Media Lets the Surgeon General Get Away With "THE DEBATE IS OVER" on 2nd-hand Smoke

[Saryctos]

If I find a smoke-free public place, and someone sits down next to me and starts to smoke, why should I be the one that has to move?

 

One can set up a straw man in the following ways:

 

1. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[Severian]

Owning a non-smoking pub doesn't seem feesible(from the example) as if they made just as much money they would be much more accessable in a competative market.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4201053.stm

 

Not feasible eh? (Incidentally this was quite a while ago. In Scotland, they are now forced to be non-smoking by law, but their smoking ban predates the law.)

[Saryctos]

My use of feesible was propably a bad idea, as I was trying to convey that they are not as easy a moneymaker. Also note that in your link the company's shares dropped 3% immidiately due to the change.

[KLB]

I think I've been very clear in drawing a distinction between bars/restaurants and office-type environments.

This is a strawman argument and a red herring. I never once mentioned the office environment. Why should two work environments be treated differently as far as occupational health and safety regulations are concerned? If something is hazardous to one group of employees it will be hazardous to another group of employees.

 

In some places there just aren't a wide range of job options for low skilled workers. This means that if they want a job where they can earn a decent living to feed their family or if they need to take a second job that fits around their schedule the HAVE to take a job working in a bar or restaurant. Saying one doesn't have to take a job working in a bar is like saying one doesn't have to take a job in a coal mine so there shouldn't be any air quality standards in mining health and safety regulations.

 

If your choice between jobs was one that could bring home $600 per week in tips and wages or a job bringing home $300 a week in wages and you had a family to feed and doctor bills to pay, which job would you take? Saying one has a choice not to work in a bar is a farce.

 

And obviously I disagree. The phrase "if something poses a health hazard, it should be regulated" is disturbing to me, because it lacks the perspective of the user's knowledge and/or ability to avoid that danger. In situations where that's not possible (people can't know what they're dealing with, or make a choice about it), then yes, I agree.

Since the days of Theodore Roosevelt (oh wait another Republican) there have been occupational health and safety laws. It is understood in our country that the federal and state government not only can regulate workplace safety, but actually have an obligation to ensure safe working environments. Bars and restaurants are not just places of pleasure, they are places of employment and governments have the obligation to regulate air quality standards in those places of employment.

 

In regards to having a choice not to eat in a restaurant, this too is a red herring. You admit that smoking should be banned on airplanes, yet when one is taking an airplane, they are oftentimes traveling to a destination where they will be staying in a hotel and will have to eat at restaurants as they obviously can not eat at home. So it becomes impossible to avoid cigarette smoke in public areas without smoking bans.

 

Every year I have to go down to Tennessee for business meetings and for an entire weekend I am subjected to smoke filled bars and restaurants. I have no choice in the matter. If I want to succeed at my business, I must network with others thus I must go to the bars with others attending the conference. Furthermore, the hotel the conference is held in as with all hotels in that area allows smoking in various areas in the hotel and there are no special HVAC considerations in place to ensure that cigarette smoke does not get recirculated throughout the entire facility. So for an entire weekend every January I am unavoidably subjected to second hand smoke (even in my hotel room) and at the end of the conference I invariably feel ill, have shortness of breath and all of my clothes stink. This isn't a conference that I can just choose not to attend; I'm obligated to attend this conference because of my business.

 

Furthermore even in the white collar "office environment," one is forced to go to restaurants and/or bars to entertain clients or prospective clients in order to build up good relations, build up client loyalties and grow one's business. This means that as part of making a living, one is forced to go to smoke filled environments from time to time unless there are public smoking bans.

 

I'm now going to throw smokers obscene claim that non-smokers have a choice not to go to bars if they want to avoid smoke on its head. I will counter that if smokers want to smoke while drinking if there is a public smoking ban, they can mix their own drinks at home. This is no different than telling the 75% of the population that does not smoke that if they want to avoid health damaging cigarette smoke, then they should stay home. Why should the vast minority of the population force the vast majority of the population to avoid places that pose a public health hazard just so the minority can continue to consume something that is known to pose acute, chronic and life threatening health risks for all exposed to it?

[ecoli]

It's a reflection on the fact that there are no smokers around me at the moment, Ecoli. Why? Because I've chosen not to be around any[/i'].

 

The point is, that in a public place, you can't choose who is around you. Hence the reason why it's a public place that the anybody can enter.

[Severian]

It is a question of what you regard as offensive behaviour.

 

It is not acceptable behaviour to scream at the top of your voice while in a pub, even although it is not directly harming anyone. You are polluting the pub with your noise and ruining the enjoyment of others standing near you. Why should it be any different for people smoking, polluting the air that we breath and ruining our enjoyment?

[KLB]

If I find a smoke-free public place' date=' and someone sits down next to me and starts to smoke, why should I be the one that has to move?[/quote']

One can set up a straw man in the following ways:

 

1. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position' date=' refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted. [/quote']

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 

Swansont's question was a legitimate question and was not a straw man argument. A straw man argument is changing the meaning of someone else's statement and arguing against a claim that was not made. Swansont was not addressing arguments made by others, rather Swansont was posing a question of his/her own. If you are going to chastise someone for a straw man argument then take the time to understand what a straw man argument is.

 

Owning a non-smoking pub doesn't seem feesible(from the example) as if they made just as much money they would be much more accessable in a competative market. Based on that generally same pattern in most sectors of smoking changes, how does a ban on smoking seem like anything a business would want?

It is really hard to see what you point you are trying to make here. Government creates lots of rules that business would rather not have. There are times when government must set baseline rules of conduct for how businesses are allowed to conduct themselves. As pointed out earlier, occupational health & safety as well as public health are two of these points. Theodore Roosevelt implemented the first work place safety laws and banned child labor much to the dismay of business.

 

Based on your line of reasoning, there should be no minimum wage standards, yet without minimum wage standards companies that wanted to pay their employees a fair living wage couldn't compete against competitors who used low wages to undercut the competition (look at what imports do). Without a public smoking ban, an employer couldn't take measures to protect the health of their employees in a restaurant or bar setting for fear of being at a competitive disadvantage. Public smoking bans level the playing field for businesses and help protect the health of employees in those businesses affected by the ban.

 

Public consumption of alcohol is banned in many areas and businesses can not allow drinking in their establishments without a liquor license. Why; because public drinking can pose a public nuisance. Cow brains are no longer allowed to be sold to consumers because they might cause the human form mad cow disease. More people die each year from cigarette smoke associated diseases than from mad cow disease.

 

Why should a business be allowed to allow people smoke in their establishment but not be allowed to serve cow brains as their specialty? Don't avoid this question, answer it. Why should people have more rights to smoke in public and create health risks for others, when they do not have the right not eat cow brains that if it poses a health risk at all, it only poses it to themselves.

 

If however these bans are only for the public health, I really can't see a reason to agree with

So the government doesn't have the responsibility to protect the public health in general?

 

It seems as though the people are using this sort of legislature to bulldoze through smoker's rights in an effort for "equallity" while harming business' on their way through.

First this isn't some fringe minority group trying to gain protections. Non-smokers make up 75% of the population. This is a matter of the majority saying they no longer want their health compromised by a minority. This is not about smoker rights. This is about public health. I will say it again, THERE IS NO IMPLICIT OR EXPLICIT RIGHT TO SMOKE IN PUBLIC.

 

Second, as has been pointed out earlier in this thread the claim that smoking bans will hurt businesses (other than those selling cigarettes) is a red herring. It has been shown time and time again that blanket smoking bans in public buildings DO NOT HARM BUSINESS and in fact blanket smoking bans can actually increase business as people who avoided bars and restaurants previously are now going out more often.

 

The point is, that in a public place, you can't choose who is around you. Hence the reason why it's a public [/i']place that the anybody can enter.

This is a very important point that those trying to defend the supposed rights of smokers like to ignore.

 

It is a question of what you regard as offensive behaviour.

 

It is not acceptable behaviour to scream at the top of your voice while in a pub' date=' even although it is not directly harming anyone. You are polluting the pub with your noise and ruining the enjoyment of others standing near you. Why should it be any different for people smoking, polluting the air that we breath and ruining our enjoyment?[/quote']

This is a very important point although there are better examples than screaming in pubs. Society at large gets to determine what is and what is not acceptable behavior in a public setting and if the majority of the population decides to ban smoking in public buildings via the political process, this is the right of society at large.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

So they don't do it. (shrug) Their (and here's the operative word) choice[/i'].

So that means small restaurant owners will be at a disadvantage because they can't afford to make separate HVAC systems and such, and smokers won't go to their restaurant. Or that's what would happen if smokers were that much of the market, considering links that others have brought up.

 

But you didn't, because you knew that would have been wrong.

Right, so why should you label us as politically correct? I would gladly go around with a fire extinguisher and stop anybody from smoking, and that isn't politically correct.

 

And obviously I disagree. The phrase "if something poses a health hazard' date=' it should be regulated" is disturbing to me, because it lacks the perspective of the user's knowledge and/or ability to avoid that danger. In situations where that's not possible (people can't know what they're dealing with, or make a choice about it), then yes, I agree.[/quote']

And that's a sort of strawman. Cigarette smoke has been proved to be a public health hazard in many ways, because it is a) quite common (unlike an airplane crash, and airplanes are already regulated), and b) it causes disease. Cars, another public health hazard, are regulated as well. Practically anything that can be reasonably regulated and that is a health hazard is already regulated, just not in the same way as many say smoking should be.

[Pangloss]

Explain to me how I can choose to not breathe when someone is smoking near me.

 

You can choose not to be in the area designated for smokers.

 

If I find a smoke-free public place, and someone sits down next to me and starts to smoke, why should I be the one that has to move?

 

Because it was designated as a smoking area, and you knew that when you sat down.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You can choose not to be in the area designated for smokers.

 

 

 

Because it was designated as a smoking area' date=' and you knew that when you sat down.[/quote']

So you're saying that there should be smoking sections and non-smoking sections, clearly designated. Now you're restricting people to smoking indoors only, or building little "smoking shacks" in public parks so smokers can be isolated (which they would claim is a violation of their rights, because they want to be outside).

[Pangloss]

I think I've been very clear in drawing a distinction between bars/restaurants and office-type environments.[/quote']This is a strawman argument and a red herring. I never once mentioned the office environment.

 

I understand that you haven't made that distinction' date=' I'm saying that [i']I[/i] have.

 

 

Why should two work environments be treated differently as far as occupational health and safety regulations are concerned? If something is hazardous to one group of employees it will be hazardous to another group of employees.

 

Because they don't have to work there, and they knew about the danger when they went to work there in the first place.

 

 

In some places there just aren't a wide range of job options for low skilled workers. This means that if they want a job where they can earn a decent living to feed their family or if they need to take a second job that fits around their schedule the HAVE to take a job working in a bar or restaurant. Saying one doesn't have to take a job working in a bar is like saying one doesn't have to take a job in a coal mine so there shouldn't be any air quality standards in mining health and safety regulations.

 

If your choice between jobs was one that could bring home $600 per week in tips and wages or a job bringing home $300 a week in wages and you had a family to feed and doctor bills to pay, which job would you take? Saying one has a choice not to work in a bar is a farce.

 

No it's not, because they knew the danger when they went to work there. They made a choice.

 

Since you're deliberately painting me as a Republican, I feel at liberty to point out that this is a typical socialist argument -- that business owners cease being human beings with any rights or freedoms whatsoever. Even though their employees still have choices and options, we're going to take those AWAY from the business owners.

 

So much for your statements that you carry no ideological baggage in this argument.

 

 

Since the days of Theodore Roosevelt (oh wait another Republican) there have been occupational health and safety laws.

 

Yes indeed, there have. But I've indicated the difference, and you are a very long way from Upton Sinclair territory. For example, those laws protect people from dangers unknown to employer or employee, and protect people from deliberate exploitation as well. Neither is the case in the second-hand smoking issue.

 

Incidentally, your efforts to paint me as a Republican will fall on deaf ears here. Most of these folks have been around long enough to know that I'm almost as far from the ideological-right as I am from the ideological-left.

 

 

You admit that smoking should be banned on airplanes, yet when one is taking an airplane, they are oftentimes traveling to a destination where they will be staying in a hotel and will have to eat at restaurants as they obviously can not eat at home. So it becomes impossible to avoid cigarette smoke in public areas without smoking bans.

 

I disagree. All restaurants and bars are very open about whether or not they allow smoking, and it's always immediately obvious when you walk in the door. Travellers are just as capable of eating elsewhere (or getting take-out) when travelling as they are anywhere else.

[Pangloss]

So you're saying that there should be smoking sections and non-smoking sections, clearly designated. Now you're restricting people to smoking indoors only, or building little "smoking shacks" in public parks so smokers can be isolated (which they would claim is a violation of their rights, because they want to be outside).

 

That's a mischaracterization of my argument, explicitly refuted by previous replies.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That's a mischaracterization of my argument, explicitly refuted by previous replies.

If it is, you haven't really addressed swansont's post at all.

 

Suppose I sit down on a bench in the middle of a park out in the open, and someone else sits down next to me and starts to smoke. Do I have to move to protect my health, or should they go to some "designated smoking section" of the park?

[Pangloss]

And that's a sort of strawman. Cigarette smoke has been proved to be a public health hazard in many ways' date=' because it is a) quite common (unlike an airplane crash, and airplanes are already regulated), and b) it causes disease. Cars, another public health hazard, are regulated as well. Practically anything that can be reasonably regulated and that is a health hazard [i']is[/i] already regulated, just not in the same way as many say smoking should be.

 

And so it is with smoking. What's the problem? I've not once suggested or stated that smoking should not be regulated in any way. Let's review the quote you responded to:

 

And obviously I disagree. The phrase "if something poses a health hazard, it should be regulated" is disturbing to me, because it lacks the perspective of the user's knowledge and/or ability to avoid that danger. In situations where that's not possible (people can't know what they're dealing with, or make a choice about it), then yes, I agree.

 

I'm saying that it concerns me when we run screaming to the nearest regulatory agency every time someone stubs their toe. That's not the same thing as saying that I disapprove of regulation in all cases, and you're now guilty of the exact same transgression you accused me of earlier. Congratulations.

[Pangloss]

Suppose I sit down on a bench in the middle of a park out in the open' date=' and someone else sits down next to me and starts to smoke. Do I have to move to protect my health, or should they go to some "designated smoking section" of the park?[/quote']

 

The latter. And I have no idea where you got the notion that I've suggested the former.

[ecoli]

The latter.

 

Then I believe you answered this question incorrectly, Pangloss:

 

If I find a smoke-free public place' date=' and someone sits down next to me and starts to smoke, why should I be the one that has to move?[/quote']

 

Because it was designated as a smoking area, and you knew that when you sat down.

 

swansont specifically said he was sitting in a "smoke-free" place.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

And so it is with smoking. What's the problem? I've not once suggested or stated that smoking should not be regulated in any way.

You do a great imitation of it. Earlier in this thread you said:

There are many things that happen in public places that sully my clothes and clog my nostrils. Are we going to ban all those things as well? Why not simply go elsewhere?

So you've changed your opinion rather greatly, it seems.

 

I'm saying that it concerns me when we run screaming to the nearest regulatory agency every time someone stubs their toe.

Just like when people sue McDonalds because they spilled hot coffee on themselves. Yes, I understand what you are saying.

That's not the same thing as saying that I disapprove of regulation in all cases, and you're now guilty of the exact same transgression you accused me of earlier. Congratulations.

That or you are guilty of changing your arguments throughout this thread to better refute what the rest of us say. Your arguments have changed rather greatly and I'm not sure I like that method of argument.

[Pangloss]

Then I believe you answered this question incorrectly' date=' Pangloss:

 

swansont specifically said he was sitting in a "smoke-free" place.[/quote']

 

Thanks, you're right, I misread. But where have I ever suggested that the non-smoker should be the one to leave an area designated for non-smoking?

[Pangloss]

So you've changed your opinion rather greatly' date=' it seems.

[/quote']

 

I may have misread more than one statement, but I don't think I've changed my position, and I think I've been pretty grossly misread/misrepresented in this thread.

[swansont]

"One can set up a straw man in the following ways:

 

1. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position' date=' refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man[/quote']

 

How is my scenario not a subset of the original conditions?

[swansont]

You can choose not to be in the area designated for smokers.

 

 

 

Because it was designated as a smoking area' date=' and you knew that when you sat down.[/quote']

 

 

I wasn't adressing areas specifically designated as smoking or nonsmoking. (How we would choose how to designate such areas is a separate issue.)

[ecoli]

Thanks, you're right, I misread. But where have I ever suggested that the non-smoker should be the one to leave an area designated for non-smoking?

 

only there, but you corrected that mistake.

[Saryctos]

The straw man came from when the argument changed from you avoiding smoke, to avoiding smoke in a non-smoking area.

 

First this isn't some fringe minority group trying to gain protections. Non-smokers make up 75% of the population. This is a matter of the majority saying they no longer want their health compromised by a minority. This is not about smoker rights.

protecting minorites from the tyranny of the majority comes to mind in this case.

[KLB]

I understand that you haven't made that distinction, I'm saying that I[/i'] have.

This is not the way you made your post sound your post was worded as a straw man because I was talking about employees of bars and you shifted it to office workers.

 

Because they don't have to work there, and they knew about the danger when they went to work there in the first place.

If everyone understood the dangers of cigarette smoke, we would not be having this discussion because cigarettes would be regulated as would any dangerous drug. In many places, the primary industry is the service industry and in these types of industries the only jobs that pay a decent living wage are those involving tips such as waiting tables and bar tending.

 

Saying people have a choice not to do these jobs is like saying they have a choice not to eat. It is a red herring argument. If you have a family and are unemployed, and the only jobs available to you given your skill set is waiting tables in a restaurant, you are going to take that job because you have to feed your family. You ignored my coal miner comparison and it was a very apt comparison because the air quality issue.

 

Since you're deliberately painting me as a Republican, I feel at liberty to point out that this is a typical socialist argument -- that business owners cease being human beings with any rights or freedoms whatsoever. Even though their employees still have choices and options, we're going to take those AWAY from the business owners.

You were the one that brought up this being a liberal vs. conservative issue. It was you who painted this as a liberal political correctness issue. I'm simply pointing out that it has been conservative Republican administrations have done a great deal to push this issue forward thus it is not a left vs. right political issue. It is a matter of public health and it is an issue that crosses political boundaries. Do you deny making the following statement?

Another thing that always irks me about the left's support for smoking bans is that the left also ostensibly supports drug decriminalization. Why is it okay to ban smoking but allow the use of mind-altering drugs? The hypocrisy of this is outrageous.

 

With this statement you painted this as a liberal cause. I'm simply providing evidence that refutes this claim by pointing out which administrations have furthered the cause of banning public smoking.

 

So much for your statements that you carry no ideological baggage in this argument.

This is a line of garbage designed to divert the issue. There is no ideological baggage with the effort to ban public smoking. The liberals don't have a monopoly on this cause. It is equally being pushed forward by conservatives as I have been pointing out. It is you who are trying to turn this into an ideological issue of the left vs. the right. I've been simply trying to debunk this falsehood by pointing out the political orientation of the administrations that have brought forth reports on the public health risk second hand smoke poses.

 

 

 

 

But I've indicated the difference, and you are a very long way from Upton Sinclair territory. For example, those laws protect people from dangers unknown to employer or employee, and protect people from deliberate exploitation as well. Neither is the case in the second-hand smoking issue.

There are regulations regarding the exposure of employees to asbestos and the health hazards of asbestos have been known all the way back to early Roman times (http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/asbestoshistory2004.html). By your line of reasoning asbestos should not be regulated because 1) the health risks are well known and 2) ship yard workers could simply refuse to take jobs that expose them to asbestos. This is patently an obscene and indefensible argument.

 

Incidentally, your efforts to paint me as a Republican will fall on deaf ears here. Most of these folks have been around long enough to know that I'm almost as far from the ideological-right as I am from the ideological-left.

I never said what your political persuasion was; I have simply made efforts to refute your claims that the effort to ban public smoking is an leftist act of political correctness.

 

protecting minorites from the tyranny of the majority comes to mind in this case.

So we should subject the majority to the tyranny of the minority by forcing the majority to accept the public health risks of second hand smoke or become complete hermits completely isolated from the rest of society simply so we can protect ourselves from the proven health risks associated with second hand smoke. Your argument laughable and affront to the true minorities who have been subjected to true tyranny over the centuries

 

 

For once and for all; this is not an issue of political agendas. This is a mater of public health policy. For those who want to doubt the surgeon general, here are more reports on the health effects of second hand smoke:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/cancer

http://www.epa.gov/asthma/shs.html

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/factsheets/secondhand_smoke_factsheet.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/ETS_Toolkit/index.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/research_data/environmental/etsrel.htm (shows how unavoidable second hand smoke is unless one totally withdraws from society)

http://www.smokefree.gov/Docs2/SecondhandSmoke_Q&A.pdf

 

Interesting article debunking the economic impact of restaurants going smoke free:

http://www.doh.wa.gov/Publicat/2005_news/05-009.htm

[Pangloss]

I never said what your political persuasion was; I have simply made efforts to refute your claims that the effort to ban public smoking is an leftist act of political correctness.

 

(shrug) Okay' date=' fine, but why doesn't the same standard apply to me? I made a statement about [b']one aspect[/b] of the larger debate and its political overtones. I never said it was the sum total of the debate or that the only aspect of the drive for public smoking bans was entirely driven by the far left. That is an unfair characterization of my point.

 

 

This is not the way you made your post sound your post was worded as a straw man because I was talking about employees of bars and you shifted it to office workers.

 

That is incorrect. I simply made a distinction that you're not willing to make.

 

 

Originally Posted by Pangloss

So much for your statements that you carry no ideological baggage in this argument.

This is a line of garbage designed to divert the issue.

 

Nonsense. Do you deny making the following statement:

 

In some places there just aren't a wide range of job options for low skilled workers. This means that if they want a job where they can earn a decent living to feed their family or if they need to take a second job that fits around their schedule the HAVE to take a job working in a bar or restaurant. Saying one doesn't have to take a job working in a bar is like saying one doesn't have to take a job in a coal mine so there shouldn't be any air quality standards in mining health and safety regulations.

 

If your choice between jobs was one that could bring home $600 per week in tips and wages or a job bringing home $300 a week in wages and you had a family to feed and doctor bills to pay, which job would you take? Saying one has a choice not to work in a bar is a farce.

 

That is clearly an ideological argument, and it indicates your personal ideology and directly addresses how you feel about this issue with respect to that ideology.

 

Notice I haven't said that you don't have a valid point of view, however. I certainly haven't called your argument, for example, a "farce".

 

 

You know, I've been trying to point it out for several pages now that we agree more than disagree, but you're so busy holding me up as an example of the entire opposition to smoking that you can't see it. (At least you're not alone, the good Cap'n actually thinks I must be a smoker!) If you really want a "for once and for all" on this, then how about helping me find some common ground here?