Hostile non-smokers

  • Thread starter Bratticus
  • Start date
  • #151
101
0
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 41,059 people died in traffic crashes in 2007 in the United States (latest figures available), including an estimated 12,998 people who died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes. Drunk driving fatalities accounted for 32% of all traffic deaths last year, that is, on average someone is killed in an alcohol-impaired driving crash every 40 minutes in the U.S. (Source: NHTSA/FARS, 2008)

Only 41,059 deaths? Something I found interesting is according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 443,000 deaths were because of smoking http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/health/attrdeaths/index.htm

Just to keep things in perspective, also keep in mind they make laws about driving drunk, but it's still okay in non-driving legal situations (non-minors, etc). They didn't have to have prohibition to do that. Something to consider, what if most of the public doesn't want secondhand smoke in work related/public non-smoking areas?
 
  • #152
252
1
Is this a dog pile? We are talking about smoking. Are we going to pit all the evils of man against each other here or try to resolve one at a time?
 
  • #153
russ_watters
Mentor
21,197
8,011
According to the CDC, alcohol-related crashes in the U.S. cost approximately 51 billion dollars every year and the Office for Victims of Crimes estimates that 30 percent of Americans will be involved in an alcohol-related accident at some point in their lifetime.

Why is no one climbing the barricades shouting about banning alcohol?

Oh wait a minute... we already had that, Prohibition...
That's a fase parallel since drunk driving is illegal.
 
  • #154
1,495
27
The more the government attempts to dictate how people should live, the bigger the mess they make of it

Hey we agree on something! :biggrin:

Not saying that prohibition of smoking is a good idea. It is a highly addictive substance. I'd rather see legislation prohibiting the tobacco industry from adding chemicals to increase the addictive nature of cigarettes. I agree with the AMA that Nicotine should be reduced in cigarettes.

http://faculty.unlv.edu/sajjad/Prev%20Med%20AMA%20Paper.pdf" [Broken]

Frustrated
with the lack of progress, opinion leaders and policy makers
have begun to seriously discuss the value of a more drastic
measure—reducing the main ingredient in cigarettes that
induces people to smoke: nicotine.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #155
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
223
84
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 41,059 people died in traffic crashes in 2007 in the United States (latest figures available), including an estimated 12,998 people who died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes. Drunk driving fatalities accounted for 32% of all traffic deaths last year, that is, on average someone is killed in an alcohol-impaired driving crash every 40 minutes in the U.S. (Source: NHTSA/FARS, 2008)

According to the CDC, alcohol-related crashes in the U.S. cost approximately 51 billion dollars every year and the Office for Victims of Crimes estimates that 30 percent of Americans will be involved in an alcohol-related accident at some point in their lifetime.

Why is no one climbing the barricades shouting about banning alcohol?

Oh wait a minute... we already had that, Prohibition...

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1596.html

The rise of gangsterism

The Prohibition era of the 1920s gave rise to the organized crime syndicate in the United States. Federal efforts to enforce prohibition, including raids on speakeasies, were countered by well-organized bootlegging operations with national and international connections.

The more the government attempts to dictate how people should live, the bigger the mess they make of it

Which would cause the worst problems?

Eliminating prohibition didn't eliminate gangsterism. They found other products to sell.

I don't think they had very good traffic statistics with details about alcohol related accidents back in the 20's, but it is a possibility that making access to alcohol illegal would reduce drunk driving incidents more than it would increase the bad effects of gangsterism.

Once again, arguments make a presumption that any bad effect of a "cure" eliminates that tactic from being used (not just by you, by the way - it's pretty much the norm).

Banning tobacco isn't automatically a bad idea. I just don't think there's much logical analysis of the issue one way or the other.

The arguments seem to run "I have a right to a smoke free environment"/"I have a right to smoke if I want to".

(And I have a problem with these homeowners associations, in any event. I'd never move into a home where the neighbors are going to dictate how I live. I'm shocked any of them ever hold up in court. My favorite was during our drought - some homeowners had a choice of being fined by the city for watering their grass too much or being fined by their homeowner's association for not watering their grass enough to keep their lawns lush and green.)
 
  • #156
negitron
Science Advisor
844
2
Is this a dog pile? We are talking about smoking. Are we going to pit all the evils of man against each other here or try to resolve one at a time?

I dunno what the heck this is. Teach me to, y'know, sleep.
 
  • #157
Bratticus
My initial post was not about smoking, it was about hostility. I had an severaloccasions observed people being harangued and berated for purchasing a pack of cigarettes, including some pretty colorful name calling. I can truly say, that I have never seen a person being confronted with hostility for not purchasing cigarettes.

Since this has evolved into smoking vs not smoking, I will add my 2 cents.

I do not care if people smoke or not. I do understand people's wish for a smoke free environment. I understand the wish to breathe clean air (finding that phenomenon in this country is going to be a challenge).

This country is supposedly founded on equal rights for all, but do we practise what we preach? Imho, no we do not. If we want to treat people equally, we should have places for smokers as well as non-smokers. We could reach a compromise by having bars for smokers and bars for non-smokers (no children permitted in a smoking environment). Most likely we will end up with discrimination lawsuits from non-smokers being denied employment in a bar for smokers. And if they win, the bar has to ban smoking to accomodate those people... back to square one.

A smokefree workplace... great. But if you really believe in equal rights, there should be a breakroom for smokers, well ventilated and well away from the non-smokers.

And please do not remind me of firehazards again. I am well aware that open flames and lit tobacco products pose a fire threat. One would hope reponsible adults make sure that they properly extinguish their cigarettes, cigars or pipes.

If ones employees fall asleep while smoking... hey, come on now, where they really hired to sleep on the job?

I have a problem with hostility, I am wary of one group imposing their views on another group. It reminds me more of "I have the power, you will obey or else" than true health concerns.

When goverment officials take it upon themselves to pass a law forbidding people to engage in a legal activity in the privacy of their own home... I have a major problem with that. I for one would not grant that much power to any official. It is a lot easier to grant power than to rewoke it. Once you allow your elected official to dictate the way you live your live, you are progressing from a democracy to tyranny.

Government should govern the country. Reasonable adults should be able to reach a compromise that respects everyones rights thru productive discussion, and not go out of their way to impose their lifestyle on the rest of the population.

What was done in the past, is done. It is history, and unless someone invented time travel while I was not looking, you can not change that.

I doubt we will have a nationwide ban on tobacco products in the near future for the simple reason that the government does not have the funds to implement that. They loss of revenue from tobacco products, income taxes from people employed in the tobacco industry and their suppliers, distributers and related industry would be to high to be absorbed. Also the cost of supporting all those people losing their job via unemployment benefits and welfare would be more that the government can afford.

However, if it is that important to eliminate smoking, I propose to levy a tax on all the supportes of a smoking ban to offset the cost, including the full income of the people that lost their job or source of income until they can find a job at equal pay.

Smokers right now pay for anti smoking advertisement and who knows what else, whereas non-smokers do not add a single penny to that pot.

If you wish to label that as hostile, so be it.

Keep in mind, hostilty creates hostility. That is the only thing it is good for, nothing else. It solves nothing.

And, Imho, government needs to stay out of peoples personal lives. They were elected to govern the country, not to tell you what to do in the privacy of your own home, so long as you do not break any laws.
 
  • #158
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
223
84
My initial post was not about smoking, it was about hostility. I had an severaloccasions observed people being harangued and berated for purchasing a pack of cigarettes, including some pretty colorful name calling. I can truly say, that I have never seen a person being confronted with hostility for not purchasing cigarettes.

If we're going to limit the topic strictly to hostility, then I think smokers should be forced to ride bicycles to work. Maybe the improved fitness will offset some of the bad effects of smoking.

Plus, Evo doesn't like bicycle riders, either. :rofl:
 
  • #159
negitron
Science Advisor
844
2
Both a privelege and a right can be suspended entirely or regulated. A convicted felon can't own a firearm in most states in spite of the 2nd Amendment. A convicted felon can't vote in some states (an example that you, yourself, pointed out, except you preferred to consider it a restriction vs. complete suspension in this case).

Your argument isn't even consistent with itself, let alone correct.

You know what? You're absolutely right; that was some weak sauce on my part. I'm embarassed to have put it out there and I thank you for rightfully tearing it to shreds. Usually, I think an argument over pretty well before I post it; this is why.

I still say smoking is a right, however, if for different reasons.
 
  • #160
430
3
This country is supposedly founded on equal rights for all, but do we practise what we preach? Imho, no we do not. If we want to treat people equally, we should have places for smokers as well as non-smokers. We could reach a compromise by having bars for smokers and bars for non-smokers (no children permitted in a smoking environment). Most likely we will end up with discrimination lawsuits from non-smokers being denied employment in a bar for smokers. And if they win, the bar has to ban smoking to accomodate those people... back to square one.
Suppose it would legally be accepted to create smoking and non-smoking bars. I think this would discriminate unfairly (both towards smokers and non-smokers). Consider a group of people consisting of smokers and non-smokers. What bar should they go to? If they go to the non-smoking bar the smokers will be denied the right to smoke (and I assume it's a right since we created bars for them). If on the other hand they go to the smoking bar the non-smokers will be denied their right to a smoke-free environment. Of course one could make their argument that they could simply split up, but this would force an (IMO unhealthy) partitioning of social circles into non-smoker social circles and smoker social circles. I think such segregation is bad for society.

A smokefree workplace... great. But if you really believe in equal rights, there should be a breakroom for smokers, well ventilated and well away from the non-smokers.
Would you mind expanding a bit on this argument because I don't follow. As I see it you basically argue that we have a group of people (smokers) who want to perform an activity that requires a room separate from other people to be performed without infringing on others rights. Now you seem to believe that just because this group want a room, then they should have one. However I personally like to light fires, and I feel pretty addicted to it. My superior has informed me that he'd like me to quit practicing this habit in the office. However my company doesn't have a room in which I can light fires and if I take a trip to the nearest forest to do so occasionally they insist that I check out and I won't be paid during this break. Now assuming you don't think every company should have a fire-lighting room, do you think I'm being discriminated against? And if you don't, then how is this any different from the case of smokers?

I have a problem with hostility, I am wary of one group imposing their views on another group. It reminds me more of "I have the power, you will obey or else" than true health concerns.
Isn't this the basic idea of any government? It sets forth some rules (both legal, and social) and we are free to do whatever we please as long as we do not violate those rules. The only reason we cannot use illegal drugs like cannabis is that the government (those with the power) tells us that we should obey or else (we'll be fined and possibly imprisoned). Whether we agree doesn't matter. Universal agreement is hard when dealing with >1million people so sometimes we need to force our ideas upon others.

Smokers right now pay for anti smoking advertisement and who knows what else, whereas non-smokers do not add a single penny to that pot.
Where do you get that idea? Sure some of the money they spend on smoking will go to the government who may wish to use these on anti-smoking campaigns. However who is to say my taxes don't go towards that as well. If I pay more taxes than you wouldn't it be equally correct to say that I'm funding anti-smoking campaigns?

And, Imho, government needs to stay out of peoples personal lives. They were elected to govern the country, not to tell you what to do in the privacy of your own home, so long as you do not break any laws.
The GOVERNment is supposed to govern. One of the things government is supposed to do is determine what our rights are, and to create legislature to prevent those rights from being violated.

Some argue that a smoke-free environment is a right, so if no law in effect prevents this from being violated adequately then a new one should be formed for this purpose. I believe allowing smoking in your own home can infringe on my rights since if my neighbor smoke it may well affect my environment. I spend most of my time in a room on the second floor with my windows open due to the temperature, but my room is almost right above my neighbor's garden so my room can smell quite badly of smoke when my neighbors chose to smoke in the garden (I don't know whether it has any health effects at this range, but it's extremely unpleasant). Apart from that my segregation argument also applies here as I can't enter a lot of people's houses if I refuse to be in a smoke-filled environment, and a lot of people will refuse coming to my house if I refuse smoking.
 
  • #161
180
0
Don't worry, the Medical Czar will decide what is best.
 
  • #162
Jasongreat
Suppose it would legally be accepted to create smoking and non-smoking bars. I think this would discriminate unfairly (both towards smokers and non-smokers). Consider a group of people consisting of smokers and non-smokers. What bar should they go to? If they go to the non-smoking bar the smokers will be denied the right to smoke (and I assume it's a right since we created bars for them). If on the other hand they go to the smoking bar the non-smokers will be denied their right to a smoke-free environment. Of course one could make their argument that they could simply split up, but this would force an (IMO unhealthy) partitioning of social circles into non-smoker social circles and smoker social circles. I think such segregation is bad for society.


QUOTE]

The only difference is this would be voluntary segregation, what we have now is involuntary segregation(forced).


Another point you make(sorry I accidently erased that quote) is that government defines our rights, that is patently false, the people of the seperate states gave the federal government the rights they have. We were born with all our rights as freemen(women). The government can only take rights, they cannot make them.
That is what made america different, all other governments believe that thing work the way you say, that rights come from the top down.
The constitution is not a statement of what we can do, it a statement of what the federal government can do, if its not enumerated they cant do it.(its left to the states or the people)
 
  • #163
101
0
That's a fase parallel since drunk driving is illegal.

Your mind thinks like mine.
 
  • #164
1,495
27
Government should govern the country. Reasonable adults should be able to reach a compromise that respects everyones rights thru productive discussion, and not go out of their way to impose their lifestyle on the rest of the population.
For how many (100s of) years did smokers continue to smoke in nearly any public location where they were not expressly prohibited by the owner? Restaurants, bars, casinos, buses, airplanes, trains, sports complexes, bowling alleys, fast food joints, workplaces, motels, hotels, and so on, all with complete disregard of the feelings of any nonsmokers present? This was even the case in past few years before the laws passed when the health issues associated with smoking and second hand smoke were known. The only way to stop them was to legislate limitations. Even then they complained about stopping, saying that the laws are unfair.

It should not fall on nonsmokers to have to request that smokers (persons under the influence of one of the most powerfully addictive drugs known: nicotine) stop their smoking, or go somewhere else to continue. Even when a nonsmoker did get brave enough to ask, often as not the response would be. "Make me. It's a free country."

What was done in the past, is done. It is history, and unless someone invented time travel while I was not looking, you can not change that.
History shows us that the addictive power of nicotine makes many smokers (please note this is not to mean all smokers) blind to common courtesy when it is not dictated by law. Also, please note that even courteous smokers may light-up if there are obviously other smokers (not so courteous) who have already been smoking in a room.
 
  • #165
negitron
Science Advisor
844
2
Suppose it would legally be accepted to create smoking and non-smoking bars. I think this would discriminate unfairly (both towards smokers and non-smokers). Consider a group of people consisting of smokers and non-smokers. What bar should they go to? If they go to the non-smoking bar the smokers will be denied the right to smoke (and I assume it's a right since we created bars for them). If on the other hand they go to the smoking bar the non-smokers will be denied their right to a smoke-free environment.

You wanna think about that for a minute?

If they're a group, either the nonsmokers already expect to be in a smoking environment or the smokers already expect to be in a nonsmoking one. Nobody's actually giving up anything.
 
  • #166
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
223
84
Suppose it would legally be accepted to create smoking and non-smoking bars. I think this would discriminate unfairly (both towards smokers and non-smokers). Consider a group of people consisting of smokers and non-smokers. What bar should they go to? If they go to the non-smoking bar the smokers will be denied the right to smoke (and I assume it's a right since we created bars for them). If on the other hand they go to the smoking bar the non-smokers will be denied their right to a smoke-free environment. Of course one could make their argument that they could simply split up, but this would force an (IMO unhealthy) partitioning of social circles into non-smoker social circles and smoker social circles. I think such segregation is bad for society.

Suppose it would legally be accepted to create smoking and non-smoking bars. I think this would discriminate unfairly (both towards smokers and non-smokers). Consider a group of people consisting of smokers and non-smokers. What bar should they go to? If they go to the non-smoking bar the smokers will be denied the right to smoke (and I assume it's a right since we created bars for them). If on the other hand they go to the smoking bar the non-smokers will be denied their right to a smoke-free environment. Of course one could make their argument that they could simply split up, but this would force an (IMO unhealthy) partitioning of social circles into non-smoker social circles and smoker social circles. I think such segregation is bad for society.

You wanna think about that for a minute?

If they're a group, either the nonsmokers already expect to be in a smoking environment or the smokers already expect to be in a nonsmoking one. Nobody's actually giving up anything.

I agree. This is the same decision groups of friends have had to make when deciding when to sit in the smoking section of the restaraunt (now non-existent) or the non-smoking section.

The real problem is that almost none of the bars would want to be the non-smoking bars. You'd have to give out huge tax incentives (eliminating tax on liquor, etc). Either smokers tend to drink more or drinkers tend to smoke more (or vice versa). Evidently, smoking and drinking to excess require similar thought processes. In any event, smokers must spend more money in bars than non-smokers (if more non-smokers would become alcoholics, bars would become non-smoking simply because it's more profitable for them to do so).
 
  • #167
DavidSnider
Gold Member
502
143
Evidently, smoking and drinking to excess require similar thought processes. In any event, smokers must spend more money in bars than non-smokers (if more non-smokers would become alcoholics, bars would become non-smoking simply because it's more profitable for them to do so).

Smoking and drinking complement each other. For some reason you get a better nicotine high when you're buzzed. Not sure why. It's kind of a redbull and vodka effect.
 
  • #168
763
3
Here's a comparison for you, it's like someone choking you every day, just enough for your breathing to be labored, although it may eventually kill you. He claims that's his right, or that you should remove yourself from the hazard. He claims it relaxes him (as far as I can tell that is the only benefit). Does this sound like a right to you?

OK I'll see your quote and raise you

Let's say that this man wasn't choking you intentionally. He was using saran wrap to work on an art project. Every day you purposely showed up with the artist was and walked through the saran wrap wall, wrapping yourself up in it, then yelling at the artist for causing you to walk into the wall of saran wrap and "choke". The "artist" didn't follow you around with saran wrap. The artist didn't track you down and try to choke you with the saran wrap, but you showed up every day where the artist was, choking yourself in the saran wrap, and blaming the artist for hurting you. You know where the saran wrap is, and yet you keep running into it and blaming the artist.

I think we all know what kind of guy that idiot who keeps walking into the saran wrap is by now, don't we?

If you're going to put the burger in your mouth and swallow, don't stand around crying that Mcdonalds made you fat. No one makes you puit the burger in your mouth, and no one makes you linger in the vicinty of smokers.

The laws generally tip in favor of non-smokers, and until they change the laws, you just have to accept that people smoke, and you can't stop it. You can "CHOOSE" not to be around smokers, but you can't "make" someone not smoke, no matter how inconvenient it is to you, or unhealthy it is for them.

I know it sucks, but that's just how it is.


I think people tend to gloss over the fact that society was propelled through generations into smoking, being blitzed (to this day in fact) with ads glamourizing smoking and even DOCTORS giving the thumbs up to light up. And now, society has reversed itself after pushing the crack to young old and everyone in between. Now smokers are expected to just "drop it". And it all sounds very simple and straight-forward to every non-smoker.

But if you've never smoked to the point of being addicted. If you've never "craved" smokes, or any other type of drug, then you can't possibly understand the need, the physical and psychological impact of smoking year after year, all the while being told that it was fine, that there was nothing wrong with smoking, and then suddenly that you're holding death on a stick, and expected to just drop it.

I wish I could take every self-righteous person who thinks it's easy and force them to smoke a pack a day for 2 years, then watch them struggle to quit- and they would struggle, in 9/10cases. and the other 1/10 would never lecture again.

You can't cram something down society's throats telling them how good it is for them, the expect them to turn on a dime with those not using the product. It is far from that simple. Smoking will go away, but not in my lifetime, and not in yours either.

Oh, and if you tried to completely ban smoking and force all smokers to go cold turkey, you'd see murders rise instantly. Every smoker in the country would be looking for an excuse to start a fight!
 
Last edited:
  • #169
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,950
19
OK I'll see your quote and raise you
Me too. Let's say your artist sometimes makes his saran wrap wall at the main exit from your apartment complex. Sometimes, he builds it blocking the sidewalk from the parking lot to the building where you work. Sometimes, his wall cuts off the line checkout line at the cafeteria where you eat. Other times, his wall blocks off the bus stop where your kid has to wait for the school bus.
 
  • #170
306
1
Let's say that this man wasn't choking you intentionally. He was using saran wrap to work on an art project. Every day you purposely showed up with the artist was and walked through the saran wrap wall, wrapping yourself up in it, then yelling at the artist for causing you to walk into the wall of saran wrap and "choke". The "artist" didn't follow you around with saran wrap. The artist didn't track you down and try to choke you with the saran wrap, but you showed up every day where the artist was, choking yourself in the saran wrap, and blaming the artist for hurting you. You know where the saran wrap is, and yet you keep running into it and blaming the artist.

And if the artist blocks off a heavily traveled sidewalk? Or you have a team of artists blocking off almost every heavily traveled sidewalk, as well as most of the less frequently used ones? How long do you think the wall of saran wrap would last before the police told him to remove it?

However I personally like to light fires, and I feel pretty addicted to it. My superior has informed me that he'd like me to quit practicing this habit in the office. However my company doesn't have a room in which I can light fires and if I take a trip to the nearest forest to do so occasionally they insist that I check out and I won't be paid during this break. Now assuming you don't think every company should have a fire-lighting room, do you think I'm being discriminated against? And if you don't, then how is this any different from the case of smokers?

They are lighting smaller fires.

I still say smoking is a right, however, if for different reasons.

Don't you guys have a constitution, or a bill of rights, or something like that? Look up whatever your country's document which outlines your human rights, and let me know where addictive drugs which are harmful to yourself and/or others is included. And here I was thinking heroin use was a privilege, silly me!

If it's not included anywhere in there, then please elaborate why you think it is a right. Your last justification was wrong, should we just take your word that this one is sound?
 
  • #171
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
223
84
Don't you guys have a constitution, or a bill of rights, or something like that? Look up whatever your country's document which outlines your human rights, and let me know where addictive drugs which are harmful to yourself and/or others is included. And here I was thinking heroin use was a privilege, silly me!

If it's not included anywhere in there, then please elaborate why you think it is a right. Your last justification was wrong, should we just take your word that this one is sound?

Unfortunately, the authors of the Constitution forgot to specifically say that our citizens have a right to read the Constitution. That might make proving or disproving your point problematic. :rolleyes:


None the less, your point isn't completely off base. It does come at the problem from the wrong point of view. Our country started with the idea that people have many natural rights that the government has no authority to give or to take away. In fact, that's why the "Bill of Rights" had to be added as amendments instead of being incorporated into the Constitution itself (several people had second thoughts about the idea that government could restrain itself from taking people's rights unless government was specifically prohibited from taking those rights).

Generally, it has to be shown why someone should not be allowed to do something or why they have to do something. The starting assumption is that people do as they please.
 
  • #172
byronm
Because if you want courtesy from smokers you have to give courtesy back. That's the way society works, whether you like it or not.

The very act of smoking isn't a courtesy.. When you light up the cigarette you're making a choice to ruin your own health and the health of those around you. Not to mention you're decidedly choosing to be a burden on society by choosing to do something that increases the health and welfare costs for everyone around you.

I used to smoke.. :)

I enjoy a good pipe while sitting by a camp fire but i thats about it.. do that maybe 2-3 times a year
 
  • #173
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
223
84
I think the debate over anti-smoking laws is somewhat similar to laws over water rights and water right-of-ways.

You can't own a river. The water in the river is a shared resource. A farm owner can't dam a river just because it runs through his property. His property stops at the edge of the river bed in most Eastern states and at least at the edge of the water in just about every other state. You can't block passage down a shared resource any more than you can set up your own personal toll booth on a public road that passes through your property. Likewise, you can't dump your waste in a shared resource any more than you can dump your garbage in the middle of the town square.

There's still huge conflicts over water rights in the West - especially smaller waterways. Landowners hang obstacles from their bridge that don't quite touch the water, but prevent kayakers, rafters, or fishermen from passing under the bridge, forcing them to walk around the bridge where they can be prosecuted for trespassing (the obstacles were illegal, by the way - you don't have to touch the water to obstruct the waterway).

The same ideas should carry over to air, since it's obviously a shared resource that can't be owned by a private entity. Obviously, that idea doesn't have any kind of long term historical tradition. Regulations about what a private individual or company can dump into the air are pretty new. But I don't see anti-smoking regulations (or environmental regulations affecting factories, etc) as significantly different than the way we've dealt with other shared resources.

In other words, the government should be able to curtail some individual rights about what an individual can do to a shared resource. The only question is whether particular laws show common sense or not (it would be absurd to prohibit living creatures from peeing in a public reservoir, for example, since the fish and wild animals aren't going to care what laws you pass).

The comparison between smokers and drivers is a good one. Both involve private individuals disposing of their waste into a shared resource, but driving automobiles has a larger impact on the air than cigarette smoke. Banning automobiles isn't a good idea because doing so would cause an immediate crash in our economic system. The threshold for banning smoking is a lot lower because it's positive contributions to society are a lot lower. There is still some minimum threshold, though, since the default position should be no regulation at all.

I'm not sure what the threshold should be. The easy answer is that if the positive aspects of smoking (tax revenue, jobs, etc) outweigh the inconvenience and suffering of an unlucky few, then those with asthma, etc, have to adapt to society instead of the other way around. That might violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, though.
 
Last edited:
  • #174
Averagesupernova
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,975
871
I find it generally amusing that modern educated people of today fail to grasp that their own freedom ends where someone else's begins. Legislation defines where that line falls. I also find that as a rule between non-smokers and smokers, the non-smokers are the most rude when it comes to general human interaction. Just my observations. Of course there are exceptions.
-
I might also note that if I were a smoker and I had close neighbors (apartment) and I were outside smoking and got comments like the ones Evo described (coff coff coff, OMG I can't stand this smoke I think I'm going to die!) I would quite likely tell you to effing move. Not because I have no sympathy for someone who is bothered by the smoke, but because of the tactless way they tried to handle it. Acting in this way shows a general disinterest to your neighbor. It is like saying that they aren't really there so I won't speak to them. I am way up here above them, they are like mice to me, so actions are the only thing that will get through since you can't carry on a conversation with a mouse. I'm WAYYYY too good to actually speak to a smoker. That is the attitude that Evo shows when she acts in this way and I'm sure her neighbors know this.
 
  • #175
101
0
I find it generally amusing that modern educated people of today fail to grasp that their own freedom ends where someone else's begins. Legislation defines where that line falls. I also find that as a rule between non-smokers and smokers, the non-smokers are the most rude when it comes to general human interaction. Just my observations. Of course there are exceptions.
-
I might also note that if I were a smoker and I had close neighbors (apartment) and I were outside smoking and got comments like the ones Evo described (coff coff coff, OMG I can't stand this smoke I think I'm going to die!) I would quite likely tell you to effing move. Not because I have no sympathy for someone who is bothered by the smoke, but because of the tactless way they tried to handle it. Acting in this way shows a general disinterest to your neighbor. It is like saying that they aren't really there so I won't speak to them. I am way up here above them, they are like mice to me, so actions are the only thing that will get through since you can't carry on a conversation with a mouse. I'm WAYYYY too good to actually speak to a smoker. That is the attitude that Evo shows when she acts in this way and I'm sure her neighbors know this.

So how would you go about it with neighbors to avoid secondhand smoke?
 

Related Threads on Hostile non-smokers

  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
479
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
5K
Top