Smoking Ban...what would you say to this?

igor

Administrator
In the States I witnessed several times how ten years old school kids when they see a person with a cigarette, they demonstratively start to cough so hard as would they are about to cough their guts out. I was positive that they could not smell anything from the distance. (I am not a smoker myself). I guess it is a socially trained behavior. Here we can see a grown up version of the same thing.
It is so boring just to allow the market to decide what is good and what is wrong. Your government always knows better what's good for you. A lot of people die in car accidents. Should driving be prohibited as well?
 

bigbadwolf

Registered
"nikad" said:
Then why producing marihuana and cocaine and other substances is illegal? Because the government doesn't collect taxes!
Governments can tax them if they legalise them. If I remember correctly, marijuana is legal in two states -- Alaska and Colorado: you can grow your own weed, and smoke it legally in the privacy of your home. I also think it is legal in Holland (Belgium may adopt the same policy). As for cocaine, it used to be legal (Coca-cola intially used to contain cocaine). It seems to me it is more a matter of public health policy than how much tax can be generated. I don't remember the figures exactly but in Europe I believe the bad health engendered by smoking costs the state more than the revenues cigarette taxes generate.
As for comparing smoking deaths to traffic fatalities: bad analogy. An automobile fatality is an accident (well, okay, outside Argentina it is, where people don't drive like maniacs), whereas a smoking fatality is theoretically more a question of choice. But why should a smoker inflict bad health on a non-smoker or in any way circumscribe his freedom or movement simply so that he can avoid being exposed to cigarette smoke? If you reason this way, why not let the state turn a blind eye towards armed hold-ups? Where exactly does the subtle difference lie? Come to think of it, if a smoker is free to damage my health, I should surely be free to blow his brains out: if you're giving him the freedom to do me damage, then I should also have the freedom to do him damage.
 

igor

Administrator
"bigbadwolf" said:
As for comparing smoking deaths to traffic fatalities: bad analogy. An automobile fatality is an accident ..., whereas a smoking fatality is theoretically more a question of choice.
I see getting lung cancer as an accident as well. Your probability just increases if you are exposed to the second hand smoking. Getting hit by a car is also a question of choice. You can stay at home all the time or drive a tank around, or move to Mackinac Island.
 

gracielle

Registered
Not to deflect attention from the subject of tabacco, but let me introduce another carcinogen ...ASBESTOS. The following position paper is in English. http://www.ijoeh.com/pfds/1002_Rodriguez.pdfArgentina mined
it, exported it and refined it for internal use. It was banned in 2003. Even if I believe that the use of asbestos has been irradicated, the exposure effects are residual. With all the construction currently going on, should we be concerned?
 

nikad

Registered
"bigbadwolf" said:
Then why producing marihuana and cocaine and other substances is illegal? Because the government doesn't collect taxes!
Governments can tax them if they legalise them. If I remember correctly, marijuana is legal in two states -- Alaska and Colorado: you can grow your own weed, and smoke it legally in the privacy of your home. I also think it is legal in Holland (Belgium may adopt the same policy). As for cocaine, it used to be legal (Coca-cola intially used to contain cocaine). It seems to me it is more a matter of public health policy than how much tax can be generated. I don't remember the figures exactly but in Europe I believe the bad health engendered by smoking costs the state more than the revenues cigarette taxes generate.
and again, the egg and the chicken: Most goverments do not legalise certain substances, like cocaine, lsd, marijuana, etc because they damage your health, then why not just make tobacco illegal? It just doesn't make sense! If tobacco is legal, it cannot be illegal smoking it, unless people have other uses for it, ie contemplation, collecting, etc... its pourpose it be be smoked. and if the spirit of the law is just to proptect non smokers, do we have second hand people that deserve to die because they smoke? Maybe like they do in some northern europan countries, where you can do heroin as much as you like and the government distributes needeles, etc just so you just die overdosed, but not with aids? Basically because a burial is cheaper than an VIH positive at the hospital? Come on, is it just money what matters and people are disposable?
 
M

maskow

Guest
Chicken and the egg, indeed. The discussion of the ban always seems to spiral if not circle.Let's look at what we have in response to my original (probably badly posed) question: "If you support the ban, would you oppose the opening of gathering places that would admit both smokers and non-smokers along the lines of the "Utah" example?"nikad: does not support the ban.
chris: supports the ban, not clear if he would oppose these "gathering places"
gracielle: not sure if supports the ban, not clear if opposes the "gathering places"
jg: supports the ban, not clear if he would oppose these "gathering places"
igor: doesn't seem to support the ban.
bigbadwolf: apparently supports the ban, REALLY supports the "circular" aspect of the discussion.What I was asking...and, of course, it's only a request...was for the supporters of the ban to take a stand as to how far they would support the prohibition.This is/was only an effort to stop the "chicken vs. egg", the "if a smoker is free to damage my health, I should surely be free to blow his brains out" merry-go-round that heats well but lights little.Wanna try again? Or should we just let this thread die a merciful death?Please let me know:#1. if you support the ban and
#2. if you would support the appearance of venues in which the public could enter and eat/drink/smoke/etc on a "Utah-phony-private" basis which would not deceive the non-smoking public.I'm not hiding any agendas here. What I would like to know, however, is if any supporters of the ban can countenance the knowledge that smokers are someplace enjoying themselves as before...if we can eliminate the non-voluntary exposure to "passive smoking".Give it a thought.
 

bigbadwolf

Registered
"maskow" said:
bigbadwolf: apparently supports the ban, REALLY supports the "circular" aspect of the discussion.
What I was asking...and, of course, it's only a request...was for the supporters of the ban to take a stand as to how far they would support the prohibition.
This is/was only an effort to stop the "chicken vs. egg", the "if a smoker is free to damage my health, I should surely be free to blow his brains out" merry-go-round that heats well but lights little.
Please let me know:
#1. if you support the ban and
#2. if you would support the appearance of venues in which the public could enter and eat/drink/smoke/etc on a "Utah-phony-private" basis which would not deceive the non-smoking public.
I'm not hiding any agendas here. What I would like to know, however, is if any supporters of the ban can countenance the knowledge that smokers are someplace enjoying themselves as before...if we can eliminate the non-voluntary exposure to "passive smoking".
Give it a thought.
I support the ban unequivocally. I can countenance smokers smoking but not at the expense of my health.
I'm a puritan at heart and the easy hedonistic ways of Argentina grate on my soul. No-one has a right to enjoy himself anywhere at any time. A cold shower in the mornings works wonders, and everyone should work sixteen hours a day.
 

gracielle

Registered
I would support a modified version of the ban. Give establishments the choice to provide a totally non-smoking environment or not. I am not opposed to any type of "exclusive" gathering place.
 

igor

Administrator
"gracielle" said:
I would support a modified version of the ban. Give establishments the choice to provide a totally non-smoking environment or not.
I would call it a slightly modified version of the ban :)
 

JG

Registered
We have Gay bars, so why not smokers bars. fine. Since I try not to sweeten things up with euphemisms, i will admit that accommodating the smoker is not much of a priority for me. But all of this is debated in all of the locations where its going into effect. California, NYC, right now in Baltimore, France, Italy where its in effect, etc. This issue is not BA related. i think the only issue that stands out a little here are 1. people have little respect for laws. 2. they smoke like a steel factory.
So put me down for, sure, ok, why not. But my guess is when policymakers sit down and hash this all out, they realize its all or nothing. To carve it out finer would just create a mess. The point i stress each time, i try to focus it, is the law is about restricting the damage that smokers do to members of the population. they are harming others, children on up. this isnt some granola nut crazy law. dont drink and drive, dont fill up a room with cigarette smoke.
 
Top