Cigarette Smoking In Public: Why You're Opinion Is Wrong

[Splint]

Since their is no precedent to allow for the government to ban other harmful, cancer causing toxins that pollute the air, their is no legal standpoint on which you can claim that I shouldn't be able to pollute the air with my own cigarette. If the Government really cared about allowing their populace to be safe, while walking on sidewalks for instance, (AKA public property) then indsutrial pollution would have to be banned as well. Of course this isn't the case, and everytime you breath in while in a major city, you're slowly advancing the day of your death.

So if there were laws to limit or eradicate carcinogens in the air, then a precedent would be set and we could go ahead and outlaw smoking in public outdoor areas.

US Code: Title 42, Chapter 85-- Air Pollution, Prevention and Control.

The second part about smoking indoors is a bit more confusing. My stance is that since businesses are privately owned, that it should be the owners decision as to whether smoking should be allowed in their stores. The government has absolutely no right to come in and tell private (Repeat: Private) enterprises what they can and cannot do in the privacy of their store. If I own a bowling alley, the government is not entitled to say I can't walk down my favorite lane 7 smoking a cigarette. Also, let me make it clear that places like bowling alleys, restraunts, supermarkets, bars are not public places, like post offices and other governmental buildings. If the government wants to ban smoking in public places (AKA places owned by everyone), then that's fine by me. But to impose smoking regulations on private businesses is giving the government waaaay to much power, and is a step towards Totalitarianism.

Agreed. Except that there are certain circumstances in which people are unable to decide for their own well-being and the well-being of others. Addiction is one of those times. Addiction causes people to act irrationally and often against what they might otherwise consider to be in their best interests. In those times the Government steps in and takes a guiding role.

[BainbridgeShred]

So if there were laws to limit or eradicate carcinogens in the air, then a precedent would be set and we could go ahead and outlaw smoking in public outdoor areas.

No, because their is no law to eliminate pollution, and laws that limit it aren't relevent in this case. Second hand cigarette smoke isn't as bad as everyday pollution anyways, because people are breathing in pollution caused by industry much more frequently than they are second hand smoke.

Except that there are certain circumstances in which people are unable to decide for their own well-being and the well-being of others. Addiction is one of those times. Addiction causes people to act irrationally and often against what they might otherwise consider to be in their best interests. In those times the Government steps in and takes a guiding role.

As I said earlier, it is your decision to do harm to your own body, and its everyone elses decision to watch out for their own well being. I'm not saying this is nice or good (As I've already had to explain here), but nice and good aren't terms for the government to define. Since when has it been anyones responsibility but their own to make sure that they stay healthy and safe. It isn't my or the government's concern; it's only yours.

I could care less if people can't decide what's good fro their own well-being, and I could care less if people around them can easily make themselves safe, and choose not to. Like I've said, you don't need to go to private establishments for nearly any reason, and thus if the owner of the establishment wants to allow smoking, it's his business.

If you'd all stop arguing my personality and start looking at my points, you'd see how easy this is to understand.

[pips]

If you'd all stop arguing my personality and start looking at my points, you'd see how easy this is to understand.

Your points are retarded.

No, because their is no law to eliminate pollution, and laws that limit it aren't relevent in this case. Second hand cigarette smoke isn't as bad as everyday pollution anyways, because people are breathing in pollution caused by industry much more frequently than they are second hand smoke

It doesn't matter what we are breathing in (smoke or pollution) more. Smoke is still bad for you even if you breathe it in less. Haven't you read the latest news about secondhand smoke? People who don't even smoke are dying of cancer from secondhand smoke.

Also...so with your thinking...if there are laws limiting pollution, there should be laws limiting how much people smoke.

As I said earlier, it is your decision to do harm to your own body, and its everyone elses decision to watch out for their own well being. I'm not saying this is nice or good (As I've already had to explain here), but nice and good aren't terms for the government to define. Since when has it been anyones responsibility but their own to make sure that they stay healthy and safe. It isn't my or the government's concern; it's only yours.

How the hell are we supposed to watch out for own well being if you and other smokers (and industries, etc.) are polluting the air we breathe and can't get away from? And anyways, once again (since I made a stupid strawman arguement, you decided to ignore me) there are laws out there to protect people from being harmed (against murder, against drinking, against SMOKING, against rape...). Technically, smoking should be illegal, since it's been proven to kill.

And it is not your decision to do harm against your own body either. People go to jail for attempting suicide and failing at it. People get admitted for having suicidal thoughts.

[BainbridgeShred]

I have no reason to respond to either of your points (No chauvinist)because I've already responded to the first one and the second one is just another big strawman.

As far as your comment about how you're supposed to watch out for your own health when you "can't get away" from smoke, I can't envision a situation where you're not going to be able to get away from smoke, so I can't respond to your questions any other way.

Oh, and calling my points retarded is worse than anything I've done in this thread so far, as even if I insult someones point, I usually back it up instead of letting the negative energy float in the air. You should be ashamed of yourself IMHO.

[SandWraith]

...I can't envision a situation where you're not going to be able to get away from smoke, so I can't respond to your questions any other way.

The doors to the main library on campus are essentially the number one smoker hangout. I work at that library not of choice, but by work study placing me there. I have to walk through that crap every day, and the way the entrance is constructed the smoke just lingers. It's as potent as I've ever seen.

And it's strange you didn't respond to my last post...?

[dontlikespam]

Someone learned about strawman arguments in highschool and decided he could use that to try to refute any analogy or argument used against his.

[Jeremy]

I think in a democracy govenments tend to legislate with what the majority of voters think - rather than being governed by any higher form of belief about what a government thinks. In some cases it could be that this is the wrong way to govern however on the whole democracy tends to give people much more of a say in their lives than other forms of government.

In the case of smoking - the majority of people do not smoke and our laws reflect that. If the majority of people don't want to breath in smoke anywhere then they have the right to express that view and most democratically elected governments would create legislation to respond to those views.

[BainbridgeShred]

Someone learned about strawman arguments in highschool and decided he could use that to try to refute any analogy or argument used against his.

Or this is just generally a topic that tends to produce a lot of them. Certain topics do IE evolution, gay marriage, wire tapping ect. This is also one of them.

Lol, I like how you've made me your personal vendetta. You look really cool. Remove yourself from my genitals whenever it's convienient for you.

The doors to the main library on campus are essentially the number one smoker hangout. I work at that library not of choice, but by work study placing me there. I have to walk through that crap every day, and the way the entrance is constructed the smoke just lingers. It's as potent as I've ever seen.

Depending on what school you go to in St Louis, a college campus is public property, and thus, not in the range of this argument. It is your choice to enroll at college, and your choice to do work study. Thus, subjecting yourself to smoke is your own choice. And no, that is in no way a stretch or infringement of your rights. I personally could care less if you dropped out of college because you didn't like smoke. That is your choice. Stop relying on the government to make your life better.

No one really wants to debate this on an individual rights issue, and basically you all keep coming with the same "Smoke annoys me" BS.

As far as your other topic that I didn't respond to, you have you to understand that nearly every post in this thread has been directed at me, so I sometimes don't respond to things I either have already responded to or view as too stupid to waste my time on. Your post falls into the 1st category. Feel lucky.

[pips]

So all of us nonsmokers should just hide out in our houses forever and have no life, because we choose not to subject ourselves to smoke while smokers are out working and schooling and all that, having a life?

[HighDemonslayer]

Does anybody here have a word burning stove, and use it?

Cuz if you do, you probably dwarf any smoker with your pollution.


Combining industrial factories and smokers together is " ill-proportioned", if that word exists.


-n

[Splint]

No, because their is no law to eliminate pollution, and laws that limit it aren't relevent in this case. Second hand cigarette smoke isn't as bad as everyday pollution anyways, because people are breathing in pollution caused by industry much more frequently than they are second hand smoke.

I am not familiar with any law that universally outlaws smoking either. The laws that are in place simply limit the amount of cigarette smoke in the air. As far as I know you are more than welcome to go to the store, buy cigarettes and smoke them. Many of the laws that I've seen come my way don't even prevent people from smoking on the sidewalk.
I lived in NY when the smoking ban took place about 2 years ago. It does not prevent people from walking down the street with a cigarette in their hand. In Boulder, Co. the ban extends to twenty feet outside bars and restaurants. Bar and Restaurant owners also have the choice to create separately ventilated areas in which patrons are allowed to smoke.

Since when has it been anyones responsibility but their own to make sure that they stay healthy and safe. It isn't my or the government's concern; it's only yours.

What fuckin' country do you live in? What do you think we have Police and Military for? Get rid of the police tomorrow and see how well everyone does at keeping themselves healthy and safe. How about gun control laws, traffic laws, and sexual harrassment laws? All designed to keep people safe. That's why we have a governemental system in place.
How about the fact that it's illegal to committ suicide. As a matter of fact the cops would sooner shoot you than let you kill yourself. It's also illegal to smoke dope, shoot heroin, snort coke, and take LSD. Part of the reasoning behind that is the damage it does to the users.

If you'd all stop arguing my personality and start looking at my points, you'd see how easy this is to understand.

I'm sorry, that's a red herring and will not be tolerated in this argument.

[Rieferman]

About the "smoking in front of the library" argument.. That made good sense to me.

I understand your counter-point correctly, you said that's not valid because the campus is public property.

But in your initial argument you also differentiated OK from Not-OK as "My stance is that since businesses are privately owned, that it should be the owners decision as to whether smoking should be allowed in their stores. "

To me, the library argument is "I'm working someplace that's not privately owned and I'm being subjected to smoking just by trying to get into my job". Since it's not privately owned by your argument, it should not be OK to force non-smokers to breath smoke.

Your counter to this might be something like "They're not smoking in the building so your argument sucks". But I would say that if we're being somewhere in the vicinity of reasonable, that the main entrance of a non-privately owned building IS part of that building.

Side note: High Demon slayer >> your posts are honestly great. Seriously, your humor cracks me up. Also, about the wood stoves.. I have one, and now I'm concerned about the polution effect. Our initial thought in using it was that the fuel source is renewable, the cost per BTU is lower, and that compared with other sources of heating we would be having an overall "less bad" effect on the world. It sounds like we might be wrong about that. Although I can look up more research to educate myself, if you already know more about this, I'd be interested to hear.

[HighDemonslayer]

What good is humor without elements of truth?


Wood is renewable, I thought.


I commented on the wood-burning primarily because of the inconsiderate nature of using it (depending on your location). Do you smoke out your neighbors when using it? When it's not insanely cold, does your fireplace keep your neighbors from having any windows open?

I 've heard people complain about fires before, and I know when i fire up my charcoal grill when there is no wind out, the whole block probably stinks.(i wont do that again).


As a side note, my local high particulate levels lately have triggered "wood-burning bans" in my county, about every other day.

Many laws are well-intentioned, and poorly crafted failures (like Splint's gun control laws)

I suspect though, the intent, and effect of the wood-ban is positive, and is not a "power grab" law. i dont know anybody actually gets ticketed.



I don't know the overall effect of the wood-burn-ban, Phoenix is not exactly the fireplace capital of the country.

-n

[Rieferman]

Yeah, wood is renewable >> we're both saying the same thing there.

Good point about running fires on warm days, that's definitely annoying.

I'm going to look into the polution effects to see how it compares overall to (say) gas heat, oil heat, and electric heat.

[habitat]

So all of us nonsmokers should just hide out in our houses forever and have no life, because we choose not to subject ourselves to smoke while smokers are out working and schooling and all that, having a life?

goes both ways .... right?


Personally, I find it hard to be offended by people smoking. Seriously, just walk away, it ALWAYS works for me. If you have to, HAVE TO, walk past people smoking, hold your breath for about 1-2 seconds.

By the way, secondhand smoke won't kill anybody as fast as living will. Someone show me a valid experiment to test that, please. I never understood how "they" can say so many people die each year exclusively from secondhand smoke. UNLESS you choose to sit next to someone smoking for long periods of time, not walking past them in doorways

Nah, screw that! Lets just ban it!

[shredzilla]

They should ban eating your own crap in front of people. Cuz that way no one would be stupid enough to do it.

[slapdash21]

i have no problems at all with smokers. most of my friends are. but i just worry about small children who live with smoking parents. THAT is some bad second-hand smoke...but other than that...no problem

[shredzilla]

Would you have a problem with people smoking crack in public?

[Rieferman]

What about people that work in places where smoking is allowed/encouraged. For example, Casinos.

Your argument may be "They choose to work there so it's their damn fault for being around smoke".

But c'mon... Finding a job for some portions of the population is very difficult >> cutting the available jobs down just to places that don't allow smoking might mean that portion can't work. That's an unfair position to put people in.

Illustration: In New Jersey recently (Atlantic City) a Casino worker was diagnosed with lung cancer. He has never smoked a cigarette. His doctor's opinion based on the level of lung damage in his case was that it was a direct result of 10+ years in a casino atmosphere. When asked why he worked there around the smoke, he said that given his monetary obligations (support family, educate kids etc.) he didn't feel he had a choice.

Your argument may be "Everyone has a choice, he's just a dumb ass"

But, double-c'mon to that.

[slapdash21]

Would you have a problem with people smoking crack in public?

sorry, nah. you're talking to a bit of a scoff-law (sp?)


i dunno what a casino pays, but im guessing that guy could have made as much working at burger king. almost.