institutionalised biggotry via harrasment

[Mr Skeptic]

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.

 

But you must keep in mind that all those other sources of pollution are regulated to some degree. Catalytic converters on cars, limits on particulate emissions, limits on pollutants, etc, etc. Smoking is a tiny effect, so simply distancing smokers from non smokers is enough to make the effect they have negligable. I suppose that if a smoker put an airtight helmet on his head with a particulate filter on it, he should be allowed to smoke wherever he likes, but in general it seems easier for them to just keep their distance.

 

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

 

No, some people can legitimately claim that it is very bad for their health. People who have to work in a smoking section can be quite badly affected, especially if there is poor ventilation. On the other hand, it should be possible to install a giant ventillation and filtration system indoors, that would make the effect of smoking negligeable. Would a law regarding maximum indoor pollution instead of indoor smoking ban seem better to you?

[ParanoiA]

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 could probably go along with that if the patrons were made aware before entering the establishment.

 

But consider the implications of this. Can anything be released into the air as long as people do it regularly, or the information that they do so is posted? Are we going to say it's ok to let someone spray acid around the room, or anything else you can think of that would kill or mame someone - just because patrons have agreed to that environment upon entering? What if people are tricked into mass murder by someone who posts a sign for a deadly gas filled room, gambling that some will fail to read it? Surely you could get a few corpses just by trickery.

 

That's all a bit extreme, obviously, but it should illustrate the problem with creating a dangerous air environment and then using a person's willful presence to justify it.

 

Of course, I don't practice what I'm presenting here either. I don't smoke, but I don't have a problem with others who do. I voted against the ban in my city. I don't have a problem with smoking sections in restaraunts, bars, anywhere and everywhere - I don't care. My wife smokes, but she has to smoke in the basement, which remains closed off from the rest of the house - to keep it away from the kids. Plus it smells up the house all nasty.

 

So, I'm more or less following your rule of willful presence, even though I tried to shoot holes in it.

[john5746]

Smoking as a bad decision is a subjective judgement.

 

All judgements are subjective - they are goal based. This line from the Declaration of Independance is NOT objective "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." and the proof, IMO is in the next sentence "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" That doesn't make it less desirable that it isn't a physical law, just that people have to discuss and enforce it.

 

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.

 

OK, I think we agree on the goal. We both want clean air, I am just advocating a more pragmatic solution. It is far easier to ask people not to smoke in certain areas then immediately replacing the internal combustion engine. We are moving toward lower to zero emissions with cars. We may then find environmental problems related to the batteries, etc. We can then deal with that.

 

 

It should be timeless.

So you want to wait for Jesus to come down and give us the objective law? Timeless is a freaking long time.

 

 

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.

 

The problem with private business in the public square is that you do have a responsibility to the employees and customers. You can't expect employees to be exposed to smoke all the time as part of their employment, IMO.

 

 

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.

 

Air quality in the Smokey Mountains during high pollen seasons may be worse, but are we going to wait until we get that fixed before we do anything about smoking?

[big314mp]

See, my objection is less about the issue of pollution, and more of an objection to legislating what people do on their private property. I see the work place as the private property of the employer. Some people work in hazardous positions, and perhaps wait staff in smoking areas should be paid more, according to the additional risk to the additional risk that they shoulder.

 

I am also reluctant to suggest a law about indoor pollution because I can see that enforcing such a law would involve some serious trampling of individual rights. ParanoiA brought up a very valid point about children in smoking households will be unfairly exposed to relatively high levels of indoor pollutants. Perhaps some indoor pollution law may be necessary, but at the moment, I can't think of any way to implement it properly. Perhaps if you could suggest one, I may take your side on this

 

I think a valid question that needs to be answered is "How far does a smoker need to distance him/herself from another person such that the effect of the smoker on the second person's air is negligible?" In my experience, I can smell cigarette smoke (outdoors) from maybe 15-20 ft away, but I can hardly believe that it is impacting my health. That's why I think that outdoors people should be allowed to smoke. In my experience, it seems to be a politeness issue more than a health one.

[ParanoiA]

All judgements are subjective - they are goal based. This line from the Declaration of Independance is NOT objective "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." and the proof, IMO is in the next sentence "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" That doesn't make it less desirable that it isn't a physical law, just that people have to discuss and enforce it.

 

I don't believe in empowering subjectivity in law. This is how you engineer societies and "direct" their moral compass. This is how slavery was allowed to continue. The government ignored the line about all men being created equal, their life, their liberty, their happiness and instead passed a subjective judgement that these particular men weren't men, but were animals - an analysis that requires a code of behavior and moral direction (or lack of moral direction) to agree to. Objectively, they were clearly men.

 

So, Subjectively they were animals.

Objectively they were men.

 

They chose to go with animals, and later 3/5ths men.

 

So, if we had been legislating from a purely objective mindset, we couldn't have allowed ourselves to legitimize and endorse enslaving men. Even if we all thought they were animals, subjectively.

 

To drop the drama and apply this to smoking - smoking is only a harmful act if you make someone else do it, because it causes damage. If your choice is to cause damage to yourself, then I have no basis to deny you your liberty and happiness to do it. Only if you deny someone else's.

 

OK, I think we agree on the goal. We both want clean air, I am just advocating a more pragmatic solution. It is far easier to ask people not to smoke in certain areas then immediately replacing the internal combustion engine. We are moving toward lower to zero emissions with cars. We may then find environmental problems related to the batteries, etc. We can then deal with that.

 

I never advocated a solution, so yeah, I'm sure yours is more pragmatic. I advocated not repeating the mistake of dismissing our rights to not be damaged by you and your property just because the you outnumber those of us who aren't swayed by the really cool perks of your advancements. We don't get to use our majority to refuse someone's miranda rights, so why does the majority get to refuse my right from being harmed by others? That's ok, I know the answer, and I disagree.

 

So you want to wait for Jesus to come down and give us the objective law? Timeless is a freaking long time.

 

Yes. I'm pretty sure that murder will still be a no-no in any civilized society a long freaking time from now. Principles are like that.

 

Subjectivity is a tough sell to get rid of, I know, but I think everyone is so conditioned to it that it's hard to imagine otherwise. Most people think all of their personal thoughts and feelings should be mirrored in law. I don't. And I find it disgusting.

 

There are fathers of broken families rotting in prison for growing pot plants in their backyard. A family loses their breadwinner, their house, their lifestyle, while mom suddenly becomes an effective single mother and their children add to the columns of statistics on drug addicts, prostitution, crime...condemned to a life of poverty and doing without their father because we decided that smoking pot is "bad".

 

Sure he knew it was illegal, but that's like sending someone to jail for floating a stop sign.

 

I don't have any respect for subjective law. None whatsoever.

[big314mp]

The problem with private business in the public square is that you do have a responsibility to the employees and customers. You can't expect employees to be exposed to smoke all the time as part of their employment, IMO.

 

Air quality in the Smokey Mountains during high pollen seasons may be worse, but are we going to wait until we get that fixed before we do anything about smoking?

 

Yet we expect firefighters to run into burning buildings to save lives. Yet we expect police to put themselves in danger to stop criminals. The military. Drug test subjects. Chemists exposed to carcinogens and mutagens (this actually happened to a woman who lives down the street from me, and it caused birth defects in her son). The designer of the new Toyota Hybrid Camry allegedly died from overwork and exhaustion. Test pilots of experimental planes. Heck, even secretaries getting carpal tunnel syndrome from typing too much.

 

But god forbid we allow wait staff to be exposed to some tobacco smoke.

 

People in many different sectors of business and industry are paid to take risks and do a job. I don't see why this is any different.

 

As to the other bit, I don't think I typed out my point quite clearly. The point that I was trying to make, is that people accept crap air quality for some reasons but not others. The question is, why is tobacco smoke separated from all of the other reasons that air ends up polluted?

[Dak]

As to the other bit, I don't think I typed out my point quite clearly. The point that I was trying to make, is that people accept crap air quality for some reasons but not others. The question is, why is tobacco smoke separated from all of the other reasons that air ends up polluted?

 

Indeed.

 

If we banned everything that harmed non-concenting adults, even just a tiny wee little bit, then we'd have to ban everything and nothing would be allowed. Its just annoying that we seem to pick-and-mix exactly what harm we have to tolerate (car fumes, industrial pollution, cars, arsenic in drinking water, violent drunks, etc) and which it's ok to be grumpy intolerant bigots about (smoking, etc).

[john5746]

Yes. I'm pretty sure that murder will still be a no-no in any civilized society a long freaking time from now.

 

Murder is defined as being bad, so yeah it will be a no-no, thanks to circular logic. But what is defined as murder changes with POV and time.

 

 

Indeed.

 

If we banned everything that harmed non-concenting adults, even just a tiny wee little bit, then we'd have to ban everything and nothing would be allowed. Its just annoying that we seem to pick-and-mix exactly what harm we have to tolerate (car fumes, industrial pollution, cars, arsenic in drinking water, violent drunks, etc) and which it's ok to be grumpy intolerant bigots about (smoking, etc).

 

There's something called compromise. It would be nice to just make it illegal to smoke, but we know that people are addicted, so they can't just quit, even if they want to. It would be nice to snap our fingers and make all autos emissions free, but that's pretty difficult. Doing nothing because we can't do it all makes no sense.

 

 

 

But god forbid we allow wait staff to be exposed to some tobacco smoke.

 

People in many different sectors of business and industry are paid to take risks and do a job. I don't see why this is any different.

 

I guess those big tips pay for the lung cancer? There are risks to everything, this is true. We should expect reasonable approaches to reducing/avoiding risk. Firemen and Police are trying to save lives, they have extensive training and gear to reduce risks. Secretaries have ergonomic work stations, etc. They need to type to do their job. Waitresses do not need to inhale smoke to perform their duties, it isn't saving lives and customers do not need to smoke. Asking people not to smoke in certain areas sounds reasonable to me.

[big314mp]

There's something called compromise. It would be nice to just make it illegal to smoke, but we know that people are addicted, so they can't just quit, even if they want to. It would be nice to snap our fingers and make all autos emissions free, but that's pretty difficult. Doing nothing because we can't do it all makes no sense.

 

I guess those big tips pay for the lung cancer? There are risks to everything, this is true. We should expect reasonable approaches to reducing/avoiding risk. Firemen and Police are trying to save lives, they have extensive training and gear to reduce risks. Secretaries have ergonomic work stations, etc. They need to type to do their job. Waitresses do not need to inhale smoke to perform their duties, it isn't saving lives and customers do not need to smoke. Asking people not to smoke in certain areas sounds reasonable to me.

 

Asking people not to smoke in certain areas is fair enough. The question then becomes, which areas? I am very uncomfortable with the notion that government should legislate what happens on private property.

 

The examples I listed were just a few of many different positions that entail certain risks. Factories could spend millions of dollars to install robots to prevent workers from being exposed to the risks in the manufacturing of cars.

 

Or we could just outlaw cars, as they are too risky to everyone.

 

If someone can avoid a risk on their own, why does this risk need to be outlawed by the government? That strikes me as a nanny state.

 

I suppose this will all finally boil down to the public safety vs public freedom debate, at which point we will have a stalemate .

[ParanoiA]

Dak, I don't know what to tell you buddy. People will always rationalize putting their nose in your business. Even here in the supposed freedom loving states we are unable to have differing moral codes, free from government endorsement - from day one.

 

People seem to think all of their personal opinions should be law. So and so doesn't want to kill unborn babies in their belly, so no one else should either. So and so doesn't like trans-fats, so no one else should either. Make it law! The hubris required to trump everyone else's free opinion is atrocious.

 

It's as if they don't believe that slavery was morally justified by those engaged in it, and further justified by the law of the land. If they understood otherwise, then surely they would see that legislating morality is wrong - that you can't be sure your moral code is finalized and righteous in every way. And to prevent that atrocity again, we must force ourselves to live by an objective rule of law that only recognizes direct harm, so society can respond efficiently, immediately to the changing dynamics of morality as opposed to the slow, lumbering, beaurocratic mud of government.

 

Mankind is invested in government and seems to want more and more of it, which would seem to undermine the evolutionary goal I would think humans would agree on - self governance. Government is an unfortunate necessity that only seems to find its purpose in holding humans accountable for their agreements with "the group". Otherwise, government would be unnecessary. So rather than aim for voluntary cooperation with persuasion, we invest in forced compliance, which I don't believe will ever lead to voluntary compliance, and will sanitize individuality. We are doomed to be controlled indefinitely.

 

So, I would expect more and more invasion of your vices - judgements cast by the majority on what you should and shouldn't be doing with your body, rationalizing it with "the greater good" arguments. The same rationale used to justify dismissing health damage by auto exhaust and industrial pollution. We can't admit we're wrong so we don't repeat mistakes, we must justify our ignorance and repeat them over and over again because we don't like being hypocrites.

 

Never underestimate the ability of the human mind to fool itself. We are hypocrites for telling you not to smoke in the same room with us just after driving in rush hour traffic forcing all of the pedestrians to inhale our exhaust. It doesn't make it ok for you to poison the room, but we still can't admit our hypocrisy. Oh well, I'm fairly used to it actually.

[big314mp]

Dak, I don't know what to tell you buddy. People will always rationalize putting their nose in your business. Even here in the supposed freedom loving states we are unable to have differing moral codes, free from government endorsement - from day one.

 

People seem to think all of their personal opinions should be law. So and so doesn't want to kill unborn babies in their belly, so no one else should either. So and so doesn't like trans-fats, so no one else should either. Make it law! The hubris required to trump everyone else's free opinion is atrocious.

 

It's as if they don't believe that slavery was morally justified by those engaged in it, and further justified by the law of the land. If they understood otherwise, then surely they would see that legislating morality is wrong - that you can't be sure your moral code is finalized and righteous in every way. And to prevent that atrocity again, we must force ourselves to live by an objective rule of law that only recognizes direct harm, so society can respond efficiently, immediately to the changing dynamics of morality as opposed to the slow, lumbering, beaurocratic mud of government.

 

Mankind is invested in government and seems to want more and more of it, which would seem to undermine the evolutionary goal I would think humans would agree on - self governance. Government is an unfortunate necessity that only seems to find its purpose in holding humans accountable for their agreements with "the group". Otherwise, government would be unnecessary. So rather than aim for voluntary cooperation with persuasion, we invest in forced compliance, which I don't believe will ever lead to voluntary compliance, and will sanitize individuality. We are doomed to be controlled indefinitely.

 

So, I would expect more and more invasion of your vices - judgements cast by the majority on what you should and shouldn't be doing with your body, rationalizing it with "the greater good" arguments. The same rationale used to justify dismissing health damage by auto exhaust and industrial pollution. We can't admit we're wrong so we don't repeat mistakes, we must justify our ignorance and repeat them over and over again because we don't like being hypocrites.

 

Never underestimate the ability of the human mind to fool itself. We are hypocrites for telling you not to smoke in the same room with us just after driving in rush hour traffic forcing all of the pedestrians to inhale our exhaust. It doesn't make it ok for you to poison the room, but we still can't admit our hypocrisy. Oh well, I'm fairly used to it actually.

 

...that was the most depressing thing I've read in a long while. Way to crap all over my day

[ParanoiA]

...that was the most depressing thing I've read in a long while. Way to crap all over my day

 

Sorry...

[Klaynos]

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.

 

And what about those people who work there?

[big314mp]

Well it is up to the workers to decide whether they want to work there or not.

[Klaynos]

Well it is up to the workers to decide whether they want to work there or not.

 

Not everyone has that kind of choice though. If you get offered a job and reject it in the UK you get a serious wack on your benifits the same goes if they suggest you apply for jobs and refuse... or if you quit your job...

[ParanoiA]

Not everyone has that kind of choice though. If you get offered a job and reject it in the UK you get a serious wack on your benifits the same goes if they suggest you apply for jobs and refuse... or if you quit your job...

 

Wouldn't they know it's a soft poison-stick friendly environment ahead of time? I mean, you wouldn't apply for a job as a tight rope walker and then complain that it's dangerous would you?

[big314mp]

Not everyone has that kind of choice though. If you get offered a job and reject it in the UK you get a serious wack on your benifits the same goes if they suggest you apply for jobs and refuse... or if you quit your job...

 

I somehow convinced myself that this thread was about the US, even though it didn't start there .

 

In any case, ParanoiA already made the point I would've made.

 

I'll play devil's advocate here for a little:

 

What happens if the business owner originally operates the premises as a non-smoking establishment, and then switches to become a smoking establishment?