ugly is largely involuntary, but we could also pass a law saying that they can’t leave their homes uncovered. You can always wash the smell out of your clothes, but the memory of an ugly image stays with you.
But, you gotta love an organization that refers to “the antismoker industry” ( http://www.forces.org/evidence/ ). Is that some industry that spends tens of billions of dollars a year selling antismoking products?
When the dust settles, and the studies are meticulously reviewed, I am convinced there will be a strong, unarguable case for saying second-hand smoke damages health of otherwise healthy people. I actually think that data is there now, but lots of other factors (study design criticism, poorly designed studies showing ambiguous or contradictory results) muddy the waters. Also the tobacco sellers have a vested interest in not buying into the secondhand smoke data. You all remember them fighting for over 50 years to declare that there was no evidence smoking was harmful to the smoker? It’s only been in the last few years that they’ve given up that claim.
You’ve been lied to about many things in the field of Public Health.
The phrase “lies, damn lies and statistics” could have been coined for this field of “scientific” research.
Consider this: a smoker aged under 45 is 15 times more likely to die of heart disease than a non smoker.
The death rates per 100,000 are 104 and 7 respectively.
Presented differently this means that a smoker has 99,896 chances in 100,000 of not dying of heart disease. The nonsmokers chances are 99,993 in 100,000. Dividing 99,896 by 99,993 we find that the smoker has 99.9% of the chance of a nonsmoker of not dying from heart disease.
Some years ago I saw an article about the “staggering increase in the rate of HIV infection amongst heterosexuals”. They concluded that gay cases had risen, say, 50% but hetrosexual cases had risen 100%. What they failed to mention was that the base of gay cases was several thousand and the base of heterosexual cases several dozen.
Mind you I am an ex-smoker and always thought that it was OK to restrict where I could smoke, so as not to annoy others, regardless of whether the health risks are real or not.
Banning smoking in bars, as in California, is just ludicrous. There you are (the rhetorical you), damaging your liver, brain and wallet–and you’re worrying about SHS?! Hello!
I don’t patronize restaurants that do not have a smoking section. Now if only they would set up no-perfume sections!
Where do you think Zyrtec (or is it ZYyban?) and Nicoderm come from? I mean, if it’s really as dangerous as everyone says, why don’t they just make it illegal and have done with it? Could there be some groups out there that want to keep it legal and tax the hell out it? And what happens if they actually succeed and tobacco smoking goes the way of the dodo bird? Do you think the legislators are going to throw up their hands and say, “Well, we don’t need THAT tax revenue anymore! Thank goodness smoking is no more!”
Oh, funny enough, I found this link today on where the tobacco settlement money is going. (Hint, it’s not for medical costs and teen prevention like they said it would.)
I’m looking forward to the vote, and am proud of the 200 or so individual petitions I collected as a volunteer, and the thousands that were collected at places and events I suggested.
I further look forward to being able to go out to eat without having to wait for a seat in the non-smoking section. The non-smoking sections always seem to have more people in them than the smoking sections.
Your justification for getting Smoking banned is EXACTLY what every American should point to as a bad example of how citizens can use democracy to whimisically eliminate a person’s Liberty.
I swear I will fight every person like you who tries to destroy our Liberties because they don’t want to wait for a seat at a restaurant.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
And the rest of you who support this type of logic should too. Go somewhere else to eat. Open your own restaurant and make it non-smoking. Teach your kids to not smoke. Don’t smoke yourself. But leave the smokers alone you naive health zealots.
Moderate drinking of alcohol is harmless and, some studies suggest, may even be beneficial . No-one has ever had their health damage by another’s alcohol intake, no matter how close they want to sit.
There is no way whatsoever of smoking in any quantaties that does not negatively impact on your health. This includes other’s smoke.
Specious logic. There are plenty of people who drink, but do not smoke. My wife drinks and is, in fact, asthmatic. Because one engages in one particular “vice” does not imply that it is therefore legitimate to force them to engage in others.
No, it tells me that either: A) Even smokers do not want to sit in the smoking section, because it’s foul, or B) Smokers are asking for “first available” even when they could ask for “smoking,” therefore making everyone else wait longer.
From where, exactly, do you derive the “liberty” for you to put tobacco smoke in my lungs? That’s an awfully curious definition of “liberty.”
I don’t want to start another debate on the amendment issue. My problem with this is all the conflicting evidence, and I am so confused now. I was raised to believe that smoking is poison, and that ETS is just as evil. But the more research I find, the more I question the premise that ETS is harmful. Could it be that since they couldn’t get smokers to quit on the evidence that it was bad for them, they are trying to guilt them into quitting on the basis that it’s bad for their families?
Oh, and pldennison aren’t smokers allowed to ask for first available if they don’t want to wait and decide not to smoke during their meal? Just as I, as a non-smoker, am allowed to ask for first available because I’m hungry? And I don’t mind sitting in the smoking section if it will get me my meal faster? What makes you think a smoker has to ask for the smoking section?
I was not saying that my support for the amendment was because it will make my wait for a non-smoking seat shorter. The amendment is to protect workers and it will protect customers as a side benefit.
My point about the wait for the non-smoking section is that the feared loss of business is unlikely.
Part of the issue is that some of the motivation to ban second hand smoke comes from people who can’t stand to be ignored.
Tobacco smoking causes cancer and heart disease. People who smoke get told this constantly by people who don’t. Often, people who smoke, ignore the people telling them.
Some anti-smokers are busybodies, who have hit on the idea of second hand smoke as a way to enforce their opinions on others. It makes no difference if second hand smoke is truly dangerous, the busybodies are going to insist on having their wishes honored and those of smokers overruled because they cannot stand being ignored.
I don’t smoke cigarettes, just the occasional cigar, but I have had people tell me I can’t smoke my cigar in an outdoor park.
belladonna & kniz:“I’m a smoker but I wouldn’t mind a ban in restaraunts or shops.”… “As a smoker I do not object to the way smoking has been banned in most cases.”
And tbat’s a good part of the problem we have in this country. Why on earth would you be okay with the heavy hand of government “banning” a legal activity in PRIVATE establishments, instead of encouraging the free market? If the anti-smokers had started their campaign for a smokefree world, and that is what it is, by saying “we intend to prohibit smoking in private restaurants, bars, and even homes and cars and outside,” they would have been stopped immediately. But they’ve gotten their way incrementally, and even admit that’s what they’re doing.
Every freedom you willingly give up for others is a freedom you’ve lost for yourself. It’s only freedom if it’s equal for everyone. If YOU want to open a smokefree restaurant and forbid smoking, fine. If I want to open a smoker-friendly restaurant, it should be just as fine. As it is, even private, member-only clubs are prohibited from permitting smoking, at least in the places where the antis have gained a foothold. And make no mistake about it, the eventual goal is the total elimination of smoking–whether 50 million smokers in this country agree or not.
Sure, ivylass, I didn’t say that they weren’t allowed. I was questioning whether the waiting lists for nonsmoking, and empty seats in the smoking section, indicated the conclusion that you came to. If anything, it indicates that since there are more smokers who will sit in nonsmoking than there are nonsmokers who will sit in smoking, smoking sections could stand to be a lot smaller.
And I still don’t get this idea that a ban on smoking in restaurants restricts your (the generic “you,” not you, ivylass) liberty. You didn’t have any to begin with – you were permitted to smoke in the restaurant at the whim of the property owner. It restricts his liberty to allow you to smoke in his business or not, but it is neutral as regards your liberty. You can still smoke at home all you want, as well as in your car and in most places outdoors. This idea of some “right” you have to put smoke into my lungs . . . it’s like me claiming that, since vomiting is legal, it’s OK if I stick my finger down my throat and puke on your shoes. Ridiculous.
ivylass, question for you: Based on what you’ve seen and read, are you of the opinion that ETS has no effect at all, or a completely neutral effect, on the health of nonsmokers? That includes immediate effects, short-term effects, long-term effects, the whole shebang.