|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 07/25/2005 : 09:33:42 [Permalink]
|
Dave W.
I never said smokers wouldn't be inconvenienced. I expressed a lack of sympathy for the position that inconveniencing smokers is a good reason to block smoking bans in bars.
I certainly haven't meant to express “scorn”. My earlier sarcasm was genuinely meant to be playful.
The proof that there is an overwhelming number of people who feel inconvenienced by smoking in bars is the sheer number of people supporting the bans all over the country. (Er, like me.) A small minority aided by the government is not thrusting this policy on the majority, though some would like to paint it that way. (No, I'm not saying anyone on this forum is doing that.) Take Philly – the ban is probably going to happen here because it has the majority of public support. It's being publicly debated, and lots of different interests are weighing in. Seeing as smoking isn't being banned outright, no one's civil rights are being trampled on. That's democracy.
You talked earlier about this whole thing being about “personal preferences”. I have argued that it is about more than that (public health), but regardless, what about nudists? Nudists are often passionate about the idea that public nudity should be legal. But the majority disagrees, and thus we have public policy that outlaws public nudity, except in private homes, and special businesses. How is that any different than this?
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 10:22:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Dave W.
I never said smokers wouldn't be inconvenienced. I expressed a lack of sympathy for the position that inconveniencing smokers is a good reason to block smoking bans in bars.
No, you attempted to make an argument that all groups would be inconvenienced to some extent or other, so inconvenience by itself isn't a good reason to not ban smoking in bars. H. pointed out, however, that one group of people is inconvenienced more than any other group: people who smoke in bars, 100% of whom will be put out by a ban, whereas the number of non-smokers inconvenienced by smoking is less than 100%, and from my own personal experience, the number of bar staff who are inconvenienced by smoking is far less than 50%.quote:
I certainly haven't meant to express “scorn”. My earlier sarcasm was genuinely meant to be playful.
It wasn't your sarcasm I referred to as scornful, it was your later use of "cry babies" which seemed to express scorn for even expressing an idea. If it, also, was supposed to be playful, I apologize.quote:
The proof that there is an overwhelming number of people who feel inconvenienced by smoking in bars is the sheer number of people supporting the bans all over the country. (Er, like me.)
I doubt you speak for all those people, and I highly doubt they all feel that they are inconvenienced by smoking in bars, as I'd lay a fat wager that many of them wouldn't go to a bar (as opposed to a restaurant) whether smoking was permitted or not. Instead, they support the ban in consideration for your actor friends' health, regardless of how serious that threat may be (which is another thread, altogether).quote:
A small minority aided by the government is not thrusting this policy on the majority, though some would like to paint it that way. (No, I'm not saying anyone on this forum is doing that.) Take Philly – the ban is probably going to happen here because it has the majority of public support. It's being publicly debated, and lots of different interests are weighing in. Seeing as smoking isn't being banned outright, no one's civil rights are being trampled on. That's democracy.
No, no one's civil rights are being trampled because the Constitution doesn't outline a right to smoke anywhere one wants.quote:
You talked earlier about this whole thing being about “personal preferences”.
I did?quote:
I have argued that it is about more than that (public health), but regardless, what about nudists? Nudists are often passionate about the idea that public nudity should be legal. But the majority disagrees, and thus we have public policy that outlaws public nudity, except in private homes, and special businesses. How is that any different than this?
It's not, except for the health aspects (and some nudists would argue that nud |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 11:03:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
The hypothetical about popcorn only addresses one aspect of my argument in favor of smoking bans. It also totally neglects the fact that nicotene is chemically far more addictive than the fat and salt in popcorn. The FDA acknowledges that drugs are a potential social menace, and as such, it regulates them.
>> As for second hand smoke, if the owner of the bar does not wish to breath it in, he can ban smoking from his own bar.
That fails to address my comment about people who have little choice over whether to work in a bar or not. For students, artists and other in certain areas of the country (usually big cities - which are exactly the type of places doing these smoking bans) the service industry is the only way to make enough money to pay for rent, and most money is in bartending. My brother and his girlfriend are bartenders in NYC, and there is pretty much noting else they can do to pay their rent as young actors. As such, they are extremely grateful for the smoking bans there.
A few things.
1) People have choices in where they work. Saying that some people have little choice in where they work is a false dilemma. There are always options.
2) A smoking ban proposed in Chicago has been harping on the injury second hand smoke causes. Alledged injury due to a study which is scientifically invalid. (Challenged in court no less and defeated.) There are no studies of second hand smoke which are reliable nor scientifically valid.
3) As the activity affects a small number of people adversely, why propose a ban at all? Smokers object to being forced out of places they are familiar with due to faulty studies and small groups bitching to government. Why not have a perfume ban? Some of those trigger astma attacks.
4) Smoking in bars does not violate the worker's rights as they knew full well that the bar allowed smoking when they signed on. Quite frankly, the smokers were there first.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 12:44:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
I have argued that it is about more than that (public health), but regardless, what about nudists? Nudists are often passionate about the idea that public nudity should be legal. But the majority disagrees, and thus we have public policy that outlaws public nudity, except in private homes, and special businesses. How is that any different than this?
Can you please point out the time in this country when nudity in public bars was universally accepted? Comparing banning smoking to banning an activity that was never allowed in the first place is a broken analogy.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 14:39:07 [Permalink]
|
Boy, I have to tell you. Sometimes Michelle and I drive to Mexico for a weekend. One of our greatest pleasures there is that we get to drink coffee and smoke after a meal in a restaurant without people looking at us as though we are spreading plague.
It's been a while since the anti-smoking Nazi's, Most of whom will probably never set foot in a bar, banned smoking from those too. Not satisfied with non-smoking sections, they had to get rid of all smoking in establishments they will never go to. (I would be amazed if it could be shown to me that most of those who sought to protect me from the evils of other people's smoke in bars, actually did so to protect themselves.
Try to tell one of these freaking anti-second hand smoke Nazi's that the science they refer to as proof of the danger of second hand smoke is suspect and they react as they might react to any filthy vermin the size of a human being spitting on them. They have been brainwashed by the media. There is not one iota of critical thinking going on here…
Now, I can understand not wanting to smell other peoples smoke and such. And I do not believe they should have to. But when they pass laws to prevent smoking in places they mostly wouldn't be caught dead in, I draw the line. I would like to see all of those looking out for my well being, in areas that have no real affect on their lives, covered with honey and buried up to their necks in a fire ant hill with a baggy filled with cigarette smoke placed over their heads…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 15:34:23 [Permalink]
|
Dave. W – very sorry that I confused Humbert's response about “personal preferences” with your responses. I will be more careful next time.
However, you have also misquoted me. Humbert was also the one who brought the term “cry babies” into the conversation, and you quoted it as if I said it first.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 15:40:24 [Permalink]
|
Humbert:
"Can you please point out the time in this country when nudity in public bars was universally accepted? Comparing banning smoking to banning an activity that was never allowed in the first place is a broken analogy."
The most common form of marriage in all of human history is polygamy, including one man and several women. Does that mean we should switch to that system because it is has the most established past? Modern laws and social norms are based on the times. Heck, maybe Dave W. is right and eventually public nudity will not be banned in public places at all. Already in some parts of the country, women are now allowed to roam the streets topless, where they weren't allowed before. (Like in Columbus, Ohio.)
The argument that something should be allowed because it always has been, or that something should not be allowed because it never has been, is not valid. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 15:53:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Dave. W – very sorry that I confused Humbert's response about “personal preferences” with your responses. I will be more careful next time.
Well, that bit didn't actually bother me, and I was fully prepared to read about how a recent post of mine, which did use the phrase "personal preferences" was relevant to this thread - I was just surprised to think that it could be.quote:
However, you have also misquoted me. Humbert was also the one who brought the term “cry babies” into the conversation, and you quoted it as if I said it first.
If I may be so bold as to quote what I felt was scornful:I didn't refer to smokers as cry babies. I referred to people who call smokers "the most inconvenienced demographic" cry babies. That you took away a couple of words of your earlier posts didn't change my appraisal at the time, that the above quote was quite scornful of anyone who brought up the massive inconvenience of smoking bans upon smokers.
But the above is truly meaningless stuff. I'm much more interested in your responses - if any - to the more meaty points in my last two posts. Who said what first isn't terribly compelling. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 16:04:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Humbert:
The argument that something should be allowed because it always has been, or that something should not be allowed because it never has been, is not valid.
Well, then good thing that was never my argument. You wanted to know how the ban against nudity was "any different" than a ban against smoking. The difference is one was never allowed, the other was always allowed. Sure, times change, but why use an example that has never been permitted at any period? Just to make a faulty comparison that would derive a knee-jerk emotional response? It would appear so.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/25/2005 16:05:41 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 16:07:55 [Permalink]
|
Valiant Dancer,
We are probably going to have to agree to disagree on the choice of employment issue. I suggest you chat with a social worker who works with the homeless and unemployed and see what their opinion on this matter is. And just to avoid any semantics arguments, a hypothetical: a guy has a choice between a dollar a day or twenty bucks a day accompanied by a hard beating. If you consider that a choice of employment, I agree with you.
Hard scientific evidence that secondhand smoke in the workplace is dangerous:
In 1992 the Journal of the American Medical Association published a review of the evidence available from epidemiological and other studies regarding the relationship between secondhand smoke and heart disease and estimated that passive smoking was responsible for 35,000 to 40,000 deaths per year in the United States in the early 1980's. Non-smokers living with smokers have about a 25 per cent increase in risk of death from heart attack and are also more likely to suffer a stroke, and some research suggests that risks to nonsmokers may be even greater than this estimate.
One recent study in the [i}British Medical Journal [/i]found that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of heart disease among non-smokers by as much as 60 percent. Secondhand smoke is especially risky for children and babies and can cause low birth weight babies, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), bronchitis and pneumonia, and middle ear infections.
In 1993, the EPA issued a report estimating that 3,000 lung cancer related deaths in the United State were caused by secondhand smoke every year.
Tobacco industry lobbyists were the first to attack the legitimacy of the secondhand smoke studies. In 2002, a group fo 29 experts from 12 countries convened by the Monographs Programme of the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization, and reviewed all significant published evidence related to tobacco smoking and cancer. It concluded its evalucation of the risks of exposure to secondhand smoke, and classified it as being “carcinogenic to humans”.
Some studies have called the carcinogenic effects of secondhand smoke “weak”, and that term has been used largely by the tobacco industry as an argument against the dangers of secondhand smoke. However, the term “weak” in those studies referred to how the risks of secondhand smoking was weak IN COMPARISON TO actually smoking. In Addition, while most experts now conclude that moderate and occasional exposure to secondhand smoke presents only a low cancer and other (particularly respitory) risks to humans, the risk becomes significant when an individual WORKS of LIVES in an environment where cigarette smoke is prevalent.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/25/2005 17:13:44 |
|
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 16:26:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Try to tell one of these freaking anti-second hand smoke Nazi's that the science they refer to as proof of the danger of second hand smoke is suspect and they react as they might react to any filthy vermin the size of a human being spitting on them. They have been brainwashed by the media. There is not one iota of critical thinking going on here…
I have no idea about the scope of the research done. But as a former asthmatic, 2nd hand smoke was a real threat to me. Nothing ever set off an attack like 2nd hand smoke. While I seem to have got over my asthma, smoke still seems to trigger a reaction.
Does 2nd hand smoke pose a significant danger to absolutely everybody? I doubt it. Does it pose a significant danger to some people? In some specific instances, yes.
Yep, I'm totally biased. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 16:26:58 [Permalink]
|
Someone asked for evidence that smoking bans help people quit:
A 1992 document from Phillip Morris, 'Impact of Workplace Restrictions on Consumption and Incidence', summarises the results of its long-running research into the effects of a ban. "Total prohibition of smoking in the workplace strongly affects industry volume. Smokers facing these restrictions consume 11 per cent to 15 per cent less than average and quit at a rate that is 84 per cent higher than average."
And to add a personal story to this aspect of the argument: a group of buddies of mine from home meet at this bar every Monday night. They have for 6 years now. They all have dinner, a beer or two (or ice tea for those preferring to stay totally sober) and chat for a couple hours. Of these 12 people, 4 smoke, and all 4 of those want to quit and are always trying new ways to quit or cut down.
Anyway, one of the smokers got pregnant. She didn't want the kid exposed to secondhand smoke, so she avoided the bar for most of the 9 months, and she quit smoking. She returned after the baby was born, with the intention of staying clean. Within 3 months she had fallen off the wagen, entirely because hanging around the other 3 smokers broke her will power. (I should mention that 2 of those other 3 admit that they often go for weeks not smoking at all, except at the bar.) If she lived in NYC, or Columbus, or some other city where smoking in bars is banned, it is reasonable to predict that she wouldn't have started smoking again.
The strong cultural corrolation between smoking and drinking in a bar - which causes so many people to cringe at the idea of banning smoking in bars - is exactly what contributes to the difficulty of quitting. People think that hanging out in a bar just won't be the same, won't be as satisfying or fun without the smoking. I thought so too, but when I went to my old bar in Columbus after the ban, I found that it smelled better, looked better, was full of customers, and I enjoyed myself without the cravings or guilty associated with smoking, because it just wasn't an option. Instead, I enjoyed the time with my friends and could actually taste my drink.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/25/2005 17:10:20 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 16:42:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Anyway, one of the smokers got pregnant. She didn't want the kid exposed to secondhand smoke, so she avoided the bar for most of the 9 months, and she quit smoking. She returned after the baby was born, with the intention of staying clean. Within 3 months she had fallen off the wagen, entirely because hanging around the other 3 smokers broke her will power. If she lived in NYC, or Columbus, or some other city where smoking in bars is banned, it is reasonable to predict that she wouldn't have started smoking again.
And if your friend was an alcoholic, I'm sure hanging out with people who drank would have a similar effect.
Should we ban public drinking for the sake of those addicted to drink? No? Then why are you even bringing this argument up?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 17:04:01 [Permalink]
|
Wow – the conversation has turned toward attacking the anti-smoker “Nazis” as “small groups bitching to government” and “most of whom will probably never set foot in a bar”. I'd love to see these claims actually backed up.
According to Wikipedia, the “anti-smokers” movement is mostly made up of ex-smokers and health experts. The ex-smokers want the bans because they want to live in a society that socially discourages smoking because that strengthens their willpower. In other words, yes, they want public policy that protects them from themselves, as someone else put it. And according to a study done by the NYC Health Department, 7 out of 10 NYC smokers want to quit. So yeah, we're doing most smokers a favor by making it easier to quit.
And if the health experts aren't motivated by science, then what?
I mean, I get the motivations of those who are against the bans – regular smokers don't want to be inconvenienced, and tobacco industry doesn't want to lose money. If the anti-smoking movement is indeed “brainwashed by the media”, exactly what was the media's motivation in brainwashing people to oppose smoking?
I am a twenty-something liberal urbanite, a cultural pluralist, I strongly support the decriminalization of drugs, I also support social tolerance for numerous alternative lifestyles, I enjoy smoking occasionally (mostly cigars), and I love to go to quiet bars to chill out with friends. My husband supports it because he has allergies and smoking really bothers his eyes and sinuses – and he likes to go to bars too. We're not exactly a Bible-banging moralists who wants to make the world conform to our way of living. So I think labeling us “Nazis” is harsh, to say the least.
And all my friends who support the bar bans are young people who frequent bars. My husband's best friend and his wife are both non-smokers who live in Chicago, and both were sorely bummed out that the bar bans there didn't get enough public support, because they often avoid jazz bars they like because they just can't take the smoky atmosphere.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
