Six lungfuls a day? How many lungfuls of air do you breathe in a day? Are you even sure that you take in six entire lungfuls of second-hand smoke in a day? Lungs have a pretty big capacity, and if all you have to deal with is "a snootful", I don't think you've even filled your lungs. Let's call it more like one lungful a day, if that. You mentioned asbestos. How many other pollutants are you getting while you respirate in NYC? I'd say that you're in much, much more danger of something bad getting into your body from regular old ambient pollution that creeps into every breath you take than a random whiff of diluted second-hand smoke.
Yeah, I'll agree that the pollution isn't doing me any favors. However, it makes me cough when the guy in front of me breathes cig smoke and I inhale it. I don't like that. Normal city air, foul as it is, doesn't do that.
I'll note that a lot of people in favor of anti-smoking bans are pointing to pre-existing bans on "public annoyances," such as public urination, skateboarding, weapons discharge, loud music, etc. Well, okay, urination and weapons discharge I can see, because those are more than just "annoyances," but skateboarding? Loud music? These are bad enough to warrant legislation? I don't know, "annoyance" seems a pretty arbitrary and subjective thing to base legislation on. Would not a ban on "annoying clothing" make sense in such a context? "Public whistling?" "Unreasonably flamboyant behavior?" This isn't me being intentionally ridiculous, I honestly don't see where the difference would be. As someone whose everyday behavior might be considered "annoying" to someone else, this kind of justification for legislation rankles me. I'd have less issue with the health angle, except that, as has already been alluded to, there are more toxins in car exhaust than there are in the average cigarette, and in much greater quantities. Restricting the lesser of two health hazards while giving the other a free pass strikes me as rather silly.
(This coming from someone who has never smoked, finds it annoying in his own right, and generally tries to avoid it as a personal, health-related choice).
As for someone "consenting" to being exposed to tobacco smoke, is there a reason knowingly entering an establishment where smoking is allowed wouldn't qualify?
Final, side note: How crowded are your beaches in New York that you can actually smell tobacco smoke when you're out there? Or your sidewalks, for that matter. Is this the kind of thing that's common in cities with the population density of an ant colony, or is it just a New York thing?
I don't understand why we need more laws to deal with smoking. A wide, but still reasonable, interpretation of existing laws can handle this situation.
Smoking in your own house? Just fine. Smoking on the beach? Fine. But if your secondhand smoke gets in my face, I charge you with assault.
Want to get drunk? No problem. But as soon as you do something stupid like get in a car, spill your beer on me at a football game, etc. Game over.
The old saying is that the freedom to swing your fist ends at someone else's face. So why don't we actually stand by that old saying? Swing all you want, and the second you get in my face, game over for you.
This is bullshit. In the same fashion, how about you ban driving (which could easily be refuted), since it is in and of itself dangerous, or ban cars because they emit gas that pollutes the air.
Besides, if someone spilled a beer on you at a football game, would you seriously start a fight? You sound ridiculous. "But if your secondhand smoke gets in my face, I charge you with assault." Jesus Christ, you'd be better off with secondhand smoke than staying next to a busy street in New York than being exposed to secondhand smoke.
You sound ridiculous. "But if your secondhand smoke gets in my face, I charge you with assault."
Scott has also stated that if he were hanging out with people, and someone started smoking weed, he'd call the cops on them. Scott is possibly the world's hugest narc.
43 years of non-smoking went up in flames a few months ago when my father gave me the best cigar I ever had in my life. Maybe it was the cigar, maybe I was just ready for it, but now I'm smoking 3 a week and loving it. I only smoke on my back porch and other places where I'm clearly not bothering anyone.
You sound ridiculous. "But if your secondhand smoke gets in my face, I charge you with assault."
Scott has also stated that if he were hanging out with people, and someone started smoking weed, he'd call the cops on them. Scott is possibly the world's hugest narc.
I thought it was only if they lit up in his abode. Care to clarify, Scott?
1) I know the current law on assault does not cover smoking on someone. That's why I said we should interpret the law more broadly so that it does cover it. Why? Because of...
2) The egg-shell skull. I'm surprised Rym hasn't brought this up yet. Let's say I tap someone on the head. Normally that's not enough to hurt anybody, even a baby. But let's say their skull is incredibly fragile, and I kill them. Is it murder? The answer is yes.
By the same logic, even if your tiny amount of second-hand smoke that you blow in my face does not give me cancer, it is incredibly unpleasant. Also, it probably does make my lungs a tiny bit dirtier. It shouldn't matter how much harm you did. The point is, you harmed me. Therefore, if I wrote and interpreted the laws, that would be classified as assault with poison.
3) If it's ok for you to get your nasty tobacco smoke in my face, then it should be ok for me to walk around with some feces on fire and get the nasty smoke all over you, right? I guess it should also be ok for me to carry around my pet skunk and have him spray all over you, right? It's just a bad smell. It doesn't even cause cancer or anything. You see how this doesn't work. It's clearly illegal to spray, say, deadly nerve gas everywhere. Sooo, why is it ok to spray less deadly tobacco smoke around? Poison gas is poison gas. At what level of poison-ness does it become ok? Why is the ever so slightly poisonous tobacco gas ok, but the completely non-toxic skunk spray not allowed? I actually believe there should be body odor ordinances as well. If you smell bad, you get a fine, and are forcibly showered.
4) The reason I would call the cops on anyone with weed is not because I'm a narc. I actually think it should be legal, it should also just be subject to the same strict limitations placed on tobacco. Do it alone with nobody else anywhere even remotely close to you.
However, if you bring weed around me, my house, etc. Then you are putting me at risk. The laws of possession are very broad. While I may disagree with the law, I am not going to risk being arrested because someone else want to smoke weed. While I am a huge fan of civil disobedience, I am not a huge fan of forcing other people into it with you. Let everyone decide for themselves how disobedient they will be in which areas. If anyone, and I mean even my own mother, puts me at risk of being arrested and/or going to prison, without my consent, I will, without any hesitation whatsoever, throw them under every bus in the world to avert that risk. I have a life, and I'm not going to lose it because of something as retarded as setting a plant on fire to inhale poison fumes. This is why I will call the cops immediately if I ever see anyone bring any sort of illegal drugs around me.
The same goes for other equally illegal things as well. Want to bring some fireworks, or drive above the speed limit? That's ok by me because the worst that will happen is a fine, and I'll make you pay it. But as soon as there is any possibility of jail, or any significant items that will appear on a background check, get the fuck out. Stolen car? Illegal guns? Counterfeit moneys? It's all the same to me. You take the fall, I don't.
4) Thaed, tsk tsk. I thought you were smarter than that. Three a week? Don't you have children? Next time you go to smoke your cigar, think about this. If it meant one less day with your kids, is the pleasure of the cigar worth it? A month less? A year?
Personally, when I'm elderly, and in a situation where death is imminent, I plan to try all sorts of slightly poisonous stuff. Since at that point, there will already be some un-preventable thing that is going to kill me first. But until then, I think I'll continue to stave off death by avoiding such vice.
2) The egg-shell skull. I'm surprised Rym hasn't brought this up yet. Let's say I tap someone on the head. Normally that's not enough to hurt anybody, even a baby. But let's say their skull is incredibly fragile, and I kill them. Is it murder? The answer is yes.
By the same logic, even if your tiny amount of second-hand smoke that you blow in my face does not give me cancer, it is incredibly unpleasant. Also, it probably does make my lungs a tiny bit dirtier. It shouldn't matter how much harm you did. The point is, you harmed me. Therefore, if I wrote and interpreted the laws, that would be classified as assault with poison.
By this logic you should be charged with assault any time you touch another person without their explicit consent. That means if you accidentally bump into someone in line or lightly tap them while reaching for an object, you should be charged with assault.
For the record, I understand your views entirely (though I wouldn't call the cops if, say, I was at a concert next to someone with a joint). I was just requesting some further explanation.
By this logic you should be charged with assault any time you touch another person without their explicit consent. That means if you accidentally bump into someone in line or lightly tap them while reaching for an object, you should be charged with assault.
The first part yes. I think you should be charged with assault any time you touch someone without their consent, but only if you intended to do so.
If you intended to touch me, and I don't want you to, then yes assault. If it's bumping into someone by accident, then that's a different situation. That's why there are different laws for manslaughter and different degrees of murder.
Also, you know how when you are in public anyone can photograph you with or without your express consent? You have no right to privacy out in public places because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. The same goes for going out in public. There is a reasonable expectation that out in public, you will touch other people by accident. Thus, even being near other people is in and of itself consent to accidental touching.
There is a reasonable expectation that out in public, you will touch other people by accident. Thus, even being near other people is in and of itself consent to accidental touching
Couldn't it also be argued that currently there is a reasonable expectation that going out in public, you might inhale some smoke from other people by accident? Thus, even being near smokers is in and of itself consent to inhaling.
For the record, I understand your views entirely (though I wouldn't call the cops if, say, I was at a concert next to someone with a joint). I was just requesting some further explanation.
Yeah, a concert is a different situation I think. I mean, is calling the cops really going to even work if the concert is big? And if the concert is small, they'll get caught anyway. Also, in NY, you can't smoke in an indoor concert place anyway, even tobacco, so you won't get away with weed unless it's an outdoor concert. Also, someone else at a concert with weed doesn't really put the other people around them at risk of getting in trouble unless they also partake, which nobody is going to force you to do.
I will, however, tend to move away from any smoking activities at an indoor or outdoor concert just because it smells like fucking ass.
Also, I just realized one thing. If you make it legal for me to spray people with potpurri, lysol deoderizer, etc. Then I'll say it's ok for people to smoke whatever. Instead of no smells, we'll just have an odor arms race. I am confident I will win such a battle.
There is a reasonable expectation that out in public, you will touch other people by accident. Thus, even being near other people is in and of itself consent to accidental touching
Couldn't it also be argued that currently there is a reasonable expectation that going out in public, you might inhale some smoke from other people by accident? Thus, even being near smokers is in and of itself consent to inhaling.
No. The reason is that bumping into people is something that happens in the course of walking. Walking is something that is sort of unavoidable. Walking will necessarily happen. Tobacco is not necessary. It is entirely a want, and not a need. Therefore, it will not necessarily happen.
The same point is used to say why it should be legal for cars to exhaust deadly fumes, but not people. Driving is, effectively, necessary. However, I think that as we find ways to eliminate the necessity of setting gas on fire, we should just ban it. Not for any environmental reason, mind you, but simply for the same reasons as banning smoking. You're making poison gas, even in small amounts. If it is no longer necessary, then it should be illegal.
2) The egg-shell skull. I'm surprised Rym hasn't brought this up yet. Let's say I tap someone on the head. Normally that's not enough to hurt anybody, even a baby. But let's say their skull is incredibly fragile, and I kill them. Is it murder? The answer is yes.
That would be manslaughter, not murder. There's a huge difference. If your intent was to kill via tapping on the skull, that would be murder.
And no, not all unsolicited contact is assault. What if I have to get your attention on a busy a street? Should I be charged with assault if I tap you on the shoulder to tell you that you dropped your wallet?
Not all poison gas is equally harmful, Scott. There are reasons that we classify various compounds according to their toxicity. Many many activities in the industrialized world produce various degrees of harmful by-products. You could totally eliminate harmful by-products, but doing so would make living substantially more expensive and inconvenient.
No. The reason is that bumping into people is something that happens in the course of walking. Walking is something that is sort of unavoidable. Walking will necessarily happen. Tobacco is not necessary. It is entirely a want, and not a need. Therefore, it will not necessarily happen.
Bumping into people is not unavoidable. If everyone watched where they were going, nobody would bump into anybody. That's like saying that sideswiping somebody is unavoidable.
Your argument really makes no sense to me. Shared public space is shared public space. I'm all about placing reasonable restrictions on smokers, and I've enjoyed the smoking ban in New York, but really? Charging people with assault for smoking near you? I could see it being called assault if you blow smoke into an asthmatic's face, but a normal healthy human can deal with it. If someone is off minding their own business 50 feet away from you having a cigarette, what's the big deal?
Should you charge the guy operating the jackhammer with assault for damaging your hearing? Should you charge the guy who farted in your general direction with assault?
Your argument really makes no sense to me. Shared public space is shared public space. I'm all about placing reasonable restrictions on smokers, and I've enjoyed the smoking ban in New York, but really? Charging people with assault for smoking near you? I could see it being called assault if you blow smoke into an asthmatic's face, but a normal healthy human can deal with it. If someone is off minding their own business 50 feet away from you having a cigarette, what's the big deal?
Thank you for bringing some common sense and practicality to this discussion.
Yeah, I think what we're seeing here is more a case of Scott's neurotic aversion to being touched than anything else.
Also, Scott needs to read more about eggshell plaintiffs and figure out whether his grand scheme falls under criminal law or tort law. The civil eggshell plaintiff rule is a bit different than the criminal one. Also, the standard of proof is different. Finally, you actually have to prove the "eggshell" stuff. Do you have "eggshell" lungs, Scott? I'll bet you don't.
If you're trying to say everyone has eggshell lungs, then you're doing it wrong.
Finally, Pete and Andrew are winning, hands down. The reasonableness of the expectation that you will encounter smokers in society does not have anything to do with societal utility. There are all sorts of nasty things we must have a reasonable expectation of encountering in society, from spitting to cursing to chewing gum.
Also, Scott needs to read more about eggshell plaintiffs and figure out whether his grand scheme falls under criminal law or tort law. The civil eggshell plaintiff rule is a bit different than the criminal one. Also, the standard of proof is different. Finally, you actually have to prove the "eghshell" stuff. Do you have "eggshell" lungs, Scott? I'll bet you don't.
You lawyers always talking about what the law is. I'm not talking about what the law is. I mean, the DMCA is the law for cryin' out loud! I'm talking about what the law should be.
spitting to cursing to chewing gum.
Cursing and chewing gum aren't nasty. Spitting and spitting out chewing gum in an improper place are nasty, and you should get in trouble for that.
I would also like to reiterate my point that you have not addressed. If you want your tobacco, then I can have my pet skunk, right?
I oppose smoking in public, and strongly support public smoking bans, largely due to the adversarial nature of our governmental and civic structures: I am striving with all legal avenue for what I personally want in a system filled with varying motivations from all sorts of different actors. I also believe that there is a strong net benefit to society in marginalizing smoking (while maintaining the minority right to do it on private, personal property with the full consent of all involved - an exemption I feel should be applied to many, many, existing laws) to the degree that it is removed from public life as much as is possible.
Scott's reactionary vitriol aside, how is smoking different from any other restricted-by-the-will-of-the-majority-while-preserved-in-personal-minority-rights activity? If the overwhelming majority of New Yorkers want a smoking ban, and minority rights are maintained, then there is no issue. The fact that some cities/states have a ban, and some do not, is good (for now) overall, even if sub-optimal for the people in some of the states. We will see, over time, how the effects of the bans play out versus the non-ban states. In New York, for example, opponents of the ban foretold economic disaster, a mass flight of bar-goers to New Jersey, a ruined nightlife, etc... So far, none of their predictions have come true, and in fact the opposite has happened.
The issue which remains, however, is that cigarette butts are a massive, massive litter problem. Every day, I see several smokers reliably throw them off the platform before getting on the train. While any particular smoker will often say something along the lines of "but I never do such a thing," the fact remains that the streets and sidewalks are littered with butts. Some places have banned gum chewing in public to prevent similar issues with used gum. I'd wager a general public smoking ban would cut down on the litter significantly.
Or maybe I should just film these gentlemen one morning and make a series of Youtube videos... ^_~
(Oh, and Scott, a few cigars a week is not likely to have any ill effects for most people beyond the smell, especially if begun later in life).
All you crazy anti-smoking people are making it difficult for the rest of us. I had to explain to a girl last night I didn't mind her smoking. She asked if I smoked and then assumed I hated it and her passionately when I said no.
The egg-shell skull. I'm surprised Rym hasn't brought this up yet. Let's say I tap someone on the head. Normally that's not enough to hurt anybody, even a baby. But let's say their skull is incredibly fragile, and I kill them. Is it murder? The answer is yes.
By the same logic, even if your tiny amount of second-hand smoke that you blow in my face does not give me cancer, it is incredibly unpleasant. Also, it probably does make my lungs a tiny bit dirtier. It shouldn't matter how much harm you did. The point is, you harmed me. Therefore, if I wrote and interpreted the laws, that would be classified as assault with poison.
It's so weird to attempt to apply this doctrine in this way. It shows a basic misunderstanding of the doctrine and the policy underlying it.
First, and most importantly, the doctrine is not supposed top tell you when a defendant has caused harm. The doctrine stands for the notion that the defendant is liable for the entirety of the harm he caused. That is, you can't use the doctrine to say, "Ah-hah! The defendant is liable for battery because the plaintiff is an eggshell plaintiff!" You use the doctrine to say, "The defendant touched the plaintiff's hand and, as a direct, causal result of the touching, the plaintiff sustained a broken wrist. The defendant is liable for damages directly and causally related to the broken wrist." The statement "It shouldn't matter how much harm you did" is a non-sequitur in this case because the eggshell plaintiff doctrine is all about harm.
You lawyers always talking about what the law is. I'm not talking about what the law is. I mean, the DMCA is the law for cryin' out loud! I'm talking about what the law should be.
"Should be"? As long as we're talking about "should be", I "should be" a super secret agent for S.H.I.E.L.D. If you're talking about wishes, I have an experiment for you. Shit into one hand and wish into the other. See which hand fills up the fastest.
I would also like to reiterate my point that you have not addressed. If you want your tobacco, then I can have my pet skunk, right?
Here's another experiment. You sue me because you smelled some second hand smoke. I'll sue you because your skunk sprayed me. Who do you think will have an easier time proving their prima facie case? Who do you think will have an easier time proving damages? Who do you think will ultimately prevail in their case?
how is smoking different from any other restricted-by-the-will-of-the-majority-while-preserved-in-personal-minority-rights activity?
It's not, but those other restrictions bother me just as much. Public nudity should be totally permissible. If you don't want to see it, don't look. Open container laws should go away. If a guy wants to drink some MD 2020 from the bottle right in public, he should be allowed to. If somebody is doing something passively, there should be no issue.
Rym's last post was pretty reasonable, but the thing that he seems to ignore is enforceability. It's relatively easy to stop someone smoking in a bar or an office by saying that you'll call the cops. The smoker is relatively easy to identify and they probably want to stay where they are and do their thing, so they don't want to be hassled by the cops.
If Rym smells smoke in Central Park, what's he going to do? First he's have to figure out exactly who was smoking. Then he'll have to ask them to stop. If they don't want to stop, what would he do? Call the cops? Is the smoker gonna wait around, smoking his cigarette until the cops arrive? What is he stays, puts out his cigarette, Rym identifies him and complains to the cops, and the smoker says, "I don't know what he's talking about. I wasn't the one smoking." How are they going to prove anything? Is Rym really motivated to stay through all that mess?
There are ordnances against spitting on the sidewalk. Have you seen people spit on the sidewalk? Have you ever seen anyone arrested for it?
There are orndances designed to prevent prople from urinating in public. Have you ever seen anyone do it? Have you ever seen anyone arrested for it?
how is smoking different from any other restricted-by-the-will-of-the-majority-while-preserved-in-personal-minority-rights activity?
It's not, but those other restrictions bother me just as much. Public nudity should be totally permissible. If you don't want to see it, don't look. Open container laws should go away. If a guy wants to drink some MD 2020 from the bottle right in public, he should be allowed to. If somebody is doing something passively, there should be no issue.
^^^My opinion on the matter. Smoking if just one more personal liberty to add to the pile of casualties.
So, should we legalize littering? People do it all the time, and are rarely caught.
The beauty of anti-smoking laws is that they effectively allow people to smoke, even in public, when no one involved is bothered. But, if anyone is bothered, they have clear recourse.
Is Rym really motivated to stay through all that mess?
Not at all. My only goal in this situation is to not be bothered by the smoke. I have no personal interest in punishing anyone so long as that goal is accomplished. If the smokers stops or leaves after I call the police, I've won, and that's that.
So, should we legalize littering? People do it all the time, and are rarely caught.
If people do it all the time and are rarely caught, as you say, what difference would it make?
The beauty of anti-smoking laws is that they effectively allow people to smoke, even in public, when no one involved is bothered. But, if anyoneisbothered, they have clear recourse.
How is that different than the situation that exists now? If someone is offended now, they have the recourse to politely ask the smoker to stop or to simply move away. In this statement, you've just admitted that most people will simply ignore this law. How does an unenforceable law add anything to the recourse available to the easily offended?
Is Rym really motivated to stay through all that mess?
Not at all. My only goal in this situation is to not be bothered by the smoke. I have no personal interest in punishing anyone so long as that goal is accomplished. If the smokers stops or leaves after I call the police, I've won, and that's that.
What if he stays and continues to smoke? Are you going to wait for the police? WIll you testify against the smoker in court?
What if he stays and continues to smoke? Are you going to wait for the police?
In New York, the existing ban includes a large radius around any building's public entrances. Some months ago, there was a crowd of smokers around the doors to a building where I had some business. I asked the security guard inside, and he refused to shoo them away. So, I called the fire marshal (there's a hotline for smoking-ban-related-issues), and he served a fine to the building for failing to address the problem when it was presented to them. The last time I was over there, the very same guard was there, but no crowd of smokers.
If he stays and continues to smoke, I'm certainly not going to let him deny me my access to the space. I would be there anyway. The police would, when they arrived, rectify the problem. If he left either before or while the police were there, or even stopped smoking, I win. I have no need to go to court after the fact, as the law (don't smoke) was enforced, and I was able to go about my business. I don't care if the smoker later fights the citation and has it dismissed: I've gotten the only justice I needed.
So, should we legalize littering? People do it all the time, and are rarely caught.
Isn't this the logic you use to decry things like the DMCA? If a law is unenforceable, or enforced infrequently and unevenly, then it shouldn't be a law?
Littering also brings up a potential sanitation issue that is not already present in an urban environment.
Comments
(This coming from someone who has never smoked, finds it annoying in his own right, and generally tries to avoid it as a personal, health-related choice).
As for someone "consenting" to being exposed to tobacco smoke, is there a reason knowingly entering an establishment where smoking is allowed wouldn't qualify?
Final, side note: How crowded are your beaches in New York that you can actually smell tobacco smoke when you're out there? Or your sidewalks, for that matter. Is this the kind of thing that's common in cities with the population density of an ant colony, or is it just a New York thing?
Besides, if someone spilled a beer on you at a football game, would you seriously start a fight? You sound ridiculous. "But if your secondhand smoke gets in my face, I charge you with assault." Jesus Christ, you'd be better off with secondhand smoke than staying next to a busy street in New York than being exposed to secondhand smoke.
2) The egg-shell skull. I'm surprised Rym hasn't brought this up yet. Let's say I tap someone on the head. Normally that's not enough to hurt anybody, even a baby. But let's say their skull is incredibly fragile, and I kill them. Is it murder? The answer is yes.
By the same logic, even if your tiny amount of second-hand smoke that you blow in my face does not give me cancer, it is incredibly unpleasant. Also, it probably does make my lungs a tiny bit dirtier. It shouldn't matter how much harm you did. The point is, you harmed me. Therefore, if I wrote and interpreted the laws, that would be classified as assault with poison.
3) If it's ok for you to get your nasty tobacco smoke in my face, then it should be ok for me to walk around with some feces on fire and get the nasty smoke all over you, right? I guess it should also be ok for me to carry around my pet skunk and have him spray all over you, right? It's just a bad smell. It doesn't even cause cancer or anything. You see how this doesn't work. It's clearly illegal to spray, say, deadly nerve gas everywhere. Sooo, why is it ok to spray less deadly tobacco smoke around? Poison gas is poison gas. At what level of poison-ness does it become ok? Why is the ever so slightly poisonous tobacco gas ok, but the completely non-toxic skunk spray not allowed? I actually believe there should be body odor ordinances as well. If you smell bad, you get a fine, and are forcibly showered.
4) The reason I would call the cops on anyone with weed is not because I'm a narc. I actually think it should be legal, it should also just be subject to the same strict limitations placed on tobacco. Do it alone with nobody else anywhere even remotely close to you.
However, if you bring weed around me, my house, etc. Then you are putting me at risk. The laws of possession are very broad. While I may disagree with the law, I am not going to risk being arrested because someone else want to smoke weed. While I am a huge fan of civil disobedience, I am not a huge fan of forcing other people into it with you. Let everyone decide for themselves how disobedient they will be in which areas. If anyone, and I mean even my own mother, puts me at risk of being arrested and/or going to prison, without my consent, I will, without any hesitation whatsoever, throw them under every bus in the world to avert that risk. I have a life, and I'm not going to lose it because of something as retarded as setting a plant on fire to inhale poison fumes. This is why I will call the cops immediately if I ever see anyone bring any sort of illegal drugs around me.
The same goes for other equally illegal things as well. Want to bring some fireworks, or drive above the speed limit? That's ok by me because the worst that will happen is a fine, and I'll make you pay it. But as soon as there is any possibility of jail, or any significant items that will appear on a background check, get the fuck out. Stolen car? Illegal guns? Counterfeit moneys? It's all the same to me. You take the fall, I don't.
4) Thaed, tsk tsk. I thought you were smarter than that. Three a week? Don't you have children? Next time you go to smoke your cigar, think about this. If it meant one less day with your kids, is the pleasure of the cigar worth it? A month less? A year?
Personally, when I'm elderly, and in a situation where death is imminent, I plan to try all sorts of slightly poisonous stuff. Since at that point, there will already be some un-preventable thing that is going to kill me first. But until then, I think I'll continue to stave off death by avoiding such vice.
If you intended to touch me, and I don't want you to, then yes assault. If it's bumping into someone by accident, then that's a different situation. That's why there are different laws for manslaughter and different degrees of murder.
Also, you know how when you are in public anyone can photograph you with or without your express consent? You have no right to privacy out in public places because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. The same goes for going out in public. There is a reasonable expectation that out in public, you will touch other people by accident. Thus, even being near other people is in and of itself consent to accidental touching.
I will, however, tend to move away from any smoking activities at an indoor or outdoor concert just because it smells like fucking ass.
Also, I just realized one thing. If you make it legal for me to spray people with potpurri, lysol deoderizer, etc. Then I'll say it's ok for people to smoke whatever. Instead of no smells, we'll just have an odor arms race. I am confident I will win such a battle.
The same point is used to say why it should be legal for cars to exhaust deadly fumes, but not people. Driving is, effectively, necessary. However, I think that as we find ways to eliminate the necessity of setting gas on fire, we should just ban it. Not for any environmental reason, mind you, but simply for the same reasons as banning smoking. You're making poison gas, even in small amounts. If it is no longer necessary, then it should be illegal.
And no, not all unsolicited contact is assault. What if I have to get your attention on a busy a street? Should I be charged with assault if I tap you on the shoulder to tell you that you dropped your wallet?
Not all poison gas is equally harmful, Scott. There are reasons that we classify various compounds according to their toxicity. Many many activities in the industrialized world produce various degrees of harmful by-products. You could totally eliminate harmful by-products, but doing so would make living substantially more expensive and inconvenient. Bumping into people is not unavoidable. If everyone watched where they were going, nobody would bump into anybody. That's like saying that sideswiping somebody is unavoidable.
Your argument really makes no sense to me. Shared public space is shared public space. I'm all about placing reasonable restrictions on smokers, and I've enjoyed the smoking ban in New York, but really? Charging people with assault for smoking near you? I could see it being called assault if you blow smoke into an asthmatic's face, but a normal healthy human can deal with it. If someone is off minding their own business 50 feet away from you having a cigarette, what's the big deal?
Should you charge the guy operating the jackhammer with assault for damaging your hearing? Should you charge the guy who farted in your general direction with assault?
Also, Scott needs to read more about eggshell plaintiffs and figure out whether his grand scheme falls under criminal law or tort law. The civil eggshell plaintiff rule is a bit different than the criminal one. Also, the standard of proof is different. Finally, you actually have to prove the "eggshell" stuff. Do you have "eggshell" lungs, Scott? I'll bet you don't.
If you're trying to say everyone has eggshell lungs, then you're doing it wrong.
Finally, Pete and Andrew are winning, hands down. The reasonableness of the expectation that you will encounter smokers in society does not have anything to do with societal utility. There are all sorts of nasty things we must have a reasonable expectation of encountering in society, from spitting to cursing to chewing gum.
I would also like to reiterate my point that you have not addressed. If you want your tobacco, then I can have my pet skunk, right?
I oppose smoking in public, and strongly support public smoking bans, largely due to the adversarial nature of our governmental and civic structures: I am striving with all legal avenue for what I personally want in a system filled with varying motivations from all sorts of different actors. I also believe that there is a strong net benefit to society in marginalizing smoking (while maintaining the minority right to do it on private, personal property with the full consent of all involved - an exemption I feel should be applied to many, many, existing laws) to the degree that it is removed from public life as much as is possible.
Scott's reactionary vitriol aside, how is smoking different from any other restricted-by-the-will-of-the-majority-while-preserved-in-personal-minority-rights activity? If the overwhelming majority of New Yorkers want a smoking ban, and minority rights are maintained, then there is no issue. The fact that some cities/states have a ban, and some do not, is good (for now) overall, even if sub-optimal for the people in some of the states. We will see, over time, how the effects of the bans play out versus the non-ban states. In New York, for example, opponents of the ban foretold economic disaster, a mass flight of bar-goers to New Jersey, a ruined nightlife, etc... So far, none of their predictions have come true, and in fact the opposite has happened.
The issue which remains, however, is that cigarette butts are a massive, massive litter problem. Every day, I see several smokers reliably throw them off the platform before getting on the train. While any particular smoker will often say something along the lines of "but I never do such a thing," the fact remains that the streets and sidewalks are littered with butts. Some places have banned gum chewing in public to prevent similar issues with used gum. I'd wager a general public smoking ban would cut down on the litter significantly.
Or maybe I should just film these gentlemen one morning and make a series of Youtube videos... ^_~
(Oh, and Scott, a few cigars a week is not likely to have any ill effects for most people beyond the smell, especially if begun later in life).
First, and most importantly, the doctrine is not supposed top tell you when a defendant has caused harm. The doctrine stands for the notion that the defendant is liable for the entirety of the harm he caused. That is, you can't use the doctrine to say, "Ah-hah! The defendant is liable for battery because the plaintiff is an eggshell plaintiff!" You use the doctrine to say, "The defendant touched the plaintiff's hand and, as a direct, causal result of the touching, the plaintiff sustained a broken wrist. The defendant is liable for damages directly and causally related to the broken wrist." The statement "It shouldn't matter how much harm you did" is a non-sequitur in this case because the eggshell plaintiff doctrine is all about harm. "Should be"? As long as we're talking about "should be", I "should be" a super secret agent for S.H.I.E.L.D. If you're talking about wishes, I have an experiment for you. Shit into one hand and wish into the other. See which hand fills up the fastest. Here's another experiment. You sue me because you smelled some second hand smoke. I'll sue you because your skunk sprayed me. Who do you think will have an easier time proving their prima facie case? Who do you think will have an easier time proving damages? Who do you think will ultimately prevail in their case?
If Rym smells smoke in Central Park, what's he going to do? First he's have to figure out exactly who was smoking. Then he'll have to ask them to stop. If they don't want to stop, what would he do? Call the cops? Is the smoker gonna wait around, smoking his cigarette until the cops arrive? What is he stays, puts out his cigarette, Rym identifies him and complains to the cops, and the smoker says, "I don't know what he's talking about. I wasn't the one smoking." How are they going to prove anything? Is Rym really motivated to stay through all that mess?
There are ordnances against spitting on the sidewalk. Have you seen people spit on the sidewalk? Have you ever seen anyone arrested for it?
There are orndances designed to prevent prople from urinating in public. Have you ever seen anyone do it? Have you ever seen anyone arrested for it?
The beauty of anti-smoking laws is that they effectively allow people to smoke, even in public, when no one involved is bothered. But, if anyone is bothered, they have clear recourse. Not at all. My only goal in this situation is to not be bothered by the smoke. I have no personal interest in punishing anyone so long as that goal is accomplished. If the smokers stops or leaves after I call the police, I've won, and that's that.
If he stays and continues to smoke, I'm certainly not going to let him deny me my access to the space. I would be there anyway. The police would, when they arrived, rectify the problem. If he left either before or while the police were there, or even stopped smoking, I win. I have no need to go to court after the fact, as the law (don't smoke) was enforced, and I was able to go about my business. I don't care if the smoker later fights the citation and has it dismissed: I've gotten the only justice I needed.
Littering also brings up a potential sanitation issue that is not already present in an urban environment.