institutionalised biggotry via harrasment

[Dak]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7635929.stm

 

ach!

 

so, there's a huge prohibitive tax on tobacco, we've got warnings 'reminding' us of some of the more extreme repercussions of smoking, soon we'll have pictures that would disturb most people indipendantly of wether they had anything to do with smoking (most people wouldn't like looking at a healthy human lung either), there's talk about only allowing the selling of 20-packs and not allowing them to be on display in shops, the age-limit recently went up to 18, it's illegal to smoke in public places (including pubs) and, just to ultra-annoy people, it's illegal to smoke in bus stops, or within 10 feet of an entrance to a public place, which admittedly isn't enforced.

 

since when did it become ok to officially say that smoking's ok (i.e., tobacco is legal) but that it's also ok to annoy the **** out of people till they quit.

 

'its ok to do this, but, wait, no its not we're going to try to stop you in any way we can, short of illegalising it for some reason'.

 

if anyone has any idea as to why smoking is being banned in this way (i.e., without actually banning it), i'd be interested to hear.

[npts2020]

Because an outright ban would be impossible at this point. So opponents of smoking chip away until few enough smoke that making it illegal won't be politically disasterous.

[john5746]

Also, second-hand smoke lawsuits might be a concern as well. Rights to clean air trump rights to get a fix.

[big314mp]

Can people sue car owners then for clean air rights?

[john5746]

Can people sue car owners then for clean air rights?

 

Yeah, the outside bans seem excessive, I guess to keep a huddle of smokers and butts from massing right outside an entry door. I guess if you are working in a garage and cars are running all the time without proper ventilation, you might have a case?

[Klaynos]

It's not an outside ban, it's a ban in "enclosed" or "'substantially enclosed" public spaces, these include most bus stops:

 

Premises are considered 'enclosed' if they have a ceiling or roof and (except for doors' date=' windows or passageways) are wholly enclosed either on a permanent or temporary basis.

 

Premises are considered 'substantially enclosed' if they have a ceiling or roof, but have an opening in the walls, which is less than half the total area of the walls. The area of the opening does not include doors, windows or any other fittings that can be opened or shut.

[/quote']

 

Smoking is a choice people have made, if I want to go to a pub I'd rather smoking was banned there. So I'm personally in favour of it, and the actions taken to dissuade people from smoking... But I can understand how Dak feels.

[Mr Skeptic]

It allows the government to have their cake and eat it too. Instead of spending untold billions trying to hunt down people in an illegal tobacco trade, they get rake in the profits from taxing it. Making it illegal to smoke in certain areas has multiple purposes: 1) it is annoying to smokers, and pushes them a bit to stop smoking. 2) people don't observe others smoking nearly as often, and it is not "cool" anymore, so others are less likely to start smoking. 3) non-smokers do not enjoy having to smell smoke, and it may be bad for their health as well.

 

I think it is a well done policy. An outright ban would have been expensive, impractical, and likely ineffective, not to mention the public outcry from smokers. It also would have added to the "coolness factor" of smoking. This makes smoking annoying rather than cool.

 

I think that the same rules should apply to other drugs, like marijuana. Why should our government spend so much of our money fighting drugs when they could be instead making a huge profit, with likely little change in the number of drug users?

[Dak]

Smoking is a choice people have made, if I want to go to a pub I'd rather smoking was banned there.

 

see, now this is what i don't get... did you just not go to non-smoking pubs before?

 

or, are your mates assholes who won't compromise with you by going to a well-ventilated smoking pub?

 

as someone who was allways willing to walk further to go to a better-ventilated pub (you know, on the condition that my mates would be prepared to walk further for me to avoid a non-smoking pub) i find it quite annoying.

 

along with the fact that the WHO say that casual exposure to smoke as youd find in a well ventilated pub is not linked with cancer, whereas cars cause numerous health problems. and many other hypocracies and inconsistancies...

 

rant=on

for all that's wrong with out countries, this one really annoys me the most, cause it kinda has everything: bigotry, lack of agreement with reality, nannyism, sneakyness, etc etc etc

[big314mp]

It's not an outside ban, it's a ban in "enclosed" or "'substantially enclosed" public spaces, these include most bus stops:

 

Quite understandable. However, one must also consider whether the pollution from the smokers is even significant compared to the smoke/exhaust from some city buses.

 

Personally, I think bans indoors should be left to business owners, indoor public areas (including areas around door, etc) should be left to government, and outside should be left alone.

 

Only one of my friends smokes regularly, so I probably have a different view on this, as there really aren't "huddles of smokers" clustered around doorways

[john5746]

Personally, I think bans indoors should be left to business owners, indoor public areas (including areas around door, etc) should be left to government, and outside should be left alone.

 

Should all indoor health conditions be left up to the business owners? Before you mention cars again, we do have restrictions on how much pollution is allowed from cars - it isn't up to business owners or vehicle producers as to how much pollution their vehicles can generate.

[ParanoiA]

Should all indoor health conditions be left up to the business owners? Before you mention cars again, we do have restrictions on how much pollution is allowed from cars - it isn't up to business owners or vehicle producers as to how much pollution their vehicles can generate.

 

No, instead it's up to my congressman to decide how much pollution I can be harmed with. Thanks congressman, for not standing up for my rights. I wonder if he has a chart on how much mustard gas I can be harmed with before he has a problem with it.

 

Interesting how a human can be justified in militantly attacking a smoker for puffing it near them, and even get legislation to back them up, but walking down the street, I have no right to complain about the long lines of cars, stacked one after another puffing out all kinds of freaky shit for me to inhale and I can't say jack.

 

Just goes to show, if the majority enjoys it and doesn't mind the side effects, your rights are up for sale, even if it's wrong.

 

Another example of how slavery went on so long.

[john5746]

Interesting how a human can be justified in militantly attacking a smoker for puffing it near them, and even get legislation to back them up, but walking down the street, I have no right to complain about the long lines of cars, stacked one after another puffing out all kinds of freaky shit for me to inhale and I can't say jack.

 

Just goes to show, if the majority enjoys it and doesn't mind the side effects, your rights are up for sale, even if it's wrong.

 

There is truth to the majority rules. If there was one guy running around in a car, I'm sure we would stop him.

We can't eliminate all carbon emissions and all air pollution without going back to the stone age, but we can at least eliminate some in a practical manner. People need cars as a means to travel so it is impractical to eliminate economical transportation. With smoking it is feeding an addiction. I'm not a big proponent of restaurants, etc having to ban smoking, because it is an easy choice for people to go somewhere else or sit in a non-smoking area. But the workplace is different. Just as you shouldn't expect someone to breath nail polish all day, they shouldn't have to breath smoke either. People can do it at home, etc, but not force others to breath it, especially in the confines of employment.

 

Another example of how slavery went on so long.

 

You would be the one arguing for slavery because kids had to work long hours or some such nonsense or because it imposed on the poor white owners. You are the one arguing all or nothing.

[ParanoiA]

We can't eliminate all carbon emissions and all air pollution without going back to the stone age, but we can at least eliminate some in a practical manner. People need cars as a means to travel so it is impractical to eliminate economical transportation.

 

So what? What if legalizing murder somehow allowed us to advance to god like technological advances? Is it ok to cause physical harm just because you think it would be really cool to technologically advance industrially? Who says we NEED to advance like that? Life can be enjoyed without all of these things - I'm pretty sure "happiness" was experienced before combustion technological advancement became a reality.

 

No, you're just ok with it because it's already established now and we have infrastructure and markets and tons of investment in the entire concept globally - all without ever considering our rights to clean air - or rather your obligation not to contaminate the air that all of us must share - including those who do not drive, yet had their rights dismissed for the majority. We have a bill of rights particularly for that purpose - to limit that which the majority can rule.

 

I'm not even asking to rollback, just pointing out the hypocrisy. We ought to fess up to blatant trampling of rights so we don't do it again. When we come up with a new transportation technology - let's try not to violate everyone's basic rights this time, and respect damage to property and person like we're supposed to.

 

It's wrong to pollute the air I must breathe. It's really that simple. Rationalizing around that is making excuses not to accept it. Same with smoker's smoke - it causes damage to others who share that air.

 

You would be the one arguing for slavery because kids had to work long hours or some such nonsense or because it imposed on the poor white owners. You are the one arguing all or nothing.

 

What are you talking about? And how am I arguing for all or nothing? I'm arguing to practice what you preach, and to follow the agreement we made - the constitution. There are rights in it, that we are all supposed to recognize, and you've dismissed mine. Yes, I would like ALL of my rights, thank you.

 

My slavery comment is about the immoral majority endorsing shameful practices like slavery, choosing to ignore the principles they espoused and wrote in the Delcaration of Independence and the Constitution - that all men are created equal. Not white people = 5/5 and black people = 3/5, but all people = 1. That same essential theme with dismissing our rights to non-poisoned air, or dismissing other's liability at poisoning it. Apparently we still aren't equal.

[john5746]

No, you're just ok with it because it's already established now and we have infrastructure and markets and tons of investment in the entire concept globally - all without ever considering our rights to clean air - or rather your obligation not to contaminate the air that all of us must share - including those who do not drive, yet had their rights dismissed for the majority. We have a bill of rights particularly for that purpose - to limit that which the majority can rule.

 

That's my argument exactly, that our way of life would be harmed too much to get rid of ALL pollution. We don't immediately destroy all buildings with lead paint and asbestos when we find they are a danger. We adjust and go on. I think we all want to make greener cars in the future, just as we want to make safer homes, cleaner air & water. Eliminating smoke from the workplace is a step in the direction. We can't get there immediately, but we can make changes as we go.

 

What's you objective stance? How do we decide what is OK or not in a business? Can we ever prohibit anything?

 

My slavery comment is about the immoral majority endorsing shameful practices like slavery, choosing to ignore the principles they espoused and wrote in the Delcaration of Independence and the Constitution - that all men are created equal. Not white people = 5/5 and black people = 3/5, but all people = 1. That same essential theme with dismissing our rights to non-poisoned air, or dismissing other's liability at poisoning it. Apparently we still aren't equal.

 

All men are created equal, but not all men make the same decisions. Smoking is a bad decision that leads to an addiction. You cannot drink alcohol while working and driving. It sucks if you are an alcoholic, sorry. Being black has nothing to do with any choice and has no impact on other people. If you continue to fail and see how this analogy is flawed, then there is no point in further discussion. I hope you can see the difference in telling someone they cannot smoke while in my restaurant vs telling blacks they cannot dine in my restaurant. Smoking is an action, not a person. It's as if you think the constitution allows you the freedom to shit when and where you like.

[big314mp]

In the interest of actually learning something about this:

 

Is there evidence that second hand smoke is more dangerous than other types of smoke and/or pollution?

 

Obviously it is worse than CO2. But what about soot from a coal power plant? NOx emissions from cars? How about that black crud that old diesels spit up?

[ParanoiA]

All men are created equal, but not all men make the same decisions. Smoking is a bad decision that leads to an addiction. You cannot drink alcohol while working and driving. It sucks if you are an alcoholic, sorry.

 

Smoking as a bad decision is a subjective judgement. It's a great decision if I feel that smoking adds to my quality of life experience. Purely subjective.

 

And I can't drink alcohol while working because my employer says so. And I can't do it while driving because the roads are publicly funded and driving on them is a privilege that carries no natural set of rights. If I killed someone, then I'd be guilty of manslaughter.

 

Did you really think I'd advocate those things?

 

Being black has nothing to do with any choice and has no impact on other people. If you continue to fail and see how this analogy is flawed, then there is no point in further discussion.

 

Your premise is falsely applied to my analogy. I never made the analogy on slavery in terms of individual choice. I made the analogy on slavery in terms of the majority overruling the objective rights made in the constitution. In other words, the constitution said all men are created equal and that we all have natural born rights. Then they turned right around and decided black folks were 3/5 of a person and negated their "natural born rights" by endorsing their slavery. That's a contradiction enabled by the majority rule.

 

That's the same essential dismissal practiced here. The majority has decided to ignore that part about damage to person or property by allowing automobile drivers to damage me.

 

Does that clear up my intent or do you still feel my analogy is flawed in making a point about majority rule trumping indoctrinated rights?

 

I hope you can see the difference in telling someone they cannot smoke while in my restaurant vs telling blacks they cannot dine in my restaurant. Smoking is an action, not a person. It's as if you think the constitution allows you the freedom to shit when and where you like.

 

I'm not sure what point you think I'm trying to make. I'm actually arguing against allowing someone to just puff smoke and auto exhaust at our expense. If anything, it's as if I think the constitution prevents you the freedom to shit when and where I can smell it.

[Dak]

along with the fact that the WHO say that casual exposure to smoke as youd find in a well ventilated pub is not linked with cancer,

 

actually, I tried to find a source for this and I may have been mistaken (sorry).

 

otoh, I couldn't find any clear-cut cited claims that casual exposure to second-hand smoke causes an increase in risk of lung-cancer. some that an exposure increased the risk slightly, a few older one's claiming it didn't (tho I'd guess the consensus would be that regular exposure does contribute to lung-cancer rusk), but none commenting either way on casual exposure (as you might expect in a well-ventilated pub).

[iNow]

Dak, as far as I can tell, the logic of it is pretty straight forward.

 

The particulates in smoke increase cancer risk.

Having a smoker in near proximity increases concentration of particulates in the air relative to air w/o a smoker.

Ergo, while being near casual smoke does not lead to the same effect magnitude as first person smoking, it will still increase cancer risk relative to air without smoke.

 

 

When someone is smoking a cigarette near me, I just light up a cigar and that pretty well drowns out their pittly little loosely packed paper tobacco sticks.

[Dak]

virtually everything can be toxic if the concentration is high enough (including water); similarly, many 'toxic' compounds are perfectly safe at low exposure rates, so it doesn't neccesarily follow that all exposure to smoke carries at least some increase in risk.

 

e.g., from my memory, some of the carcinogens in smoke are carcinogenic because they block up gap junctions, thus preventing the sharing of telomerase inhibitase, which can be (iirc) a secondary carcinogen (in as much as it allows a cancerous cell to 'promote' into a tumour); however, this is the kind of thing that you'd presumably need to happen alot to have any effect: the odd gap-junction here and there being blocked would presumably have an undetectable effect on the risk of lung cancer.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14735478

 

If i'm reading that right, theres a 1 to 51% increase in lung-cancer risk if your long-term spouse smokes (95% CI). So, i'm not sure that it can be determined that there's any actual noticable risk from regularly going to a well-ventilated pub, or sitting next to a smoker at a bus stop (both of which would presumably expose you to less smoke that a spousal smoker)?

 

(i can't read the paper itself, so i'm not sure what they meant by 'social exposure' btw).

[ParanoiA]

Is there not some principles of behavior that could be concluded here?

 

We all share the air. So what air do I have a right to? What air do you have a right to manipulate for your purposes? Are you responsible for the air that you pollute with smoke or auto exhaust? If so, for how long? If that air mixes with air close to me, are you to blame for that or am I to blame because I chose to be in that spot? If no one is around when you begin polluting, does that give you the greater right to that particular air at that moment?

 

It seems silly, and perhaps fruitless, but worth it for genuine philosophical inquiry, in my mind anyway.

 

And I'm not sure it's helpful to work backward and attempt to justify the status quo. Rather it would seem more genuine to inquire from a neutral starting position and work out the ethics first, then reconcile with the status quo. It should be timeless.

 

If i'm reading that right, theres a 1 to 51% increase in lung-cancer risk if your long-term spouse smokes (95% CI). So, i'm not sure that it can be determined that there's any actual noticable risk from regularly going to a well-ventilated pub, or sitting next to a smoker at a bus stop (both of which would presumably expose you to less smoke that a spousal smoker)?

 

Both of which would expose you to less smoke, but not zero. Do I have a right to kind of hit you in the face?

Edited October 1, 2008 by ParanoiA

[iNow]

I used to work for these guys, and I learned quite quickly that I could trust their numbers:

 

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Secondhand_Smoke-Clean_Indoor_Air.asp

 

 

Lots of simple to follow information, and nice references at the end.

[big314mp]

We all share the air. So what air do I have a right to? What air do you have a right to manipulate for your purposes? Are you responsible for the air that you pollute with smoke or auto exhaust? If so, for how long? If that air mixes with air close to me, are you to blame for that or am I to blame because I chose to be in that spot? If no one is around when you begin polluting, does that give you the greater right to that particular air at that moment?

 

At home: There is so little smoke that would leak out of one's house, that you are entitled to smoke with no restrictions.

 

In a business establishment: It is up to the owner of the property to weigh whether the increased business from smokers is worth the lost business from non-smokers. As consumers, we can vote with our wallets to tell business owners whether they have a fair policy or not. A restaurant with a smoking section that is well separated from the non-smoking section seems like a good compromise. In a smaller establishment, it may be necessary for the owner to decide whether he will earn more money by pandering to smokers or non-smokers.

 

In public buildings: Vote/have the government do it. Same logic as above, just substituting "business owner" for "public". Personally, I am inclined to say that smoking in public buildings should be banned.

 

Outside: Now it gets tricky. Personally, I say smoke all you like outside. I think the logic that outdoors is a "public space" doesn't really hold up very well. It's a stretch, but what about banning being dressed flamboyantly outside, on the basis that you are polluting my view of the scenery?

 

As to cars...well...I haven't worked that out yet

[ParanoiA]

Very fair post big314mp. I certainly agree with you on banning smoking in publicly owned property, presuming we're voting since we're the business owners.

 

And I, too, am trying to work out the automobile issue, as well as industrial pollution and etc. That's why I was bringing up the inquiry - a chance to explore the whole idea of air, and rights, or if it can even be looked at that way, and the problems that come up whether you look at it in those terms, or not. If you fail to see rights in clean air, that brings up its own list of problems. So, that's what makes it interesting to me.

 

As for the business and home owner, I equate the two, though most everyone else does not. Regardless, I used to hold the same view as you, but someone here drew an analogy with mustard gas. The point being that smoke does cause harm to others in the vicinity. Do we let business owners allow people to come in and release mustard gas? For that matter, is it not child abuse to damage your child in your home with it?

 

Most harmful things we choose to ingest, like some drugs, fat, grease, sugar...all can be ingested without effecting those in the vicinity. But smoking cigarettes, marijuana, car exhaust - all of these effect people who are around. While I appreciate the notion of freedom of choice, I have to face the reality that it's making choices for others too.

 

And I have a hard time accepting the idea that I have to leave the restaraunt because you decided to release mustard gas at your table. What if I didn't notice until I breathed some? You're free to release poisons in the air and we all have to run around keeping an eye out for it so we can get away? That's almost like saying you should have the right to fire off your gun in random directions and it's up to us to decide if we stay or leave.

 

Anyway, just some stuff to muddy up what would seem clear otherwise.

[Mr Skeptic]

The outdoors is indeed public property, and there are several things that you are not allowed to do there that you would be allowed to on your own property, such as drive without a seatbelt, walk around naked, or take a dump. The ban on smoking in parts of the outdoors is at worst legalized politeness, since it is kind or rude to force others to breathe your smoke, as well as (if only a tiny bit) bad for their health.

[big314mp]

As for the business and home owner, I equate the two, though most everyone else does not. Regardless, I used to hold the same view as you, but someone here drew an analogy with mustard gas. The point being that smoke does cause harm to others in the vicinity. Do we let business owners allow people to come in and release mustard gas? For that matter, is it not child abuse to damage your child in your home with it?

 

And I have a hard time accepting the idea that I have to leave the restaraunt because you decided to release mustard gas at your table. What if I didn't notice until I breathed some? You're free to release poisons in the air and we all have to run around keeping an eye out for it so we can get away? That's almost like saying you should have the right to fire off your gun in random directions and it's up to us to decide if we stay or leave.

 

There's a quote about blind men put in dark rooms with imaginary black cats that I think is applicable here

 

A while ago, I was watching a Jerry Springer interview of GG Allin (yes, I know, laugh all you want) on youtube. For those unfamiliar with GG Allin, he was known for extreme (an understatement if there ever was one) performances, including self mutilation on stage, and assault on the audience. People were regularly injured at these performances. However, these people freely chose to attend the performances. There was a risk of bodily injury involved, and they chose to take that risk. If you plan to eat at a restaurant where the patrons regularly release mustard gas into the air, I have trouble justifying punishing either the patrons or the owner of the establishment. I'll also probably think you're a little funny in the head

 

As to the running around avoiding people firing off bullets, that is why I believe in banning smoking in public areas. Private property is a different area. If I know there is an area where people regularly fire off their guns (lets say near the targets at a shooting range), you can be guaranteed that I will stay well away from that area.

 

Smoking in the home with a child present is an issue that I had not considered before. The child obviously did not pick his/her circumstance. So, ATM, I have no response to that.

 

The outdoors is indeed public property, and there are several things that you are not allowed to do there that you would be allowed to on your own property, such as drive without a seatbelt, walk around naked, or take a dump. The ban on smoking in parts of the outdoors is at worst legalized politeness, since it is kind or rude to force others to breathe your smoke, as well as (if only a tiny bit) bad for their health.

 

I see your point, yet I am a little bit skeptical that the effect of casual exposure to second hand smoke can be separated from the effects of all of the other crap in the air. I mean, the air in Los Angeles must be worse than the air at a bus stop, standing next to a smoker, in a Colorado suburb.

 

Of course, I have no evidence to support either the premise that LA air is worse than Colorado bus stop air, or the premise that Colorado suburbs have bus stops.

 

So at that point, does it become an issue of politeness only?