Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I love anti-smokers. They really are some entertaining people.
I will attempt to have a go at some of the claims and arguments made by the anti-smokers in this thread:
"When a smoker is smoking a cigarette, smoke is going into my body whether I like it or not. It doesn't matter if it is a health risk or not, it is a violation of my rights."
This is actually a pretty legitimate argument, but the problem is that it is not extended to other forms of intrusive matter such as car exhaust, barbecue smoke, perfume, and so on. Now some anti-smokers (there is one in particular who does it) will say, "We're not talking about BBQ smoke or car exhaust, we're talking about cigarette smoke". True, but arguments do not exist in a vacuum and there has to be a certain amount of consistency and you simply cannot logically claim that environmental tobacco smoke is a massive violation of your rights when there are so many other things that do the exact some thing as environmental tobacco smoke. Either they are also violations of your rights or you are gerrymandering the definitions to suit your agenda.
"Secondhand smoke is a proven health hazard."
The only clearly proven health hazard of secondhand smoke relates to asthmatics (which all smoke is an irritant to them) and those allergic to tobacco smoke. That's about it. The studies themselves are actually rather foggy, with most studies (over 80%) having a margin of error wide enough to neither rule out an increase in risk nor a decrease in risk. It also stands at about 60% of secondhand smoke studies showing an increase in risk and about 40% showing a decrease in risk and nobody is quite sure how many have show neither effect since studies that show no effects are usually never published.
"What about places like Helena where there was a 40% decrease in heart attacks after the smoking ban?"
Yes, there was a decrease in heart attacks after the smoking bans in Helena and several other small towns after the smoking bans, but those are statistical flukes being waved about from people like Dr. Stanton Glantz and others who have made their careers out of promoting smoking bans. The fact is that the vast majority of cities and towns that have a smoking ban have not experienced such dramatic drops in heart attacks and it is always small towns with populations less than 50,000 that are used to make such claims. The people furthering such statistics are being fundamentally dishonest and are cherry picking evidence to further their agenda. If secondhand smoke had such a dramatic effect on health or if smoking bans had such a dramatic effect on reducing heart attacks, you would've seen it literally hundreds of times over and it would be unmistakable, but that clearly isn't the case. So they look for only the places where it furthers their political goals and personal prejudices and ignore the vast amount of contradictory evidence.
"Smokers believe that there is a vast conspiracy against them."
Not really. Merely stating that there is more than meets the eye to the anti-smoking movement and that what they are doing is a long term strategy isn't really conspiracy theory for several reasons:
1) It is not a secret. You can clearly see that a number of anti-smoking organizations have recieved funding the pharmaceutical industry and from organizations closely tied to the pharmaceutical industry (the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for one) and there are a number of papers out there from various activists, academics, doctors, and politicians about the strategy of "denormalization" which is about making smoking and smokers socially unacceptable and methods which could be used. Just because it is paraded about doesn't exactly make it a secret.
2) Different anti-smoking activists and organizations have different goals and motives and they vary in their methods, motives, and intensity. The anti-tobacco movement isn't one whole entity and there is a fair bit of variation out there. You have lawyers like John Banzhaf that have motives that appear to based entirely on how much money they could make and to see if they can set precedent. You have pharmaceutical companies which make a lot of money off of smoking cession productions and have donated to a number of anti-smoking organizations, you have a lot of public health officials who in the 1970s decided to adopt the strategy of tackling unhealthy behavior such as alcoholism, obesity, and smoking, and you have a lot of people who simply do not like smoke, smoking, and smokers. The main thing they have in common is that they want to restrict smoking. There may be overlap and they effectively use each other for their own ends, but it is not some complex conspiracy and most of the time there isn't even really much thought to it.
A civil servant who is big on "public health" makes and add that compares smoking in public to farting a lot, it serves both his goal and it helps get the people who don't like smoking on his side. Nothing really complex or shadowy, it's really the way all politics works. Public health professionals know that people who do not like smoke will quote what they say, even if they do not really know anything about the evidence. After all, Camorra was stating that there is no safe level of secondhand smoke and even passing exposure is deadly, but the truth is that the report did not even support those claims. Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University (who another poster already mention) pointed that out a number of times, that nowhere in the report does it provide evidence for such a claim. The Surgeon General's statement wasn't meant as science, it was merely a political move with his position and title to lend it the illusion of scientific integrity.
If you want to step outside for a smoke, then that's your right. Just like it's my right to breathe clean air inside places.
Have some consideration for others please.
If you want to step outside for a smoke, then that's your right. Just like it's my right to breathe clean air inside places.
Have some consideration for others please.
I wouldn't have a problem with that if it not for two things:
1) You don't own the establishment, so forcing the owner to cater to your tastes (as opposed to encouraging him or her by voting with your feet and wallet) is inconsiderate.
2) Those same people who complain about smoking inside places before a ban often end up complaining about smoking outside of the place after the ban. You might not be one of those people, but it seems that many ban supporters seem to be of the "give them an inch and they take a mile" creed.
I wouldn't have a problem with that if it not for two things:
1) You don't own the establishment, so forcing the owner to cater to your tastes (as opposed to encouraging him or her by voting with your feet and wallet) is inconsiderate.
2) Those same people who complain about smoking inside places before a ban often end up complaining about smoking outside of the place after the ban. You might not be one of those people, but it seems that many ban supporters seem to be of the "give them an inch and they take a mile" creed.
1) But the owner wouldn't even have a business if it weren't for the customers. They've done just fine ever since; employees don't get sick as often, it attracts new and more customers, and less worry about burning the place down.
2) No I am not one of those....as I said if you want to step outside to light up, that's up to you.
All in all I know there's a difference of opinion on the board, but I've stated my views on the positives of smoking bans.
1) But the owner wouldn't even have a business if it weren't for the customers. They've done just fine ever since; employees don't get sick as often, it attracts new and more customers, and less worry about burning the place down.
But shouldn't that decision be theirs, not yours? They're the ones that put up the capital to start the business and put in the time to build/grow/run it - shouldn't they have the option of whether or not to allow smoking in their own place of business?
I wouldn't have a problem with that if it not for two things:
1) You don't own the establishment, so forcing the owner to cater to your tastes (as opposed to encouraging him or her by voting with your feet and wallet) is inconsiderate.
Can we please, please stop this reckless assumption that we, the supporters of the bill, are "forcing" owners to cater to our tastes? For the love of God, I don't understand how you people can mix up a simple health regulation with freedom of business. For example, if the gov't said you can't run your car in your garage while the garage door is down and the car door is down, would you say the gov't is forcing them to abide by their rules because it is on private property?
2) Those same people who complain about smoking inside places before a ban often end up complaining about smoking outside of the place after the ban. You might not be one of those people, but it seems that many ban supporters seem to be of the "give them an inch and they take a mile" creed.
The people who are complaining about the ban the most are libertarians and pro-smoking advocates who can't tell the difference between a health regulation and freedom of business.
But shouldn't that decision be theirs, not yours? They're the ones that put up the capital to start the business and put in the time to build/grow/run it - shouldn't they have the option of whether or not to allow smoking in their own place of business?
Yeah, they should also be allowed to make child labor laws too, huh? And they should also set minimum wage as well. They should also be allowed to hire illegal immigrant workers. They should also be allowed to fire employees without paying them. And they should be allowed to practice many other unfair ways of doing business because it is their business not the gov't's.
Seriously, the gov't steps in when business owners make unfair rules because business owners make unfair rules all the freakin' time. I refuse to believe business owners should be given a free hand, since I have met many crooked and shiesty owners in my lifetime.
Yeah, they should also be allowed to make child labor laws too, huh? And they should also set minimum wage as well. They should also be allowed to hire illegal immigrant workers. They should also be allowed to fire employees without paying them. And they should be allowed to practice many other unfair ways of doing business because it is their business not the gov't's.
Apples and oranges. These things are illegal, no matter where they take place. Smoking is a legal activity.
Apples and oranges. These things are illegal, no matter where they take place. Smoking is a legal activity.
Next.
There, you've got it! Smoking is a legal activity. I knew you could figure this one out. Good job.
Smoking is still legal, just not inside public places. Now all you have to do is follow the rules and you'll be fine.
Next.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
