Ok, DrDeth…I’ll look it over. Just skimming it I see that my own take on this issue is a bit dated. I remember the fight on this subject in the 90’s, and frankly haven’t really looked at the issue much since then.
Let’s assume you are right, and that smoking does cause all those things. It would certainly be a health risk in that case. However, alcohol also has risks, not just to those who drink but to others as well. My problem with smoking bans is that I’m unsure where the line will be drawn. Once people can ban things because of the ‘ick’ factor, or because they are risky then where does this end? What will be next on the agenda for us to ban, for the public’s good and the safety of the citizens?
That said, and assuming that there is real scientific consensus and evidence that second hand smoke does indeed pose a real, measurable health risk to others…well, in that case I guess I’d have to concede that a smoking ban has a lot more validity than I thought before skimming this thread. While I think that our society has become intensely risk averse to the point of lunacy wrt our individual rights and freedoms are concerned, perhaps a ban on public smoking is warranted in this case.
Ok, that’s fair.
Yes, but the more significant risk involved to others with booze is drunk driving. And, you have to admit the Government has put severe restrictions on drinking and driving.
The evidence is solid- SHS is dangerous. Few argue otherwise. What is being argued is whether not an employer can force his employees to put up with that risk, and whether or not we want the general public to take the risk- after all, they may not be fully informed.
The general public doesn’t have to take that risk, unless you enact laws which force smokers to smoke outside. Then smokers can’t avoid exposing the general public. If you allow smokers to smoke indoors, then they’re allowed to smoke in private facilities where people can choose whether or not they want to patronize.
As for works, one of the terms and conditions of being a barkeep, waiter/waitress at a bar, bar tender or otherwise alcoholic beverage/food server at a bar or bar & grill is typically putting up with smoking. Fact of the trade.
In the same way that one of the terms and conditions of being a mechanic is putting up with wrenches smashing your toes and carbon monoxide, in the same way that being a painter exposes you to paint fumes, and being a teacher exposes you to annoying little shits.
I would be curious to know just what laws you worked on. I am not busting chops; I really am curious.
Kids walking into a bar - any bar short of the corporate Olive Garden variety - are probably going to go “ewwww” if its smoking or not. Bars, neighborhood Bar and Grills, just aren’t places kids like. I suspect for some on your side of this debate, the reaction is the same as the average kids. Again, smoking or not, the neighborhood tavern just may not be your kind of place. Does that mean it should be denied to everyone?
And consider, for the sake of argument ------ if service workers/wait staff had the same kind of union the USWA or UMWA had, would the laws be needed or secondary to rules already in place? I could put up a strong argument that AFSCME had more to do with getting government workplaces smoke free; if it worked for them why not for everyone?
Remember - government regulations are only as good as the next election. We learned that the hard way with all the clean water and air acts. Union regulation though; that lasts as long as the industry lasts.
No - I need to know why you hate my wife and all the other people with actual respiratory diseases. Those harmed by your “go outside” attitude. I don’t need to “believe” it - I see it every day! I must deal with it tomorrow; I have no choice in the matter. It simply does not make sense. How did a sidewalk or a bus stop become “private property” and a bar “public property”? You have some special secret knowledge that has been denied me - please tell me what that is. Or I shall continue to insist that you do.
I guess you knew I would probably debate that. Domestic violence, violence in general, divorce, mishaps, on and off the job accidents. Hard to say drunk driving is the worse problem with booze. How many news stories end with “alcohol was involved”? Betting its more than just the drunk driving ones.
But lets assume you are on to something. Severe restrictions don’t mean much if you don’t have the funds (locally) to enforce those restrictions. Or when the courts won’t back you up in sentencing. What’s the general rule on how many DUIs are caught compared to actual numbers? Like maybe one in a hundred? How many are actually punished compared to how many get “time served” or “community service”? I don’t know very many drinkers who fear a DUI; I know a ton who fear their insurance companies. Economics - it’s not just for breakfast anymore!
Tell you what – we may already have the tech to make sure that you and only you can drive your car and that you must prove you are sober to be able to turn that key. We can even retrofit cars without much of a problem AFAIK. Want to support a government edict to make that tech mandatory on all cars? I am and I’m basically a libertarian for Lords sake!
And can employers force employees to do anything? Not as long as I have the ability to move, or be moved, and food stamps and welfare still exist. Never had a boss who could force me to do anything and I’ve never been out of work very long because of it. But we employees do swing a heavy stick now and then; even me. Again, as I have said before, maybe you are taking the wrong approach to getting that dog wagging just the way you wish.
SHS dangerous? You bet! The greatest danger we face in our lives today? Not that clear. The question really is “how many things you see as “rights” are you willing to give up to prevent avoidable dangers”? If the answer is zero, you fail to impress me very much.
I was on your side of the debate once upon a time and I still am up to a point. Like I’ve said, for “me and mine” this isn’t an academic debate; more a matter of life and breath. Some place in all this “you” (in the generic sense) made sidewalks “private” and bars “public”. Riddle me that one.
Basically. Don’t forget the illegal drugs. I mean I’m a selfish non-smoker, so I dont’ really care about the bans, but intellectually they are pretty indefensible.
Over/under until smoking is banned in the home - 15 years? To protect the children, you see.
The “ewww” comment was in response to the question “Is it reasonable to ban this?” Pollution causes visceral reactions that all people can relate to. Ditto for bad smells and loud noise. I don’t know anyone who attended the Beijing Olympics, for instance, who didn’t remark about the pollution.
But to answer your specific question: If, when we walked into a public place to shop or eat a cheeseburger, the general public couldn’t escape from your pornographic images, or we all became intoxicated by merely smelling alcohol vapors, why yes I’d call for a ban. Otherwise, I’ve got no beef with your porn or your martini.
Or to put it another way, if someone wants to listen to his iPod at 300 decibels using earbuds, we’ve got no issues. He’s only harming himself. If, on the other hand, he wants to crank it up to 300 decibels in his car, and drive around the subdivision at 2am, then we might have a problem. And I think it’s entirely reasonable of governments to pass laws to curb the latter.
First part – did you happen to read the title of this thread? In case you missed it I believe it reads “Michigan finally passed a smoking ban!”. I will admit that that is more wishful thinking than reality but it does qualify as advocating.
Second part - want to place a little bet that I can’t find a bar in California with smoking “indoors indoors” (as opposed to the wimpy PA definition of indoors) that not only has employees but very well paid and willing ones? Give me say 6 hours in any California city (INCLUDING the People’s Republic of Santa Monica) of say Pittsburgh size or larger and it will be the easiest money I ever made.
Longer than that. First we need to get rid of those pesky illegal drugs. They make the whole idea of bans look silly.
Are there people out there who do want to ban smoking in the home? Sure! IIRC it’s already been tried a couple times. And in a manner of speaking it is banned in the home - if you rent your home and that provision is in the lease. But I suspect you do have a point though; the best and first effort will be against homes/households with children.
How I see it playing out is that in a few years, a non-smoking child of a smoker who raised his/her children after there was clear evidence that second hand smoke is harmful, is going to come down with lung cancer and sue the tobacco companies AND mom and dad.
That will lead to a landmark multi-billion dollar judgment against both defendants, which will ultimately lead insurance companies to declare that they will not insure smokers, period, and force the tobacco companies to raise the price of cigarettes significantly.
For all intents and purposes, that will be the beginning of the end of smoking as a leisurely pasttime.
Your second paragraph - how often do you walk into a bar to shop? I’m real curious about this. I’ve gotten a t-shirt or two while I was in a bar but rarely did I ever enter with the sole goal being to buy one.
Now about porn - boy howdy! Not all are what Al Bundy would call “nudie bars”; we have a separate set of controls on them here in PA. But some places I know have the most amazing artwork you could imagine. Know a place or two where you may get a contact high just from the quantity of alcohol that passes through.
I’m beginning to appreciate why you ducked my question about the “ewww” factor. I’m betting its the bars that offend you and not just the smoking. Or we would be talking more logical approaches than “bans”.
Cigarettes. Us Democrats aren’t giving up our cigars all that easily.
We disagree on a time-frame but I agree with you ------- that is probably going to be how it plays out. We’re going to have to get government to switch from tobacco taxes to gasoline taxes (and no ----- I am not kidding) because of how dependent its become on the revenue from tobacco but that will indeed be the end of Winston and the personal fulfillment of my dream.
Economics and not Uncle Sugar; like I said - works every time.
And now, as if it wasn’t obvious to everyone before, your bias comes out.
You don’t care about work safety, you just don’t like smokers, or people smoking. You don’t like the fact that people are free to choose to do things with their own bodies that you don’t agree with.
You’re like a Pro-lifer, except you don’t care about the life of the baby, you just care that since you’d never have an abortion, no one else should be allowed to have them either.
Even if the first sentence were true, the generalization in the second does not necessarily follow. There are very good reasons to dislike smoking in particular.
I’m staunchly pro-abortion rights, and I take issue with many of the tactics of “pro-life” groups. But I’d never try to claim that they have no convictions on the subject and just want to control other people. It would be foolish, childish and counterproductive.
That type of argument is similarly nonsensical when used against people working to limit forced exposure to secondhand smoke. We choose to work and enjoy recreational activities in public places that are not fouled with toxic tobacco byproducts that cause cancer, heart disease and respiratory illnesses, as well as other health problems.
The vast majority of advocates against secondhand smoke do not care about “controlling” smokers, do not envy the wonderful carefree lives smokers enjoy or the way cool oxygen tanks they wheel around in later years, and do not wish that we could be addicted too.
We do not appreciate it when smokers’ self-destructive behaviors spill over onto nonsmokers, whether it’s ourselves or others who deserve a smoke-free environment.
And BTW ----- guess you forgot my question; what do you have against people with actual physical illnesses? Not possible future ones but the respiratory ones being harmed by these poorly constructed regulations today?
Depends on where you live and who you know. I may basically be old-fashioned, but I’ve learned enough of the new ways to figure folks younger and wiser than me can make do real well.
<<We do not appreciate it when smokers’ self-destructive behaviors spill over onto nonsmokers, whether it’s ourselves or others who deserve a smoke-free environment>>
Then ------ why support laws that force that second hand smoke, that self-destructive behavior, onto the sidewalks, bus stops and building entrances? Why not embrace laws actually addressing those problems?
<<That type of argument is similarly nonsensical when used against people working to limit forced exposure to secondhand smoke.>>
But haven’t you read the posts your friends have made here, the very title of the thread? “Limit forced exposure” isn’t the goal; banning all smoking is the goal. Otherwise we wouldn’t have spent how many pages now talking basically just about neighborhood bars.
I will agree with you; I do not care for the comparison to Pro-Life. This approach is, however, very much the same as the anti-abortion movement - the two being very different animals. In Pro-Life you have other issues such as adoption, family planning and education. In the anti-abortion movement (like the anti-smoking movement) there is but one issue ------- I will be the judge and ruler of your body. Because I can force the laws through to make it so.
