|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
 Posted - 07/25/2005 : 17:11:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox...
As for thing about leaving bars alone - why? I would like to go to my neighborhood bar with my husband every weekend, but as it is we only go about once a month or less because the smoke bothers his eyes, makes both of our hair and clothes smell like shit, and tempts my cravings.
I'm somewhat baffled by your choosing to go to that bar, knowing full well that people smoke there, and then having the nerve to complain about it as if it were anyone's fault but your own. So your clothes smell bad. So you get tempted to smoke. Who made the choice about where to spend your leisure time? Seems like a clearer thinking person would go somewhere else... or stay home... or open their own bar.
That you would support legislation to accommodate your unwillingness to be responsible for your own decisions offends a lot of people, probably in many cases more than they're offended by smokers in public places. Maybe it would be a good idea to levy a fine against someone who makes a choice with known unpleasant consequences, then proceeds to complain about those consequences. There'd be some incentive to do more critical thinking ahead of making a decision and less complaining after. 
|
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 17:25:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
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.
Now see, that's just wrong. Smoke is intergral to the atmosphere of any good jazz club. Take that away and you might as well just sit home listening to records.
|
"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 : 17:30:05 [Permalink]
|
GeeMack,
Lots of people on this discussion seem to be acting like legislation is inherently wrong, and should only be a last resort in extreme circumstances. Are you also offended by bans of smoking on airplanes? After all, you don't have to fly. What, your job makes you fly? Well, you don't have to take that job. What about public intoxication? Or prohibition of alcohol consumption in certain establishments? Or regulations on gambling?
If there are any hard-core libertarians in this discussion, we might as well give up debating right now, 'cause certainly we fundamentally disagree about what legislation should be used for. But anyone who is OK with restrictions on alcohol, gambling, and YES even public nudity, or who supports any other sort of government restrictions or taking tax dollars to pay for social goods, such as prevention or public education, then there is no *fundamental* reason why smoking bans in bars should be considered particularly "offensive" public policy. Not to say that you'd necessarily support this particular restriction on smoking, but please, don't act like I'm some sort of fascist for supporting it.
I am perfectly willing to be responsible for my own decisions, and how dare you accuse me of otherwise. I expressed a preference for what I think is socially beneficial public policy, that happens to also benefit me personally. That is not shirking my personal responsibility. For example, an ex-gang member in prison might advocate tax dollars going toward inner city prevention programs, in the hopes that they might steer future generations clear of bad choices they made. That doens't mean they don't accept responsiblity for their own actions.
Let's not pretend that environment has nothing to do with behavior when mountains of evidence prove otherwise. |
"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 17:42:25 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 17:38:32 [Permalink]
|
Humbert,
That's funny, cause those friends from Chicago - one of their favorite jazz singers demands that the entire bar be smoke free the nights that he sings because the smoke bothers his sinuses, and he worries about it affecting his voice. I guess he must suck as a musician, huh? But the venues bend over backwards to accomodate him, cause he always fills the house.
But seriously, I get what you're saying, but c'mon. At least admit that those feelings you have of "that's just wrong" are based on cultural conditioning. At some point, every social norm was a new idea, and there were conservatives who opposed change. And then change happens, and people get used to it, and life goes on.
In the grand scheme of things, no big whoop. If this smoking ban stuff really backfires and causes more social harm than good (which is perfectly possible, I'm not afraid to admit that. I just think it's worth the try) then things will change back. |
"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 17:39:28 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 18:06:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Humbert,
That's funny, cause those friends from Chicago - one of their favorite jazz singers demands that the entire bar be smoke free the nights that he sings because the smoke bothers his sinuses, and he worries about it affecting his voice. I guess he must suck as a musician, huh? But the venues bend over backwards to accomodate him, cause he always fills the house.
Ugh. Yes, that sounds like a prima donna to me, not a jazz singer.
quote:
But seriously, I get what you're saying, but c'mon. At least admit that those feelings you have of "that's just wrong" are based on cultural conditioning.
I admit it is entirely based on cutural conditioning, but that doesn't mean I want to see the destruction of that culture. (Yes, there is a smoking culture. Could you imagine Gandalf not puffing on a pipe?)
quote:
At some point, every social norm was a new idea, and there were conservatives who opposed change. And then change happens, and people get used to it, and life goes on.
In the grand scheme of things, no big whoop. If this smoking ban stuff really backfires and causes more social harm than good (which is perfectly possible, I'm not afraid to admit that. I just think it's worth the try) then things will change back.
I think you're missing the point. It wouldn't matter if the smoking bans did great good. The point is you shouldn't have the right to tell private business owners how they should run their establishments. Why should they have to take part in your little social engineering project?
The burning question remains: Why should the government step in and legistlate a smoking ban across all bars when there are obviously alternative bars already available to you as a non-smoking patron? Why legislate a ban when there are alternative ways to pressure bar owners to accomodate non-smokers? All I've seen you present is your personal desires and then a bunch of non-sequitors in support of your position. Next you'll be telling us they should ban smoking in bars "for the children."
How about you just let adults do what they want to do and keep the government out of it? I mean, it's not like cigarette smoke is just pumped into the air by machines. It's there because smokers gather in bars, freely and by choice. Why should you be allowed to kick them out? Because you think you know what's best for them? I'm sorry, but that's not a position I can support on any level.
|
"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 19:13:09 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 18:31:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
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."
What I asked for was hard data that a bar smoking ban has ever enabled anyone to quit. That request is quite different from a workplace smoking ban. You're the one asserting that banning smoking in bars will help people quit.quote:
And to add a personal story to this aspect of the argument...
Which doesn't address the actual issue. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 18:38:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
marfknox:
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.
Oh, I don't think it's a small group. I think the majority of the people are convinced that second hand smoke is dangerous in any amount. Even smokers. Never mind that the EPA report that started this whole anti smoking drive was based on a textbook case of junk science in action. The media ate it up and the anti smoking zealots took it and ran with it and are still running with it. Other studies may or may not be problematic. (I can find sources that work in both directions. Depending on my bias, I could make a case either way.) I do not believe that there has yet been a study that we can look at that and say “there it is, the smoking gun.” So, based on what appears to be mostly a bias on the part of those against smoking, (and no, I am not saying smoking is not unhealthy) I am being discriminated against to the point where, in California, it may soon be illegal to smoke within 20 feet of a non-smoker. First it was restaurants, then bars, then open air stadiums, then parks, then the beach and soon it will be every other fucking place. And all of these bans are based on some possibly unsteady science and some demonstrably bad science. And you wonder why I characterize those of you who push for these bans as anti-smoking Nazis? You will not stop at Bars…
quote:
marfknox:
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.
I see. Well, nothing more religious than a recent convert, as they say. As for health experts, none of them are pro-smoking. Smoking is bad for you. Duh…
quote:
marfknox:
And if the health experts aren't motivated by science, then what?
Smoking is bad for your health. No one is arguing that point. The question is how harmful is second hand smoke? It is legal to smoke still...
quote:
marfknox:
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?
They believed the EPA report too. They ran with it. And look, while I will not defend the tobacco industry, I can tell you that the EPA report was hogwash. We don't need the “industry” to tell us that. Just because they are lying scumbags does not mean there is not some real disagreement over the results of some of the studies by scientists who are not in the industries pocket, as you imply.
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 18:41:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
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 you want to decriminalize drugs - a public policy which attempts to protect the addicts from themselves?
I'm having trouble reconciling these two apparently contradictory positions.quote:
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?
Hypothetically speaking...
What's the motivation of the anti-vaccination crowd? Or the anti-fluoridators? Or, even more appropriate, what's the motivation of those who oppose gay marriage? Or were horrified that the sodomy laws would be overturned?
While I can't say it's the case with smoking, there is always someone out there who thinks they know better than you what is good for you, and is willing to go out of their way to impose their will upon you. Their motiviations range from money, to power, to fear, and on. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 19:04:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
But anyone who is OK with restrictions on alcohol, gambling, and YES even public nudity, or who supports any other sort of government restrictions or taking tax dollars to pay for social goods, such as prevention or public education, then there is no *fundamental* reason why smoking bans in bars should be considered particularly "offensive" public policy.
The only public-policy efforts I can think of which attempted to protect people from themselves have failed. If banning smoking in bars is an attempt to protect people from themselves, it seems likely that it will fail, also. In that sense, such bans are "offensive" because they represent a waste of legislative time and effort - taxpayer money going up in smoke.
On the other hand, if these public policies are being enacted to protect the non-smokers in the bars, that's quite different. And that is precisely the point I've been trying to make, marfknox: there are some banning arguments which are better than others. Pro-ban people such as yourself should quit using the crappy arguments, because you're shooting yourself in the foot.quote:
I am perfectly willing to be responsible for my own decisions, and how dare you accuse me of otherwise. I expressed a preference for what I think is socially beneficial public policy, that happens to also benefit me personally. That is not shirking my personal responsibility. For example, an ex-gang member in prison might advocate tax dollars going toward inner city prevention programs, in the hopes that they might steer future generations clear of bad choices they made. That doens't mean they don't accept responsiblity for their own actions.
Another in a string of bad analogies, as the inmate advocate will not himself benefit from the prevention programs. Neither are such prevention programs attempts to protect kids from themselves. Instead, they are attempts to protect kids from other kids and adults.
You, on the other hand, will benefit directly if that which you advocate comes to pass, because it will help to protect you from yourself. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 20:36:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox...
I am perfectly willing to be responsible for my own decisions, and how dare you accuse me of otherwise. I expressed a preference for what I think is socially beneficial public policy, that happens to also benefit me personally. That is not shirking my personal responsibility.
Here's how I dare accuse you otherwise...quote:
Originally posted by marfknox...
As for thing about leaving bars alone - why? I would like to go to my neighborhood bar with my husband every weekend, but as it is we only go about once a month or less because the smoke bothers his eyes, makes both of our hair and clothes smell like shit, and tempts my cravings.
So are you not willing to take responsibility for the choices you make about how to spend your leisure time? Or are you just plain unaware that when you go to a bar where people smoke you might pick up some of the smell and your cravings might get tempted?quote:
Originally posted by me...
You acknowledge that it is acceptable to smoke, or allow other people to smoke, on one's private property. So how about a prohibition on smoking only in bars that are publicly owned? If I own a bar where I allow smoking, and if my profits are acceptable to me even without your patronage, why would it be any of your business at all to insist I make my bar a more pleasant place for you?
Let's say I own a bar, a generally pleasant bar, except that I hire loud rock-n-roll bands, or even strippers as entertainment. Let's say you don't like loud rock-n-roll music or watching women disrobe. How would you handle this situation? (a) Just don't come to my bar? (b) Insist that my bar should be a comfortable place for you to attend, and support legislation that would prevent me providing these types of entertainment?
Those were not rhetorical questions by the way. Normally I try not to be condescending, but you do act like you're missing something here, so let me help you out. The intelligent answer to your dilemma is this: If you don't like to go to bars where people smoke, don't go to bars where people smoke.
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 22:48:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I already answered that. (Employees – particular those who don't have much practical choice of where to work - at such establishments not being exposed to second-hand smoke, additional social facilitation for those trying to quit.)
Hmm, I could work as a waitress right now (I actually do quite well at it) or I can work at Target (where I am currently employed). Guess my feet (not my lungs) won on that one. I am aware of the fallacies with the studies you mention later.
quote:
I already gave a rather descriptive example of excessive smoking (pack a day, withdrawal symptoms, cravings every couple hours.)
Hmm, considering two years ago I smoked two or more packs a day, I would not consider a single pack excessive. In fact, I was quite encouraged when I realized I had dropped to a pack a day. BTW, I quit about 5 weeks ago. I occasionally have strong cravings, here's the odd thing, it isn't when I smell a cigarette or drink, even at a bar. Go figure.
quote:
What does how states spend the money on cigarette taxes have to do with banning smoking in bars? Certainly that's another interesting issue, but it's not really what we're debating here.
Well, I thought it went rather well toward benefitting society to encourage and support individuals in quitting smoking. Additionally, this was used as a point of contention with the idea 'smoking is a health hazard,' yet non-smokers are willing to take advantage of another individuals addiction as a source of funding for something from which the addicted will not benefit. Perhaps this can be considered another issue.
quote:
Yes, chemical addiction and withdrawal symptoms makes quitting very difficulty for many people (as I, again, already dealt with), but if it were not a choice, then exactly how did I quit? You're using the words “choice” and “need” differently than I did in a previous post, and that isn't an argument against what I was saying. Just difference of semantics.
Hmm, I was pointing out the 'need' from the point of view of the smoker. The cravings are a physical need. Bravo for quitting, but I am not naive enough to think that quitting will be as easy for everyone as it was for me. I know that had I tried quitting prior to this past month, I would not have succeeded without a lot of assistance, assistance I couldn't afford. You are not every smoker who wants desperately to quit but finds it exceeds their ability to do so on their own.
quote:
I definitely agree with you about the dependency on cigarettes being psychological as well as chemical. That's one of the reasons I strongly support smoking bans in bars. A lot of people want to quit, but can't keep their will power in a social environment. Thus, they have to often choose between giving in to their addiction and not hanging out in their neighborhood bar with their buddies.
Thank you for reconizing the psychological component to the addiction. But, who are you to regulate anothers smoking, despite a strong desire to quit? Would it not be better to provid |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 00:42:32 [Permalink]
|
As it is almost 4AM, I am too tired to respond to all these latest posts... but I will.
But some stuff I couldn't resist, in response to Trish, Kil and Humbert:
Trish said: "So, it's a cultural movement, so was burning bras, but we still wear the stupid things for lack of better alternative to keeping control."
Burning bars was not a cultural movement, no more than banning smoking in bars is, by itself, a cultural movement. Burning bars was one of numerous trends that characterized the cultural movement of women's lib. And I'm pretty sure that took.
Kil drew a parallel between anti-gays and anti-smokers and did a cute parody of me as a Bible thumping moralist. I really shouldn't have to point out the reasons that's stupid comparison, but here's' a few while I'm still conscious:
- being gay isn't a public health crisis, or even bad for your health (Yes, I know, EPA study, junk science, I get to that tomorrow *eyelids heavy*)
- the people who want public policy that regulates and restricts smoking are motivated by the belief that objective science supports the claim that secondhand smoke is dangerous. Anti-gays, on the other hand, base their opposition to homosexuality on purely subjective religion.
- homosexuality is a naturally occurring orientation, and not a choice. Smoking is an addiction, and technically a choice. (Yes, I know Trish, for some people due to psychological combined with environmental circumstances, one might say it is not a choice any longer, I get it.)
- homosexual orientation and practice is part of a person's lifelong identity and lifestyle. Smoking is recreational drug use. (Then again, perhaps you want to jump on Humbert's smoking culture bandwagon. I'm not saying smoking isn't an essential element of certain subcultures, but what the hell, while we're at it, there's a crack-addict culture, too.)
|
"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 07/26/2005 01:01:58 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 01:09:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
(Then again, perhaps you want to jump on Humbert's smoking culture bandwagon. I'm not saying smoking isn't an essential element of certain subcultures, but what the hell, while we're at it, there's a crack-addict culture, too.)
It's becoming extremely difficult to continue to take you seriously.
|
"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 07/26/2005 01:10:21 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 01:42:52 [Permalink]
|
And then, there's this:
quote:
New Jersey Legislator Wants to Ban Smoking in Your Car
NJ Proposes Banning Smoking While Driving
Jul 24, 2005
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) Ashtrays have been disappearing in cars like fins on Cadillacs, and so could smoking while driving in New Jersey, under a measure introduced in the Legislature.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 06:07:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
And then, there's this:
quote:
New Jersey Legislator Wants to Ban Smoking in Your Car
NJ Proposes Banning Smoking While Driving
Jul 24, 2005
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) Ashtrays have been disappearing in cars like fins on Cadillacs, and so could smoking while driving in New Jersey, under a measure introduced in the Legislature.
Everyone who's seen The Big Lebowski would know it's dangerous to drive while smoking. So I'm all for it. Same goes for talking in mobile phones while driving. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
