State-wide smoking ban (HB 670/SB 355) (Jefferson: apartment, college, moving)

[austinrebel]

Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere

I'm tired of people minimizing the damage that secondhand smoke does to people. How dare anyone relegate smoking to a "pet peeve"? Why should I be forced to inhale poisons and carcinogens because of someone else's self-destructive addiction?

When someone drinks a beer at a bar, it's arguably not terrible good for them. However, their drinking that beer does not impact MY health at all. Nor does their consumption of red meat, caffeine, etc.

However, if someone were to say "Hi, I'd like to start a fire using logs soaked in poisons and toxins right next to you, so the smoke blows all around you", no rational person would say yes. That's exactly what smoking is.

1) Restaurants are NOT private places. Their activities, menu, and practices are regulated already.

2) The state has the right to regulate matters of public health. Individual freedom does not give other people the right to endanger the health and well-being of those around them. Hence the reason driving while intoxicated is illegal, as is firing a weapon with city limits, etc.

3) I shouldn't have to wonder if going into a restaurant, a regulated public place, might be dangerous to my health.


No one is outlawing smoking. They are making it illegal to endanger others in a public place.

And I'm tired of people exaggerating the dangers that second hand smoke does to them. There a lot of studies that found no danger with second hand smoke at all. A couple of links have be posted in this thread. Even with those that do find harm the chances of getting a serious illness from it are next to nothing.

You want second hand smoke to be deadly in order to justify these bans. But the truth is, it is harmless or nearly so. It may annoy a lot of people, but it's not mustard gas.

I remember when people smoked everywhere. And people weren't having these pseudo-coughing fits because somebody smoked 10 feet away. If SHS was as bad as they say, anyone born before 1970 would be long dead.

If it's so deadly, then how often do you go to a doctor for an x-ray on your lungs for a cancer check? Once a week? Once a month? I don't hear doctors saying anyone who has ever been exposed to SHS in their lifetimes should rush to the hospital for a checkup.

[austinrebel]

"When someone drinks a beer at a bar, it's arguably not terrible good for them. However, their drinking that beer does not impact MY health at all."

Alcohol use affects us all. It wasn't banned nationwide because it does society so much good.

-----------------------

Secondhand Effects of Alcohol Use


The cost of alcohol consumption can be far greater than the price of a drink. Alcohol use is responsible for increased violence and crime, decreased worker productivity, higher health insurance premiums, and deaths and injuries from drinking-driving crashes. Drinkers alone do not pay these costs—everyone splits the bill. Problem: The consequences of alcohol use affect everyone—even those who drink rarely or not at all.
• There is a strong association between alcohol consumption and physical assault;1 (http://www.marininstitute.org/alcohol_industry/secondhand_impacts.htm#_edn1 - broken link) communities that have a higher density of liquor stores and bars experience more violent assaults.2 (http://www.marininstitute.org/alcohol_industry/secondhand_impacts.htm#_edn2 - broken link)
• Every year in the U.S., approximately 40 percent of fatal traffic crashes involve alcohol. Estimates from 2000 show that the societal costs of driving under the influence come to $1 per drink, with people other than the drinking driver paying 60 percent of those costs.3 (http://www.marininstitute.org/alcohol_industry/secondhand_impacts.htm#_edn3 - broken link)
• Alcohol costs the U.S. economy an estimated $134 billion per year in lost productivity and earnings due to alcohol-related illness, premature death, and crime.4 (http://www.marininstitute.org/alcohol_industry/secondhand_impacts.htm#_edn4 - broken link)
• Less than half of the economic burden of alcohol abuse falls on those who drink alcohol—government bears nearly 40 percent of the burden, with private insurance and victims also losing billions of dollars.5 (http://www.marininstitute.org/alcohol_industry/secondhand_impacts.htm#_edn5 - broken link)
Solution: Because the costs of alcohol use have an impact on everyone in a community, the most effective solutions often involve community change. Educating the public about alcohol's secondhand effects and implementing environmental prevention strategies can reduce those costs.
• To effectively reduce the secondhand effects of alcohol, communities can change the environment that fosters problematic alcohol use. Environmental prevention is a proven method that focuses on four areas that shape community alcohol problems: community norms, access and availability, media messages, and policy and enforcement.6 (http://www.marininstitute.org/alcohol_industry/secondhand_impacts.htm#_edn6 - broken link)
• Because drinkers are responsive to price changes, increasing taxes on alcohol reduces consumption and decreases problems associated with alcohol abuse.7 (http://www.marininstitute.org/alcohol_industry/secondhand_impacts.htm#_edn7 - broken link)
• Due to the relationship between alcohol availability and crime, regulating outlet density and restricting sales can reduce availability, decrease crim rates, and improve communities.8 (http://www.marininstitute.org/alcohol_industry/secondhand_impacts.htm#_edn8 - broken link)
• Carefully measuring alcohol's impact is a key to change. Collecting and reporting data—including statistics, stories, and pictures—can help motivate community members and policy makers.9 (http://www.marininstitute.org/alcohol_industry/secondhand_impacts.htm#_edn9 - broken link) 10 (http://www.marininstitute.org/alcohol_industry/secondhand_impacts.htm#_edn10 - broken link)
1. Scott, Kathryn D., John Schafer, and Thomas K. Greenfield. (1999) “The role of alcohol in physical assault perpetration and victimization,” Journal of Studies of Alcohol , 60(4), 528-36.
2. Scribner, R. A., D. MacKinnon, and J. Dwyer. (1995) “The risk of assaultive violence and alcohol availability in Los Angeles County,” American Journal of Public Health 3(85), 335-340.
3. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. “Impaired Driving in the United States.” (2000)
4. Harwood, H. (2000) Updating Estimates of the Economic Costs of Alcohol Abuse in the United States: Estimates, Update Methods, and Data. Report prepared by The Lewin Group for the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
5. National Institute on Drug Abuse. “The Economic Costs of Alcohol and Drug Abuse in the United States – 1992.” (1998)
6. The Marin Institute. (2005) “Solutions to Community Alcohol Problems: A Roadmap for Environmental Prevention.”
7. Cook, Philip and Michael Moore (2002). “The Economics of Alcohol Abuse and Alcohol Control Policies.” Health Affairs 21(2), 120-133.
8. Gyimah-Brempong, Kwabena. (2001) “Alcohol availability and crime: Evidence from census tract data.” Southern Economic Journal 60, 2-21.
9. National Crime Prevention Council. “Key Learnings & Recommendations from The Alcohol Policy Conference 2000” (2000).
10. Coleman, Victor. (1997) “Understanding Retail Alcohol Availability: A Community Action Handbook.” Santa Clara Valley Health and Hospital Systems: Department of Alcohol and Drug Services, Prevention Division.

[austinrebel]

I hate smokers/smoking because:

A. The smell of smoke is icky and yucky, it makes my hair and clothes stink and I hate walking into a bar/restaurant where people are smoking. So rather than take advantage of the free market and go somewhere that is voluntarily smoke free, I would rather use the power of the state to impose my personal preference on my fellow citizens.

B. My beloved ___________ (choose one: husband, wife, father, mother, brother, sister, nephew, niece, uncle, aunt, maid, dog, cat, goldfish, gay lover) died from ________(choose one: cancer, heart disease, emphysema, car crash, train wreck, terrorist attack, sting ray) because of their smoking.

C. I smoked for _____ (# of years) and now I am ________ (choose one: sick, dead, born again, enlightened, ashamed of myself) and want to share my experience with others.

D. The Big Tobacco companies are lying scumbags and must pay! (you’re not coming down off the mountain with the tablets there)

E. I represent Big Pharmaceutical interests that benefit from the anti-smoking movement because it increases the sales of our Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) products.

F. I am a deeply caring individual in the mold of Mother Theresa and I am speaking out due to my benevolent, philanthropic, altruistic concern about the health of my fellow man.

G. I am a research scientist and grant junky, and if I don’t tow the party line my grant money will disappear.

H. I’m just a garden variety Fascist and Totalitarian and get a ______ (choose one: cheap thrill, natural high, warm fuzzy feeling, big O) by imposing my will on other people.

I. I am a retard who believes in bogus studies, junk science, the Easter Bunny and the Toothfairy. I fear that because I walked into a bar on Spring Break in 1987, and was exposed to Second Hand Smoke I now suffer from ______(choose one: AIDS, Herpes, Athlete’s Foot, Jock Itch, male pattern baldness, or genital warts)

J. I am a disgruntled, prissy and angry employee of a ______(choose one: bar, restaurant, club, casino) who can't leave the job because I am a _______(choose one: slave, indentured servant, sweatshop laborer, illegal immigrant) and had no idea there was smoking going on in the place before I took the job.

K. An elected public serpent, serving as a _____ (choose one: State Assemblywoman, Senator, Freeholder, city councilman, mayor) and I have failed miserably in my job when trying to tackle really tough problems like _____ (choose one: gang violence, income taxes, property taxes, crime, corruption), so I will support a smoking ban based on the talking points and literature that "L" has given me and claim that I have actually accomplished something to help my constituents.

L. A professional anti-tobacco activist who makes $450,000 per year. MY GOAL IS TO REDUCE SMOKING RATES FROM 25% TO BELOW 10%. KICKING THEM OUT OF THEIR FAVORITE BAR AND RESTAURANT IS JUST A SMALL STEP TO COERCE THEM TO QUIT. I DON'T EVEN BELIEVE THE SHS NONSENSE MYSELF! Don't you dare try to ban cigarettes, if you do I will have to go back to my previous job of ______(choose one: prostitute, drug dealer, pimp, state assemblyman, mayor) where I won't make nearly as much money and the bank will foreclose on my seaside villa and repo my _______(choose one: Lexus, Mercedes, BMW, Hummer, Infiniti, Acura, Volvo, Bentley). I take advantage of the prejudices of categories A-K above to accomplish my goal.

M. I don’t fit any of the above categories, I just like to argue with people.

[CptnRn]

YouTube - Cowboy Anti-Smoking Ad PSA - Shocking Truth about Smoking!

[DerekTant]

I must say that I love the opposing points of view. It is rare that I get to witness such, well-written, well-thought-out arguments. No one's mind is being changed, though. If you don't have my view on the subject, I doubt I can write anything to change your mind. Nor will I change mine.

There has been an argument put forth: Restaurants cannot sell tainted, poisonous food, so they should not allow cigarette smoke.

Well, poisoning somebody is assault, but smoking cigarettes is not illegal.

Another argument: No reasonable would willingly inhale a burning poison-soaked log, and cigarettes are the same thing.

There is not a smoker in America who is not fully aware of the health risks of cigarettes. Yet, millions still smoke. And, many people start everyday. Cigarette smoking is risky hobby, people know it, and it still happens. Reasonable still smoke, risks be damned.

Your witness...

[austinrebel]

Originally Posted by DerekTant

I must say that I love the opposing points of view. It is rare that I get to witness such, well-written, well-thought-out arguments. No one's mind is being changed, though. If you don't have my view on the subject, I doubt I can write anything to change your mind. Nor will I change mine.

There has been an argument put forth: Restaurants cannot sell tainted, poisonous food, so they should not allow cigarette smoke.

Well, poisoning somebody is assault, but smoking cigarettes is not illegal.

Another argument: No reasonable would willingly inhale a burning poison-soaked log, and cigarettes are the same thing.

There is not a smoker in America who is not fully aware of the health risks of cigarettes. Yet, millions still smoke. And, many people start everyday. Cigarette smoking is risky hobby, people know it, and it still happens. Reasonable still smoke, risks be damned.

Your witness...

Well, the solution to that dilemma, according to certain circles, is to apply Social Engineering to eliminate smoking gradually: Raise cigarette prices so that they are too expensive to purchase, demonize smoking, and eliminate places where it's permissible to smoke to the point where there's no place left to smoke at all.

It works.

[Smiled]

That's funny. Smoking is so last millenium. Heck, I did it for 25 years. One day I got sick of sending those folks my hard-earned money, and started chewing nicotine gum instead. I did that for two years before I finally bit the bullet.

As long as you don't exhale so I have to smell it or breathe it, have at it. But we seem to have a one-sided, somewhat simple discussion going here:

You have the right to do something, as long as you don't affect MY rights. Sound reasonable? So - go ahead and smoke - just don't infringe on my right to breathe clean air that doesn't stink.

I'll leave the health part out of it - it's just good manners not to smoke around non-smokers. After all, you wouldn't appreciate it if I stood next to you and constantly passed gas. Right?

[TexasHorseLady]

And you have a right to not be exposed to cigarette smoke, as long as you don't interfere with someone else's right to smoke, so simply don't patronize those establishments where smoking is allowed, and DO patronize those establishments where it is. No need to legislate it out of existence for everyone just because you don't like it, at all, now, is there?

Unless, of course, the real satisfaction comes from stopping people from doing thing that you don't want to do.

[DerekTant]

Do I detect a state-wide farting ban?

Smiled, I think everyone here believes in good manners. No one disputes that smoking in public is bad. However, the definition of the word "public" is under debate. I believe the "public" to courthouses, libraries, hospitals, etc. Others believe that "public" should be extended to include privately-owned bars & restaurants. I believe that bars & restaurants are private businesses and that the owner should decide whether or not to allow smoking on the premises. Should a customer not want to be around smoking, they don't have to enter the bar or restaurant that allows smoking.

Cigarettes are a health nightmare, I know. Personally, if I owned a business, I would NOT allow smoking. However, I would like to take comfort in the knowledge that the decision to ban smoking in my establishment lies with me, and not with the State.

[ObamaRama]

"The need of the many outweigh the need of the few or the one"

"Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not."