Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neruz]

Might be untrue elsewhere; but it's definitely not untrue where i live.

[anyar]

The analogy doesn't hold because LSD actually has profound psychoactive effects that people often find positive, and isn't so destructingly addictive. It just isn't the same.
...
 There is a strong difference between harming people as an indirect and unwanted side effect of living in a society you don't have absolute power over, and harming people/yourself by doing something that is completely unnecessary and provides no benefit, like habitual smoking.

So... Smokers smoke for no reason at all? It doesn't make them feel good? People who smoke in moderation (I know many, most cigar and pipe smokers are like this) aren't destructively addicted to tobacco, why can't they smoke? Smoking makes me and many others feel good, it's relaxing and nicotine gives you a pleasant feeling for a while, just like coffee. IMO, if you're bothered by tobacco smoke, you probably chose to be (going to a bar or restaurant and sitting in the smoking section), or you live in a very crowded place and it's your own (or your parents) fault that you are forced to be in proximity to the smoke. It seems to me that most anti-smokers are just self-righteous assholes that are bothered by other people liking something they don't.

[G-Flex]

The analogy doesn't hold because LSD actually has profound psychoactive effects that people often find positive, and isn't so destructingly addictive. It just isn't the same.
...
 There is a strong difference between harming people as an indirect and unwanted side effect of living in a society you don't have absolute power over, and harming people/yourself by doing something that is completely unnecessary and provides no benefit, like habitual smoking.

So... Smokers smoke for no reason at all? It doesn't make them feel good? People who smoke in moderation (I know many, most cigar and pipe smokers are like this) aren't destructively addicted to tobacco, why can't they smoke?

You talk about people being self-righteous and aren't even reading the stuff you're responding to. I made it clear probably a half-dozen times now that I am making a distinction between habitual and occasional, moderate smoking.

IMO, if you're bothered by tobacco smoke, you probably chose to be (going to a bar or restaurant and sitting in the smoking section), or you live in a very crowded place and it's your own (or your parents) fault that you are forced to be in proximity to the smoke. It seems to me that most anti-smokers are just self-righteous assholes that are bothered by other people liking something they don't.

"Smoking sections" in restaurants don't magically contain the smoke. People who are sensitive to it and seated elsewhere might still have issues.

Seriously, you're just passing the buck here. If you smoke where the smoke affects other people, it's your own fault and you're being rather rude and inconsiderate, or else ignorant of the fact that it does.

Might be untrue elsewhere; but it's definitely not untrue where i live.

Being addicted to something is a turn-off for a lot of people in general. Personally, I don't like when people are addicted to something, nicotine included, but an addiction is an addiction, so I don't really think they're terrible people for it.

[ChairmanPoo]

People who smoke in moderation (I know many, most cigar and pipe smokers are like this) aren't destructively addicted to tobacco

Dude, sorry to burst your fantasy, but there is no such animal as "non-harmful smoking".

And by the way, and, since apparently you are another one who missed the last 20 pages of discussion: We are arguing in favor of public space ban of tobacco. I certainly couldnt care less if you smoke in the street or in your house.

[nil]

IMO, if you're bothered by tobacco smoke, you probably chose to be (going to a bar or restaurant and sitting in the smoking section), or you live in a very crowded place and it's your own (or your parents) fault that you are forced to be in proximity to the smoke. It seems to me that most anti-smokers are just self-righteous assholes that are bothered by other people liking something they don't.

"Smoking sections" in restaurants don't magically contain the smoke. People who are sensitive to it and seated elsewhere might still have issues.

Seriously, you're just passing the buck here. If you smoke where the smoke affects other people, it's your own fault and you're being rather rude and inconsiderate, or else ignorant of the fact that it does.

How would you feel about a regulation/incentive program that resulted in, say, 75 percent of establishments being smoke-free?  That would make it very easy for those who are bothered by smoke to avoid it without the downsides of an outright ban.

I certainly couldnt care less if you smoke in the street or in your house.

That's not quiet the case for everyone in this thread.  More importantly, there's the question of what constitutes public space; a lot of people would have smokers stay x number of feet away from doorways, which can get excessive very quickly.

[G-Flex]

The problem with saying that only a certain number of restaurants can remain non-smoke-free is that you have to decide which ones. The best way to do that, for the sake of argument, would probably be some kind of economic incentive to stay smoke-free, such as a tax if you aren't (or a tax break if you are, either way).

[Reasonableman]

The problem with saying that only a certain number of restaurants can remain non-smoke-free is that you have to decide which ones. The best way to do that, for the sake of argument, would probably be some kind of economic incentive to stay smoke-free, such as a tax if you aren't (or a tax break if you are, either way).

In an environment where most restaurants are smoke free, smokers will flock to ones that aren't, and in an environment where restaurants are largely full of smoke, non-smokers will eat at the ones that are smoke-free. And then people who don't particularly mind either way will do as they please, and haven't any right to complain. I've never quite understood why there'd be any reason for laws, or tax incentives, to be necessary.

By the way I'm dropping in and out of the conversation, not really following it, so don't jump on me too much if I've missed the point.

[G-Flex]

Laws and tax incentives are necessary when the minority is going unrepresented. I mentioned an analogy before with handicap-accessibility: Since the vast majority of people aren't handicapped, a place of business has effectively no economic incentive naturally to spend the extra money making it accessible to handicapped people. This screws over every person in a wheelchair; this is actual history, and it took legislation to make sure that places were actually accessible.

The same goes with people who are affected by environmental tobacco smoke significantly. Smokers won't care, and most non-smokers aren't bothered enough to care, but some people will, and allowing smoking is hardly something that's necessary for a restaurant to do its business as usual. In cases like these, it makes some sense for government intervention to occur, at least on some level.

[nil]

The problem with saying that only a certain number of restaurants can remain non-smoke-free is that you have to decide which ones. The best way to do that, for the sake of argument, would probably be some kind of economic incentive to stay smoke-free, such as a tax if you aren't (or a tax break if you are, either way).

That's exactly how I'd do it.

In an environment where most restaurants are smoke free, smokers will flock to ones that aren't, and in an environment where restaurants are largely full of smoke, non-smokers will eat at the ones that are smoke-free. And then people who don't particularly mind either way will do as they please, and haven't any right to complain. I've never quite understood why there'd be any reason for laws, or tax incentives, to be necessary.

Well the problem with that is that we've already tried it with no laws or incentives, and the market failed so miserably in providing smoke-free establishments that majorities of voters demanded that it be fixed in the crudest, most direct way possible.  A person can talk about what would be fair in ideal circumstances/libertopia but realistically there's a need to compromise with people who would be happy to abolish smoking entirely.

edit: Also, there's whole issue with people who work in these places.  I scoff at any customer who claims the occasional visit to a smoking establishment is going to measurably impact their health, but if someone spends a decade or two working in a cloud of smoke it's entirely different situation.

[codezero]

The same goes with people who are affected by environmental tobacco smoke significantly.( ...) it makes some sense for government intervention to occur, at least on some level.

The problem there is that the more the government steps in, the more people will be effected by tobacco smoke significantly, degenerating into 'coughing fits' around smoke and the like. It's plain as day how psychological it can be having read this entire thread. It's like aqizzar's example of Arlington, what's exhaling more carcinogens, the smoker or the exhaust pipe? Think about it. Yet people don't fall over and DIE at the sight of the exhaust pipe. I'm not revisiting old material here, my point is psychosomatics, not the hypocrisy.

But I don't care if restaurants and bars ban it, over here in australia there's separate smoking sections which work, ie if the sections are inside they must have x amount of ventilation and surrounding wall space. In practice they work flawlessly. The reason I don't care is because I don't like the smell of bubble-gum, so I can sympathize, not to the point of outcry but still. It's not a health issue, it's a comfort issue.

[ChairmanPoo]

It's like aqizzar's example of Arlington, what's exhaling more carcinogens, the smoker or the exhaust pipe?

Everytime someone quotes that incredibly poor analogy the gods kills a kitten. Please, think of the kittens.

It's not a health issue, it's a comfort issue.

No. It's a health issue. Namely, the issue of the harmful effects of tobaco fumes on non-smokers.

[Neruz]

Also; here's a question. If smoking Nicotine is really just fine, why is smoking Marijuana illegal?

[Jackrabbit]

Because Obama says 'lol no.'

Listen to Obama, children.

[Siquo]

Also; here's a question. If smoking Nicotine is really just fine, why is smoking Marijuana illegal?

Newsflash: Not everywhere... 

Oh and cars are just as bad as tobacco! (There goes another kitten)

And by the way, and, since apparently you are another one who missed the last 20 pages of discussion: We are arguing in favor of public space ban of tobacco.

No we're not. Only you are. And yes, I'll keep on repeating that.

[Jude]

Listen to Obama, children.

Obama: Yes I inhaled. That was the point.