Would You Be In Favor of a Statewide Public Smoking Ban? (Harrisburg: buy, high school)

[susquehannock]

Originally Posted by TERMINOLOGY

Smokers need to step up here. You are getting creamed. Come on smokers show us whats inside of you.

How can they? After reading this thread, I thought they all died.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by TERMINOLOGY

Why should the public be disqualified from deciding public issues?

I think public health issues should be decided on the preponderance of scientific evidence.

[Jgar]

I am a former smoker by one year this month. I do not like the smell of smoke on peoples clothing as well, but I would never impose these feelings on someone who does smoke. I understand how it feels. Some people do it, and hate that they can't quit. Others enjoy it. Everybody deserves to enjoy their rights. So, how do we do that? How do we please everybody? Restaurants for smokers and restaurants for non smokers? If a restaurant allows smoking, then they should have adequate ventilation to remove smoke from the air. Smoke does smell bad, however, the odor does dissipate after awhile. Whats the big deal? Why are there always "holier than thow" people? I hate the smell of liquor on peoples breath. I hate the smell of garlic on peoples breath. Am I going to complain till drinking alcolholic beverages, and garlic is removed from food? What's next? Breast feeding babies in public places? C'mon people.
What can we do that is reasonably fair for all. I invite suggestions.

Originally Posted by SWB

As we enter 2008 I know of a lot of people, including my partner, who are making resolutions to kick the dirty habit we know as cigarette smoking. It seems like we find a new disease that cigarettes cause on an annual basis, and many folks are realizing that with the higher cost of gasoline, shaky housing market, slowly-rising wages, etc. that cigarettes are becoming an unaffordable luxury item. I myself have never smoked and am mildly allergic; my eyes water and I often cough when I'm in restaurants and bars where smoking is permitted.

In 2007 Scranton followed the examples of Erie and Allegheny County in establishing its own renegade public smoking ban that was eventually overturned when it was declared unconstitutional because the state itself has yet to enact such legislation. Philadelphia, to my knowledge, is the only city in the Keystone State where such a ban against smoking in public establishments has been "grandfathered" in.

I myself can't understand why so many establishments, especially in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area, permit smoking when their ventiliation is so poor to begin with. I refuse to patronize a restaurant, bar, diner, coffee shop, etc. where you are subjected to a thick scent of smoke as soon as you enter, and I can't imagine how many employees who work in this sort of environment eventually succumb to emphysema, lung cancer, throat cancer, asthma, etc. on account of excessive second-hand exposure.

I originally supported the idea of just having well-partitioned segregated areas for smokers and non-smokers, but I've noticed in many local establishments that such areas simply don't work, as the smoky scent tends to find its way into the non-smoking areas as well. I can understand smokers defending their "right to smoke," but what about me, an avid runner who is mildly allergic to smoke, to protect my lungs? Does either side truly have the right to impose their beliefs upon the other? Can nonsmokers continually brutalize smokers? Can smokers continually say "if you don't like it too bad" to nonsmokers?

I have a feeling that in 2008 or 2009 PA will be the next state to adopt a statewide public smoking ban, but there is indeed WIDESPREAD opposition to this proposal. When Scranton had its short-lived smoking ban city businesses were nearly empty as most city residents are apparently smokers who voiced their disgust by patronizing suburban establishments, where the ban wasn't in place. This is quite contrary to Philadelphia, where a lot of nonsmoking suburbanites flood into the city to eat in a smoke-free atmosphere.

What do others think? I'm 100% for the ban, as I'm tired of being told "dont' go to places where there's smoke" when seemingly 75% of my area's establishments permit smoking. Local hospitals for crying out loud are just finally banning smoking on their premises to outraged battle cries of employees, showcasing just how archaic and socially-regressive Pennsylvania is if folks in our state don't even see the need to ban smoking around the sick, elderly, infirmed, newborns, etc. In that case folks can argue that they'll just smoke outside and then come in, but nonsmokers can smell smokers from a mile away---long after they've littered by throwing their cigarette butts onto the pavement (another pet peeve of mine as an individual who used to have to clean those up at my former employer). I refuse to kiss my partner for the rest of the day after he smokes; why would I want to come into contact with an ashtray? Similarly, I've been appalled in some local hospitals to smell lingering smoke on the clothing of some RNs. Do they not realize how unpleasant that is for their patients?

[Friendly_Guy]

Jgar,

I agree. Allow a safe level of secondhand smoke in public places. Wait, what's that? My last post?


What is a safe level of secondhand smoke?
There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Studies have shown that even low levels of secondhand smoke exposure can be harmful. The only way to fully protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure is to completely eliminate smoking in indoor spaces. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot completely eliminate secondhand smoke exposure (4).

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by susquehannock

Sorry to read that. Were all the cases caused by the same source?

My relative that died of lung cancer smoked. My neighbor that died of emphysema smoked. My husband's uncle that dies of emphysema smoked. I have cared for many patients with lung cancer who have died. Virtually all smoked. I have never cared for anyone with any type of acquired lung disease (cancer, emphysema, COPD) who didn't smoke!

Originally Posted by Friendly_Guy

Jgar,

I agree. Allow a safe level of secondhand smoke in public places. Wait, what's that? My last post?


What is a safe level of secondhand smoke?
There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Studies have shown that even low levels of secondhand smoke exposure can be harmful. The only way to fully protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure is to completely eliminate smoking in indoor spaces. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot completely eliminate secondhand smoke exposure (4).

Yes, let's allow that level.

[debischlabach]

I am a Pittsburgh native, but currently live in NE Ohio. We just passed the statewide no smoking law last year and it has been WONDERFUL!! We are considering moving back to PA and I really hope that something gets passed soon, because I don't want to have to deal with the nasty smoke again.

[SteelCityRising]

One thing I notice about not only the public smoking issue but many other "touchy" subjects as well is the free tossing of the word "right."

"I have the right to smoke wherever I please."
"I have the right to not be exposed to smoke."

"I have the right to marry my same-sex partner."
"I have the right to not have my marriage marginalized by gays."

"I have the right to receive an abortion."
"I have the right to not have my mother kill me."

"I have the right to buy a Hummer and McMansion."
"I have the right to demand energy conservation."

"I have the right to do myself harm."
"I have the right to not be brought down with you."

What exactly IS a "right?" In my philosophy class last semester at King's we spent approximately one week discussing this very same topic. Dictionary.com defines a "right" as "that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal gurantees, moral principles, etc." Does smoking fit this criteria?

It is my belief that there is neither the "right" to smoke, nor is there the "right" to NOT be exposed to others' smoke. As such either side complaining about their "rights" being infringed upon is moot in my opinion. After all, driving a vehicle is a "privilege", not a "right." The same rationale applies here.

After re-evaluating this matter more carefully, I must agree with another woman further up this thread who proposed selling a fixed number of "smoking licenses" to bars/restaurants who wished to apply for it, similar to liquor licenses. That seems to be the only fair way to do this. Nationwide smoking is becoming increasingly unpopular, but in PA we buck the trend somewhat of having a relatively high concentration of those who smoke. I would have no trouble with perhaps 30% of establishments in the state purchasing licenses to permit smoking while the other 70% did not. I think having designated smoking/non-smoking areas in ALL establishments would be ideal, but I've been in many structures that were simply too cramped and too poorly-ventilated to make this work efficiently, at which point I walked out for the sake of my own health. Smokers continually tell non-smokers "if you don't like it, then don't go there." That's easier said than done in an area that seems to favor smokers over non-smokers. Why should I have my pool of restaurants/bars limited severely simply because in the current unregulated state so few business owners care about their non-smoking patrons' and employees' health?

That "smoking license" idea was awesome. It would be a fair compromise, in my opinion. The only thing I know for sure is that the system in its current state needs a major overhaul---the status quo is insufficient and has been for a number of years.

As far as establishment owners worrying about losing business from smoking patrons is concerned, that must be a unique, case-by-case basis. For example, I hear about many suburbanites who LOVE heading into Philadelphia for dining/nightlife and don't let the smoking ban there deter them one bit. When increasingly-progressive Scranton passed its own short-lived, renegade (and illegal) public smoking ban last year, the results were DISASTROUS! City restaurants and bars were nearly empty while you couldn't find a parking spot at suburban businesses. I suppose this shows that Philadelphians care more about supporting their local businesses than they do about smoking whereas Scranton the dirty habit takes precedence (unfortunately).

[Friendly_Guy]

Originally Posted by SWB

One thing I notice about not only the public smoking issue but many other "touchy" subjects as well is the free tossing of the word "right."
----------------------------------------------------

What exactly IS a "right?" In my philosophy class last semester at King's we spent approximately one week discussing this very same topic. Dictionary.com defines a "right" as "that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal gurantees, moral principles, etc." Does smoking fit this criteria?

Was it BF Skinner who wrote On Freedom? As I recall, there was a sentence within the book that states:

You have the right to swing your fist; right up to the tip of my nose.

Thus, a "right" ceases to exist once it infringes upon MY rights; MY personal space. A smoker has no more RIGHT to create an unhealthy environment that I would have to walk into a restaurant with a 'boom box' cranking whatever music I happen to enjoy. Can you actually imagine an environment where that was permissible?

There is an old 'joke' I have seen called "the product of my pleasure." it goes something like this:

You enjoy cigarettes.
The product of your pleasure is cigarette smoke.
It gets in my hair, my eyes, and my clothes.
All of this occurs without my permission.

I enjoy a beer from time to time.
The product of my pleasure is urine.
How would you feel if I urinated in your hair, your eyes, and on your clothes?"

[TERMINOLOGY]

But in a previous post you said that you thought that the issue should not be voted on in a referendum. I agree with your statement that the issue should be decided on that preponderance of scientific evidence.

But if the public should not decide via referendum, who should decide?

[TERMINOLOGY]

Originally Posted by susquehannock

How can they? After reading this thread, I thought they all died.

Good Point. And I guess that is the point!