Ostriig on 24/6/2009 at 00:12
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Plus the harm caused by smoking outweighs the harm done by drunken brawling.
Tell that to a guy who got a chair smashed in his head. Or worse. And as much as alcohol does not act to instill violence into an otherwise non-violent individual, it can very much be a catalyst for emotions and gestures that would otherwise be kept in check. You know it's true, and let me qualify my comparison, so you don't get the wrong idea - I drink regularly.
Plus, you're blowing the effects of passive smoking out of proportion. You spend time with a smoker face-to-face in a room, yes, you're taking in a fair amount of smoke and it can have harmful effects. You get a whiff of someone's cigarette as you pass them by on the street, that's nothing.
SubJeff on 24/6/2009 at 00:22
Its a stats thing. Smoking causes massive medical harm, and this can be an effect of passive smoking. Drunken violence causes nowhere near the number of serious medical issues.
Passing someone smoking in the street isn't the point. Restrictions are enforced in places where its really no big deal, but you have to draw the line somewhere and as I explained re:train platforms - they just try to make it easy.
D'Juhn Keep on 24/6/2009 at 00:23
Quote Posted by Ostriig
You wanna take another minute to think that through? I really wish some of you who dislike smoking would consider a wider perspective on things. Tell me, do you enjoy going out for a drink every now and then? Are you aware that in public spaces, such as bars, people occasionally have a few too many drinks and then start whacking each other? A different mechanic behind the act of causing harm to others, and by no means a sole factor, but alcohol can and does act as a catalyst for this sort of shit in some cases. What next, we ban alcohol from being served in pubs? Prohibition "Lite"? There are solutions to minimize the chance of drunken brawling, and there are solutions to allow people to smoke in public spaces without causing harm to non-smokers.
I have a fair amount of sympathy with slippery slope arguments because, well, slopes are sometimes slippery. However, what would you suggest for "solutions to allow people to smoke in public spaces without causing harm to non-smokers"? If every bar could install excellent air extraction devices in areas very separate from areas of non-smoking it'd be swell. However, I believe this is often unfeasible due to the cost and planning regulations and such. I wouldn't mind there being a situation that anywhere that can fit a system that eliminates any risk from passive smoking does so and in anyplace that can't it's banned (separate rooms for smoking still need bar staff).
I think the basic difference is that there's no such thing as harmless passive smoking (except maybe outside away from anyone), whereas many, many people enjoy drinking without hurting anyone else. Of course alcohol has a raft of problems all its own but I don't think you have to bring those into a smoking discussion except to say "Yeah but what about alcohol eh??"
Ostriig on 24/6/2009 at 01:03
Quote Posted by D'Juhn Keep
If every bar could install excellent air extraction devices in areas very separate from areas of non-smoking it'd be swell. However, I believe this is often unfeasible due to the cost and planning regulations and such. I wouldn't mind there being a situation that anywhere that can fit a system that eliminates any risk from passive smoking does so and in anyplace that can't it's banned (separate rooms for smoking still need bar staff).
Quote Posted by Ostriig
All public spaces such as bars, pubs, restaurants, etc. should be forced to provide separated indoors areas for smokers and non-smokers. In fact, they should only be forced to provide areas for non-smokers, whether they choose to cater to smokers too should be up to the establishment's owner. And when I say separated I mean walls and doors. If you've got a lobby or something in the way too, all the better.
I honestly do not believe that it is necessary to install air filtration units, and that a door, regular fans and some space would do a fine enough job to prevent any harmful amount of smoke getting in the non-smoking area. But that's a technicality, and something that I don't believe has great relevance to the subject, so if you want air filtration I won't object to it.
The point is that it
can be done. I'm suggesting that the baseline be bars that are non-smoking by default, with the option of creating separate smoking areas. At that point, it is up to the establishment's owners to decide whether catering to smokers in accordance to legal requirements, be they steep or lax, is a good investment or not. And you can take it from there with technical details, such as possible air filtration, physical separation of areas, space ratio for areas, etc.
Quote:
I think the basic difference is that there's no such thing as harmless passive smoking (except maybe outside away from anyone), whereas many, many people enjoy drinking without hurting anyone else. Of course alcohol has a raft of problems all its own but I don't think you have to bring those into a smoking discussion except to say "Yeah but what about alcohol eh??"
What I was getting at with the alcohol parallel is that what I'm seeing here is that some people who indulge in a certain vice are very quick to call for the ban of another vice that they do not indulge in, even though there are more elegant and more sensible solutions available. For drunks it's cutting them off when they've had too much and keeping a fat bouncer handy, and for smoking it's a good separation of the areas.
Also, one last thing on the alcohol analogy - take into account that while drinking in pubs is perfectly fine for you and me, there are those who do not consume and I'm pretty certain that some among them wouldn't mind seeing it gone entirely. It's a "where you draw the line" kind of situation, and, as you said, a slippery slope if we start quantifying harmful effects for certain vices, number of people into each one and so on. But, once again, it's really not the point because what I'm suggesting wouldn't clump smokers and non-smokers together in the first place.
YuSeF on 24/6/2009 at 01:16
*YAaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAaAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwn*
Turtle on 24/6/2009 at 01:56
The problem here is that occasional or social smoking is all the bill is addressing, whether that's the intent or not.
Serious, 2 pack a day smokers aren't smoking cloves or flavored cigarettes or cigars. They're smoking regular cigarettes, which the bill doesn't ban. It only gives the government the right to reduce the amount of nicotine, which will lead to smoking more, which will lead to buying more, which explains the willingness to go along with it by the major tobacco companies and the senators and congressmen who serve those districts. The only thing this bill is designed to do is address the public face of the smoking problem and eliminate the 'boutique' tobacco companies, which is pretty unfortunate for those of us who sometimes use their products.
The half-assed attempt to publicly do something about smoking is, unfortunately, only going to affect us half-assed smokers.
demagogue on 24/6/2009 at 01:58
Edit: holy crap Turtle, you sure you couldn't see me writing my post before I posted it?
@D'Juhn Keep, not sure if you were directly responding to my post, or just giving your general thoughts, or maybe a bit of both... But anyway, just to be clear when I was wondering why they were "banning" it and not doing a tax or something, I was in particular wondering why they were banning just flavored tobacco. Either ban all tobacco or none; but why single out flavored tobacco if you're still going to have normal cigarettes around? (Also, I'm thinking about the "taking stuff off the market" kind of ban; I don't have a problem with banning it in things like restaurants and bars.)
It sort of betrays a kind of acknowledgement that it's not really dangerous enough to ban it altogether. If smoking is really at the level of health-disaster that we need to start pulling things off the market, then yeah, you'd think they'd get rid of the whole show. But this selective treatment seems funny ... like it's the flavoring that really makes it so much more dangerous than gack-tasting cigarettes ... Also, that it would be the cigarettes that are the main choice of people who can actually control their desire and aren't chain-smokers that we should worry about first.
Besides, what kind of 14 year old is going to get hooked with cloves anyway? He'd probably get the shit beat out of him at high school for being such a pussy. Cloves are for homosexuals, Europeans, and poetry-readers of college-age or higher. Or to put it more emotively -- GOV'T: GET YOUR HANS OFFA MAH FAG FAGS WITH YO SAVE-THE-CHILLIN BS.
heywood on 24/6/2009 at 02:49
Quote Posted by D'Juhn Keep
I have a fair amount of sympathy with slippery slope arguments because, well, slopes are sometimes slippery. However, what would you suggest for "solutions to allow people to smoke in public spaces without causing harm to non-smokers"? If every bar could install excellent air extraction devices in areas very separate from areas of non-smoking it'd be swell. However, I believe this is often unfeasible due to the cost and planning regulations and such. I wouldn't mind there being a situation that anywhere that can fit a system that eliminates any risk from passive smoking does so and in anyplace that can't it's banned (separate rooms for smoking still need bar staff).
I think the basic difference is that there's no such thing as harmless passive smoking (except maybe outside away from anyone), whereas many, many people enjoy drinking without hurting anyone else. Of course alcohol has a raft of problems all its own but I don't think you have to bring those into a smoking discussion except to say "Yeah but what about alcohol eh??"
Drunk driving kills lots of people. And it's easier to avoid exposure to second hand smoke than to avoid drunk drivers.
The difference, as I see it, is that people *enjoy* social drinking. Aside from cigar and hookah/shisha bars, most people who smoke while they're out are just satisfying their habit. Smoking doesn't have the same appeal as a social activity that alcohol does, and there are fewer smokers than drinkers, so it's just plain easier to ban smoking. Not that it's any more justified.
I don't smoke and I personally don't care a whole lot about smoking either way, but it's not hard to strike a balance that allows non-smokers to avoid second hand smoke while smokers do their thing. And I think New York cigar bars and Amsterdam coffee houses are just as much a legitimate part of social culture as raves and Martini bars. So I see no need for communities to ban establishments that specifically cater to smokers, as is happening where I live now.
Muzman on 24/6/2009 at 08:30
Regarding the ban at semi-open train stations way up there:
A blanket ban like that also helps with the amount of cleaning that has to be done, because for some reason smokers generally feel completely at liberty to litter (now they'll all come by to point out now that they never do and they voluteer to help clean up the interstate or whatever twice a year. But some person or persons are doing a heck of a job on your behalf is all I'm saying).
I would however support a ban on Lynx/Axe products from just about anywhere as well. I'll sit next to the pee soaked wino on the train before I put up with that shit.
Chimpy Chompy on 24/6/2009 at 09:21
It does occur to me, I wonder what the numbers are here in the UK regarding tax raised on cigarettes vs nhs spending on cancer\any othersmoking related illness.
