Tobacco should be outlawed in all public places

Great Debates
21

[QUOTE=catsix]
I’m sick of this double-sided crap. Nobody wants smokers anywhere around them unless they’ve got their hands in our wallets. You hate smoking so much? Quit taking the tax money.
[/QUOTE]

What? Tobacco taxes cause smoking? Whatever it takes to justify your habit, I guess. Do you suppose your exhaled clouds of smoke rain nickels and dimes into the pockets of those around you? A lot of this money just goes to pay for medical care that should not be necessary, for brokedown wheezers who have blown all their money on smokes. Tobacco taxes have nothing to do with the average non-smoking citizen, we just hate the ubiquitous smoke, butts, and ashes.

22

[QUOTE=Eva Luna]
Sigh-- Tobacco smoke is by far my worst legal asthma trigger, exceeded only by marijuana smoke. Fireplaces and car exhaust do it sometimes, too, but how often do you find either of those in a public place where you need to be for any extended period of time?

[/QUOTE]

Fireplaces I mentionned because many people who can’t bear being within 50 yards of a lighted cigarette never have any issue with any other kind of smoke, for some mysterious reason. Never seen someone who enjoys being bathed in the smoke of a firecamp but seemingly has a heart failure if he sees someone lighting a cigarette?

As for car exhausts, you must be joking. Most public spaces are filled with running cars. When you walk along a street, compare how many smokers and how many running cars are passing by.

When there are pollution alerts and they warn elderly people, people with asthma, etc… not to go out if they can and avoid physical efforts, it’s not because there are too much people smoking in Paris. There’s no way to avoid breathing car exhausts if you live in a city. Their adverse effect on health (and resulting deaths during pollution peaks, and in particular amongst asthmatics) have been amply demonstrated but seemingly no driver cares when politely asked not to use his car or at least to reduce his speed when high levels of pollution are detected, and of course mandating either is politically unacceptable.

Given the high level of health-adverse pollutants in a city, and seeing that mostly everybody couldn’t care less about it, I’m not going to accept that the main issue with the air one breaths in public spaces is cigarette smoke. When drivers will leave their cars in their garages every time they can, maybe I’ll listen to them complaining about the presence of smokers in the streets.

Tobacco smoke just happens to be an acceptable target in today’s society, and that’s why it’s singled out when people are happily (or for some unhappily but without complaining much) breathing all sort of nasty stuff all day long. You mention the large number of people with asthma and other lung diseases. But car exhausts are well-known to adversely affect the exact same population. Actually, I know two asthmatics who are way more sensible to pollution levels than to smoke. And there’s no possible way to avoid the former. At least not as long as careless drivers (those who could use public transportation, for instance, but won’t, even during pollution peaks, or will use their car rather than walk for 500 yards) will be equally demonized, which isn’t going to happen anytime soon because, of course, the general population is overwhelmingly made of careless drivers.

23

[QUOTE=crowmanyclouds]
Yeah, how often do you find cars (and their exhaust) near bus stops?

:dubious:
CMC fnord!
[/QUOTE]

I’m not nearly as bothered by smoke at a bus stop as by smoke in an enclosed public space like a subway station (where it’s prohibited in Chicago anyway, though the prohibition is rarely enforced), or as by car exhaust at a bus stop. With car exhaust, the car is generally further away from my lungs (I try not to stand in the middle of the street in moving traffic), plus the source of the pollutant is moving, not standing in one spot, so less of it ends up in my lungs. Frankly, unless I’m standing directly in the path of the vehicle’s tailpipte or in the middle of a traffic jam on a high ozone day, I probably won’t feel the car exhaust at all.

And like I said, car exhaust is less likely to irritate my lungs than cigarette smoke, anyway - but of course this is anecdotal, and I’m sure other people with asthma or other lung problems are equally triggered by car exhaust, or dog hair, or someone else’s scented shampoo, or what have you.

Come to think of it, smoking is prohibited here on any property operated by the Transit Authority; I think I need to check whether that covers bus stops.

24

You obviously misunderstood my post.

I’m saying that you benefit from every pack of cigarettes I buy because of the taxes, and that in order to not be a hypocrite you should keep your hand out of my pocket while you’re telling me not to smoke in public.

I’m not justifying a damn thing. I’m saying that anti-smokers are greedy and hypocritical and that they pretend to hate smokers while they love the money. I’m saying that I’d be fine with banning smoking in all public places as long as the public stops benefitting from my private activity.

Got it?

Yeah CHIP, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provides medical insurance at no or low cost to the children of parents who lost their jobs really has a lot to do with paying for an old, brokedown wheezer who has blown all their money on smokes.

Because getting chicken pox shots for a five year old is what we’re paying for.

Oh yes they do. We fund programs that non-smokers use all the time (see: CHIP), but it’s easy for the anti-smoker to bury his head in the sand and refuse to admit it.

Really, if tobacco taxes have nothing to do with the average non-smoking citizen, give them up. Tell your senators and your representatives in your state government ‘Hey those taxes don’t benefit me at all, so let’s just get rid of the cigarette tax and then ban smoking.’

See how they react.

25

[QUOTE=LeftFootRightFoot]
And since when does a smokers right to smoke, outweigh a nonsmokers right to breath?
[/QUOTE]

And since when a driver’s right to drive outweight a non driver right to breath, not to be disturbed by the noise, not be endangered by the vehicle? Do you drive? If so, do you avoid as much as possible to use your car? If you don’t, you’ve no ground to complain. You’re exactly as inconsiderate as smokers you’re complaining about.

26

Honestly, taxes are so horribly mismanaged by politicians, I wouldn’t trust them with any money willingly (like when Paul Martin spent BILLIONS on a gun registry that did nothing but take guns from legal citizens and give them to criminals, one of many reasons he wasn’t re-elected).

And car exhaust doesn’t trigger my asthma just like the post above said, they move and I don’t stand in the road. But during winter and at a busy intersection, I would have to crawl on the grass just to get a breath.

And what, no comment about me being allowed to punch you in the face, or spit on you?

27

[QUOTE=clairobscur]

Given the high level of health-adverse pollutants in a city, and seeing that mostly everybody couldn’t care less about it, I’m not going to accept that the main issue with the air one breaths in public spaces is cigarette smoke. When drivers will leave their cars in their garages every time they can, maybe I’ll listen to them complaining about the presence of smokers in the streets.

Tobacco smoke just happens to be an acceptable target in today’s society, and that’s why it’s singled out when people are happily (or for some unhappily but without complaining much) breathing all sort of nasty stuff all day long.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not so militant that I will come out and say that cigarette smoke is the main problem affecting air quality in public spaces. But unlike driving, a) nobody needs to smoke; b) most of us can’t drive in the privacy of our own homes; and c) the very nature of the activity of smoking is one that is much more easily confined to distinct spaces.

In modern society we accept that certain activities are necessary (industrial production, driving, etc.) even if they create air pollution, because there is an economic and/or social need for them, and so all those who desire to reap the benefits of industrial society have to deal with the negatives. Smoking doesn’t fall into that category, and even for activities that do fall into that category, government has created all kinds of regulatory restrictions (minimum fuel efficiency and emissions testing levels for vehicles, etc.) Frankly, I don’t have a problem with that, and if there were some feasible way to encourage, or even force, people to drive less and/or use public transportation more, I wouldn’t have a problem with that either. The people who drives 2 blocks to the grocery store to buy a carton of milk just boggle me.

28

Since punching someone in the face can immediately result in broken bones, eye injury, lacerations and scars, I don’t think that’s a fair analgoy. I also don’t think that spitting on someone is a fair analogy, since whatever nasty germs the spitter has (and there are quite a few diseases communicable by saliva - mononucleosis for one) can definitely infect me quite easily. HIV even shows up in the saliva of infected people. Is that at all comparable?

How cologne and perfume? It triggers my allergies and I start sneezing and my eyes start to burn and water, which makes my quality of life go down. We should institute an 86% tax on every bottle of cologne and perfume sold. I’ll reap the benefits of the cologne/perfume tax and quit bitching about people dousing themselves in the shit and triggering my allergies in public. How about that? Nobody needs to wear perfume or cologne after all, and it is an irritant to people with allergies.

29

[QUOTE=catsix]
No comment on the taxes, eh?
[/quote]
This is frequently a source of outrage among smokers, with limited justification. Society is entitled to recoup a portion of the costs (health care, loss of productivity etc.) associated with smoking.It is not a grand conspiracy aimed just at smokers. If governments really wanted to maintain a sure source of income, they’d keep tobacco taxes at a relatively low rate. Instead, the large increases promoted in states such as California discourage people (especially the young) from smoking. It’s partly seen as an anti-smoking tool (though as noted, huge increases likely will spawn smuggling and will have limited effectiveness as long as surrounding states have much lower taxes).
I do think that we should pressure our state governments to devote a much larger share of tobacco tax revenue to health care and smoking cessation efforts. “Greed” is a fairly accurate term when applied to legislators who eagerly scooped up tobacco industry settlement money and used most of it for general spending purposes.

I’m afraid that no one in government is going to care much about this. Politicians upset by accusations of hypocrisy? It does not compute. What you can do that’ll really stick it to the Man is cut them off from that revenue entirely - by quitting smoking.

Maybe the Smithsonian will add a new diorama to its exhibits.

Mastodons…wooly mammoths…smokers. :smiley:

A more likely scenario is a continued slow decline in the smoking population based on expense, inconvenience and death from tobacco-related diseases. It would not surprise me to see the percent of the adult population that smokes whittled down from just over 20% to 10%.

30

Nobody needs to wear perfume or cologne after all, and it is an irritant to people with allergies.
Dunno… there’s a few people in our office for whom a good dose of cologne wouldn’t go amiss.

I imagine all it will take is one serious class-action lawsuit by a group of e.g. pub/bar employees for “work injuries” caused by smoking, and the market will decide that the litigation risks outweigh the business benefits of allowing smoking on their premises.

IANAL but I was wondering whether by failing to legislate, the govt could be said to be complicit in the injury?

31

I gave up smoking a few years ago after attending a cricket Test at the Sydney Cricket Ground a vast open air arena, where it became apparent that smoking anywhere in public will soon be verboten.

I had always been a considerate smoker. Other than outdoors or in my own home/car I didn’t smoke unless invited to and even in places where smoking was permitted I wouldn’t light up if no-one else was smoking - if I was the only smoker there I thought it fair that I step outside.

However, at the cricket it became obvious which side is winning this fight. Although you are sitting in the open with the wind blowing around you are not allowed to smoke in any seated area. I had to leave my seat and walk to an area at the end of the stand where you could not see the game in order to smoke. While there I spotted legendary cricketer and smoker Doug Walters, so beloved that he is one of only 4 cricketers to have a stand named in his honour at this ground. He had to go to the same area from the commentary box to have a smoke.

There are pubs all over Sydney with vast tracts of unused floor space because legislation dictates that 50% (it may be 75% now) of the premises have to be non-smoking but not enough patrons use the non-smoking areas to make it worth staffing the bar.

Personally I am happy to have found an opportunity to give up smoking but I am pretty sure that there is some element with the anti-smoking martinets of being able to spot the enemy that makes smokers such good targets. Society would be far better served by dealing with alcohol abuse but you can’t spot your target so easily. Smokers however can be spotted even in the dark. I think when they are finished with smokers they will move on to another group they can identify on sight - the overweight. Much about the way the issue is being treated in the media and the first few forays into government interference remind me of the days when smoking began to lose its cachet.

32

The other thing that the Australian laws don’t take into account is that if you say “Smokers must got to X area to smoke”, then you end up with the non-smokers having to follow them in order to continue a conversation/discussion- especially if there are, say, 5 people in a group and 3 of them are smokers- which seems to render the entire concept of having massive smoke-free areas partially moot, IMO.

33

I don’t think this is really accurate. The reason State governments apply such hefty taxes to cigarettes is because they know they can get away with it. Smoking is an inelastic commodity and those addicted generally respond to price hikes by gritting their teeth and shelling out. The taxes are certainly marketed as an anti-smoking tool but, given the reputation tobacco has in our society, it’s hard to see how they could market them any other way. Instituting a cigarette tax under the auspices of protecting public health is far more voter-friendly than flat out admitting you’re going to bleed the smokers for every penny you can.

34

I’d like to outlaw peanuts in public places. Freakin’ shells blow around stadiums and my son can’t make it through a soccer game without a trip to the paramedics.

It’s a damn soccer game! There were maybe 1000 people in Mile High Stadium (holds 70,000 or something) and the peanut dust from a section away almost killed my son.

35

[QUOTE=catsix]
Really, if tobacco taxes have nothing to do with the average non-smoking citizen, give them up. Tell your senators and your representatives in your state government ‘Hey those taxes don’t benefit me at all, so let’s just get rid of the cigarette tax and then ban smoking.’

See how they react.
[/QUOTE]

Or maybe if cigarettes were banned, there wouldn’t be any tax revenue, either.

36

[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
What you can do that’ll really stick it to the Man is cut them off from that revenue entirely - by quitting smoking…Maybe the Smithsonian will add a new diorama to its exhibits.

Mastodons…wooly mammoths…smokers. :smiley:
[/QUOTE]
Why is it that every time I read one of your smoking posts I get the mental image of a white, overall-clad rapper in a video aimed at junior high health classes?

And also, why isn’t anyone remarking on catsix’s perfume post? Perfume wearing is even less essential (seeing as how it is not caused by addiction) than smoking. It also triggers many health conditions as real as your asthma. For me, it’s fruit smells. Being around fruit or even things that smell like fruit for long periods has on occasion made me throw up. I don’t know if it’s an allergy since I’ve never had it checked out, but it’s a problem when I want to attend picnics or other places where fruit is liable to be in close proximity. My life would be greatly enhanced if all fruit were banned from public areas. But I don’t ask for that, just like catsix doesn’t ask for perfume to be banned. We only ask that we be stinky in our own way. (And I would like a cite that inhaling secondhand smoke produced at a frickin’ park will give you cancer, any more than other background sources.)

Unless you think my fruit-vomiting problem is not as important as your problems, in which case, you’re right, you are truly the most important person in the world.

37

Welcome to Ontario, where smoking is not allowed in any public establishment, including covered patios, but excluding uncovered patios, parks, sidewalks, etc.

I can’t tell you how marvelous it is to go into any restaurant, bar, store, cab, hotel, mall, anywhere in the province and never have to breathe cigarette smoke again.

This coming from someone who smoked, but was wise enough to quit a couple of decades ago. BTW I don’t think short term exposure is terribly bad for one’s health, it’s just nice to be able to enjoy a beer or a meal without choking back second-hand smoke.

38

[QUOTE=catsix]
I don’t need a refund on all the tax I paid in the last ten years, just don’t make me pay any more taxes on cigarettes. Give up the $1.98 per pack that you get, and I will never smoke in a public place again.
[/QUOTE]
Do you think that smoking results in an increase in healthcare costs?

And davenportavenger, despite the growing awareness of perfume allergies, the overall number of people affected to a problematic degree still seem pretty low. Second-hand smoking, on the other hand, seems to present a risk to everybody. So, not necessarily the same thing. I’d say you’re better course of action would be encouraging perfume makers to stop being so secretive of their ingrediants, etc.

39

[QUOTE=DragonAsh]
And davenportavenger, despite the growing awareness of perfume allergies, the overall number of people affected to a problematic degree still seem pretty low. Second-hand smoking, on the other hand, seems to present a risk to everybody. So, not necessarily the same thing. I’d say you’re better course of action would be encouraging perfume makers to stop being so secretive of their ingrediants, etc.
[/QUOTE]
Second hand smoke in a park? From ten feet away? I don’t think so.

And a lot of people on this board have even complained about having to smell smokers, like when they come back to work after a break. As far as I know smoke clinging to clothing carries no cancer risk. That, in my mind, puts it in the same league as complaining about perfume.

40

[QUOTE=catsix]
I’m saying that you benefit from every pack of cigarettes I buy because of the taxes, and that in order to not be a hypocrite you should keep your hand out of my pocket while you’re telling me not to smoke in public.

[/QUOTE]

Awwww, a pack of cigs costs nearly two dollars, I really feel for you…not really

Try paying 20 bucks a GRAM for your favored smokable material. Next, try hiding your habit from society as to not be put in jail. Marijuana smokers are in a much worse condition. Count your blessings.