Please don't smoke... - by Strangeblue
SD on 17/7/2006 at 18:32
Quote Posted by Ghostly Apparition
Link to some interesting information on the effects of air pollution. Maybe we should all move to the country, because air pollution would seem to be just as bad as secondhand smoke. So staying out of smokey bars isn't going to save you.
Well, we know how to get rid of the secondhand smoke problem. What's your magic solution for getting rid of pollution?
Your "We can't solve all problems, so let's solve none" attitude is almost as depressingly stupid as theBlackman's "Life isn't fair, so let's not try and bother making it more fair" attitude.
Stitch on 17/7/2006 at 18:33
Quote Posted by Shug
no offence intended but the opinion of a guy qualified to write and edit english really doesn't inspire confidence in me in such a controversial area of human health - unlike most other areas, anyway
hurrrr
The problem (which even those of us with English degrees are capable of researching and comprehending) is that all (conflicting) studies on the effects of secondhand smoke deal only with people who live or work in a smoky environment, which has fuckall to do with your average person who dips into a bar for a couple hours on a Saturday night. Scale back the risk accordingly and suddenly it doesn't look like much of an issue anymore. Sure people who work in the bar breathe in the toxins day in and day out, but perhaps they should have thought of that before seeking employment at a smoky bar.
My point is not so much to minimize the effects of secondhand smoke but simply to put them in persepctive.
Ghostly Apparition on 17/7/2006 at 18:37
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Well, we know how to get rid of the secondhand smoke problem. What's your magic solution for getting rid of pollution?
Your "We can't solve all problems, so let's solve none" attitude is almost as depressingly stupid as theBlackman's "Life isn't fair, so let's not try and bother making it more fair" attitude.
I wasn't saying we should do nothing about secondhand smoke. Here, they have already banned smoking in all public bars, restaurants etc. Guess what smart ass? I think thats a good thing. I was just fairly surprised at some of the findings in that report is all. They go on to say that air pollution is just as bad as smoking. So in Los angeles, they have banned smoking in public buildings,BARS and just about everywhere else. So by your definition I guess we have solved the smoking problem, as you put it. But all for naught it would seem as air pollution is still here.
They have concluded that air pollution caused a reduction of lung capacity in teenagers akin to active smoking. There was no difference! So to just throw up our hands and say we need cars and such and nothing can be done is no different than saying nothing can be done about secondhand smoke.
Maybe as much effort should be put into solving air pollution as they have about smoking.
theBlackman on 17/7/2006 at 18:58
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
[..]stupid as theBlackman's "Life isn't fair,[...]
Not stupid, a fact. Life is a good deal if you use the opportunities, but never "fair", -meaning just and rewarding for most people.
Chimpy Chompy on 17/7/2006 at 19:19
Quote Posted by Stitch
Sure people who work in the bar breathe in the toxins day in and day out, but perhaps they should have thought of that before seeking employment at a smoky bar..
So, going back to the chemical works emitting toxic fumes, I gather you'd agree it's just tough luck for the workers there? And that they shouldn't be protected by some kind of regulation?
Stitch on 17/7/2006 at 19:33
I think regulation is fine in either case. Outright banning is another.
For example, I'd be perfectly happy if bars were required to meet certain standards of ventilation before being granted a smoking license.
Agent Monkeysee on 17/7/2006 at 20:34
Quote Posted by Stitch
On a personal note, I tend to agree with Monkeysee (big surprise). My libertarian tendencies clash with the smoking ban in principle, and yet I love the fact that I can spend a night out without my clothes stinking like an ashtray afterwards. In fact, I'd go so far as to credit Madison's public smoking ban with largely facilitating my current "changing of one's jeans as infrequently as possible" initiative.
In the interests of full disclosure I should let you know my libertarian tendencies in general are fighting a losing battle these days. I voted against it, the rest of the state voted for it, I'm not gonna cry about it. The way I figure it the ashtray should go the way of the spittoon. It's a vile habit and I know I'm going to lose internet arguer credibility for this but it's just not a "right" that I give a shit about. It's not worth going out of our way to protect it.
I understand and emphathize with all the arguments against bans, I would have even taken up some of those arguments at one time, but I just don't care anymore. There's more important shit to worry about than whether someone has the right to smoke in public.
Scots Taffer on 17/7/2006 at 23:57
Quote Posted by Stitch
I think regulation is fine in either case. Outright banning is another.
For example, I'd be perfectly happy if bars were required to meet certain standards of ventilation before being granted a smoking license.
That kind of ventilation would involve smokers standing inside a giant vaccuum to be 100% effective.
Either way, my example wasn't to be used in the general case so I don't know why you used it like that. It was a direct refutation of what Jason was saying (that is, you have to go to bars in order to get utterly fucking blasted and that you have no right not desiring to inhale or smell like smoke).
And for the record, I'm not a huge fan of bans either - but as Monkeysee says, it's a filthy habit and I don't really care if a few people lose out to the benefit of much more when it's a matter of passive and direct health (minority are smokers, majority aren't - go figure). And I say that as a person who would -very occasionally- enjoy a cigar.
ercles on 18/7/2006 at 02:15
Well like I said before, you don't need a giant vacuum cleaner to make a difference. I've noticed that places with a high ceiling and no carpet, as well as proper ventilation rarely smell at all, and whilst I do notice afterwards that I stink like cigarettes, it still goes a long way to having an enjoyable night out.
Just thinking about the public smoking ban, it does seem a bit rough, but areas such as playgrounds should definately have a no smoking within like 10 metres rule. It always drives me crazy to parents smoking whilst pushing a pram along, or sitting with their kids.
Scots Taffer on 18/7/2006 at 02:20
Pleasing the minorities should not come at the potential health risk of the majority.
Obviously the vaccuum cleaner comment was a bit exagerated, however who determines what is ventilation enough?
This bullshit about inconclusive research is really a bit of a red herring. Honestly, we know that smoking causes damage to those who are doing it so obviously exposure to second-hand smoke is detrimental on some level. If it's detrimental on some level, however slight, then it should be a subject for criticism and evaluation.
It's not about RESTRICTING PEOPLE'S RIGHTS. They can still smoke in their homes and in a lot of public areas. This is a double edged sword, since if banning smoking is restricting people's rights to enjoy cigarettes on a night out then not banning smoking is restricting people's rights to enjoy a smoke-free night without the danger of inhaling second hand smoke and smelling like shit the next day (as well as getting headaches, breathing difficulties etc).
Just as Stitch pointed out asthmatics are in the minority, so are goddamn smokers which is why when they fag a place up, the majority of people have a problem with it.
This is more my reason for not getting bothered by a smoking ban, than my support of it. I think it's a situation not answered easily and probably not with an outright ban but as Monkeysee said, I can't get myself that bothered by the existance ban for several reasons.
