In this statement, you've just admitted that most people will simply ignore this law.
They don't ignore the existing law. People here call the fire marshal all the time about the smoking ban, and citations are issued and fines are paid. Most buildings in Manhattan very pointedly shoo smokers away from the door for fear of them.
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 laws are eminently enforceable, and in some towns along the Hudson, they're crushingly enforced (along with parking laws and other little municipal issues). There is also likely an argument for the net benefit to society in keeping littering laws around, especially if we could demonstrate that people would litter more often if it weren't a finable offense.
So, should we legalize littering? People do it all the time, and are rarely caught.
Littering laws are eminently enforceable, and in some towns along the Hudson, they're crushingly enforced (along with parking laws and other little municipal issues).
Do you see how these statements contradict each other?
Do you see how these statements contradict each other?
They are enforceable. Some places just refuse to enforce them properly, while other places show that they're easily enforced. There's a difference between can't enforce and won't enforce.
Plus, look at it pragmatically. Should we strike down all of our anti-littering laws? Do you really, honestly think that this would be a good idea?
Do you see how these statements contradict each other?
It's not a contradiction. Rarely enforced does not mean unenforceable. It just means we could be doing more, and we aren't. The copyright laws are largely unenforceable. You can't catch people if you try.
Also Hungry Joe, you still don't get what I mean by should. Forget your lawyer ways. Forget what the law is. We all know what the law is. We don't care.
What we care about is what you think is morally correct. Regardless of what country, or state you are in. Regardless of what laws are written on paper. Do you think it is right to blow foul smelling gases around other people?
I am in complete agreement with you about what the law currently says. I'm saying that my morality does not match the law, and I want it changed. You seem to avoid discussing issues of morality, as if the law as written and your morality are one and the same. What do you think is right?
If people are rarely caught, then the law isn't enforceable, or it's not being equally enforced.
There are large number of laws that we could enforce very crushingly. The question is whether or not there is actually a net benefit to society, or rather a net harm caused by a lack of enforcement. The problem with littering is that it can harm you without you being able to do anything about it, by providing an environment that can harbor the presence of disease-causing organisms. If someone is about to light up a cigarette, you can get away from them (most of the time), and thus mitigate any damage that it might cause. In the former case, there is a net harm that cannot really be mitigated through personal action. In the latter case, you can in fact mitigate the harm in most cases.
If you want to ban smoking in confined spaces, I'm cool with that. Out in public, where there's room to get away? Not so much.
EDIT:
Plus, look at it pragmatically. Should we strike down all of our anti-littering laws? Do you really, honestly think that this would be a good idea?
OK, really? Now you're just fucking with people. You've already used argumentum ad populum more than once; you could at least be more subtle.
Think of it in terms of the peanut allergy issue. They ban peanuts in schools because just one kid has an allergy. I think this is bullshit. Why should the entire school suffer just because one person has a special case situation? It's up to that person to avoid peanuts, not for everyone else to lose the enjoyment of peanuts.
Now imagine if everybody had a peanut allergy. Every single person. Well, then of course we can ban peanuts. It's no longer a special case. If some people like peanuts so much that they are willing to eat them and get hives, then that's their choice. But they need to keep their peanuts far far away from people who have not chosen to suffer the allergic reaction.
Smoking is like everyone in the world having a peanut allergy. Get it the fuck away from me.
If you want to ban smoking in confined spaces, I'm cool with that. Out in public, where there's room to get away? Not so much.
You live in Albany. In New York City, there is no room to get away. The sidewalk is only so wide. There is a cloud of smoke covering every entrance to almost every single building. On some streets, like the one with all the jewelry stores, there are people smoking lined up and down the entire sidewalk almost every day almost all day.
We're not talking about smoking in your backyard. We're talking about a lot of people smoking, right fucking next to you. If we allow just one person, we have to allow every person. If it was just one person, you could probably avoid it, but not when it's a bunch of people.
The thing is, while there are a bunch of smokers, they are still in the vast minority. It's simply that the radius of smoke is so great that just one smoker can disturb multiple non-smokers. If just one in twenty people is smoking on a sidewalk, it is unavoidable. Every day when I walk to and from the office from GCT I have to be constantly alert to smokers and hold my breath as I walk past. It's basically impossible to just walk in peace. Why should I have to work hard to avoid poison gas clouds every day while I walk to work? Get them the fuck out of here.
OK, really? Now you're just fucking with people. You've already used argumentum ad populum more than once; you could at least be moresubtle.
No, I'm serious. Should we repeal our anti-littering laws or not? Would there be a net benefit or a net harm? Forget ideology: which is better? Having them or not having them? If we don't want to have them, how do we deal with litter? How should we deal with this very real issue? Do we agree that litter is a bad thing? Do we agree that we should try to prevent it? If so, how?
Democracy itself is nothing more than decision ad populum. Or, should we get rid of that too?
Smoking is like everyone in the world having a peanut allergy. Get it the fuck away from me.
Except that peanut allergies vary in severity, to the point that some exposures to peanuts are quickly fatal. You won't get lung cancer from one inhalation of second-hand smoke.
Moreover, it goes back to the issue of knowledge. With a peanut allergy, you may not actually know whether or not the allergen is present in any given location. The amount of allergen necessary to produce a reaction is often undetectable through conventional means. Hence, the best route is to keep a place peanut-free. When it comes to smoking, you can see a smoker. You know where the smoke cloud lies. You can take evasive action, and at worst, you may be momentarily inconvenienced as you pass nearby.
I've been in the city plenty of times. I know how crowded it gets, and I know what it's like to pass by a throng of smokers. You know what? I walk faster to get by them. At worst, it's a momentary inconvenience, much the same as breathing in the exhaust fumes of an idling bus. Any urban environment is full of airborne pollutants that cause as much, if not more, of an inconvenience than smokers.
You don't have a right to not be inconvenienced. It's a necessary byproduct of living in a society that values individual liberties. Every now and again, someone else's liberties may inconvenience you, but unless it causes a real, measurable, demonstrable harm, you have no basis for complaint. Aren't you the one who always says that people need to ignore trolls on the Internet, because life is tough and you need to deal with it? People who smoke are effectively trolling you, and you need to be able to deal with it.
Pete has so cogently and accurately pwned you both.
I have a very un-radical position, and consider Scott's position fairly crazy and reactionary.
1. I support the existing smoking ban 2. I support the new smoking ban for public parks and beaches.
Majority right: smoking banned in many public places Minority right: smoking not banned in some public places, and not banned in private homes/cars/etc...
How have I been pwned? Democracy allows people to vote to create laws to restrict certain behaviors within the confines of the constitution. The vast majority of New Yorkers want a general smoking ban in many public places, and so it comes to pass. It's no different than any other law. It's enforced fairly evenly. Most people are very happy with it. I have everything I want, and the smokers have their minority rights maintained. How have I lost? It's no different than a littering law.
Scott, however, has been pwned. You should smoke a cigar in his face and then spill your brandy on his evening jacket. ^_~
Pete has so cogently and accurately pwned you both.
I have a very un-radical position, and consider Scott's position fairly crazy and reactionary.
1. I support the existing smoking ban 2. I support the new smoking ban for public parks and beaches.
Majority right: smoking banned in many public places Minority right: smoking not banned in some public places, and not banned in private homes/cars/etc...
How have I been pwned? Democracy allows people to vote to create laws to restrict certain behaviors within the confines of the constitution. The vast majority of New Yorkers want a general smoking ban in many public places, and so it comes to pass. It's no different than any other law. It's enforced fairly evenly. Most people are very happy with it. I have everything I want, and the smokers have their minority rights maintained. How have I lost? It's no different than a littering law.
Scott, however, has been pwned. You should smoke a cigar in his face and then spill your brandy on his evening jacket. ^_~
Well, Scott's position is undeniably radical, so it's easy to pwn. However, your position, despite your protestations, is also not very solid. You're just better as disguising it.
How have I been pwned? Democracy allows people to vote to create laws to restrict certain behaviors within the confines of the constitution. The vast majority of New Yorkers want a general smoking ban in many public places, and so it comes to pass. It's no different than any other law. It's enforced fairly evenly. Most people are very happy with it. I have everything I want, and the smokers have their minority rights maintained. How have I lost? It's no different than a littering law.
The issue is that you argue that the smoking ban is a good thing - that you support it, are satisfied with it, and like it - and yet you use argumentum ad populum as at least part of that justification. Yes, a democracy functions through decision ad populum. However, that doesn't mean everyone supports every decision, and sometimes, officials in this country make decisions that are not ad populum. The fact that many people support a particular position is not a valid argument as to why you support it.
The best argument you can make is that you claim a net gain to society through the enforcement of a smoking ban. I disagree. I contend that the smoker is more inconvenienced by being kicked out than you are by being in proximity to him. At best, the smoking ban has had a net neutral effect on society as a whole. You may perceive a net positive gain in your life, but you do not reflect on society as a whole.
Also, to go ahead with the littering argument, I say remove the fines for littering. They're already unevenly enforced, and total enforcement of those laws would require significant manpower that could be better spent elsewhere. The majority, I contend, will not litter, simply because that same majority are those who would put litter laws into place to begin with. Those who do litter are going to do it anyhow, since they're not stopped by current laws (only inconvenienced). It's exactly the same as speeding laws.
The best argument you can make is that you claim a net gain to society through the enforcement of a smoking ban. I disagree. I contend that the smoker is more inconvenienced by being kicked out than you are by being in proximity to him. At best, the smoking ban has had a net neutral effect on society as a whole. You may perceive a net positive gain inyourlife, but you do not reflect on society as a whole.
While I am relatively neutral on further smoking bans, I have to point out, Pete, that your argument is ignoring the economic tole that smoking's related diseases take on the rest of society. By inconveniencing smokers, the ban makes it more difficult for smokers to continue to smoke/smoke with as great a frequency, thus reducing the numbers of smokers and smoking related diseases.
You don't have a right to not be inconvenienced. It's a necessary byproduct of living in a society that values individual liberties. Every now and again, someone else's liberties may inconvenience you, but unless it causes a real, measurable, demonstrableharm, you have no basis for complaint. Aren't you the one who always says that people need to ignore trolls on the Internet, because life is tough and you need to deal with it? People who smoke are effectively trolling you, and you need to be able to deal with it.
Trolls don't harm be because I don't have to read their BS. Also, their harassment is completely non-physical. Compared to smokers, I have to walk down the sidewalk, and also it is an actual physical annoyance.
Again, the right for them to swing their fists, and spread their smoke ends at my face. Even if they ever so slightly graze my face doing an immeasurably small amount of harm, that's crossing the line. If I have to suffer an unpleasant smell for even one fraction of a second, it's too much.
You people keep talking about it being ok because the amount of harm is so small. Ok, so let's say I steal a penny from you, is that ok? Seriously, a penny is so worthless. Ok, now I steal a penny from you every single day. Actually, on your way to work ten different people each steal one penny from you. Then on the way back from work twenty different people each steal a penny from you (there are more smokers out at 5pm than at 9am). Thirty cents a day adds up.
I think it's pretty clear that this doesn't work. Obviously if someone does more harm, especially with intent, then that is a more severe crime than only doing a slight bit of harm. Madoff gets a lot more years in jail that a car jacker. But that does not mean that doing only a seemingly insignificant amount of harm should be completely permissible. Harm is harm is harm. If you want to smoke somewhere that it can't possibly ever get in my face, that's fine. But you get your hand off my pennies.
The best argument you can make is that you claim a net gain to society through the enforcement of a smoking ban. I disagree. I contend that the smoker is more inconvenienced by being kicked out than you are by being in proximity to him. At best, the smoking ban has had a net neutral effect on society as a whole. You may perceive a net positive gain inyourlife, but you do not reflect on society as a whole.
While I am relatively neutral on further smoking bans, I have to point out, Pete, that your argument is ignoring the economic tole that smoking's related diseases take on the rest of society. By inconveniencing smokers, the ban makes it more difficult for smokers to continue to smoke/smoke with as great a frequency, thus reducing the numbers of smokers and smoking related diseases.
Has the smoking ban actually reduced smoking at all? It's reduced the places where smokers can do their thing in public, but I'd say it's a stretch to claim an actual reduction in the number of smokers and the amount of smoking they do.
I'd say that the various national anti-smoking campaigns have had a far greater effect in reducing the frequency of smoking.
While I am relatively neutral on further smoking bans, I have to point out, Pete, that your argument is ignoring the economic tole that smoking's related diseases take on the rest of society. By inconveniencing smokers, the ban makes it more difficult for smokers to continue to smoke/smoke with as great a frequency, thus reducing the numbers of smokers and smoking related diseases.
We would have to run many numbers to figure this out, but the tobacco industry is a relatively large part of the economy. Any economic benefit in terms of reduced expenditures on health care would be balanced by a loss of jobs and sales in the tobacco industry. A great deal of math would have to be done to figure out exactly which costs more economically.
You might say that clearly the lives saved and extended by reduction in smoking-related diseases outweighs the loss of jobs and money, regardless of the numbers. However, losing jobs and declining economy pretty much does lead directly to shortened lives. If we don't ban or limit smoking, more people will die of lung cancer and such. If we do ban or limit it, fewer people will die of smoking-related illnesses, but more people will die from not having money or a job.
This is why I did not venture down the economic road earlier.
I'd say that the various national anti-smoking campaigns have had a far greater effect in reducing the frequency of smoking.
I think in order to reduce smoking, we should actively ostracize smokers. If people want to smoke on the sidewalk, we should make glass booths. Smoking will only be permitted in said booths. And, of course, we should make being in those booths as unpleasant as possible. There should be horrific and gory images of nasty lungs. Gory enough to make people puke. If people shut their eyes, we'll have a high pitched annoying noise that will drive people crazy without actually damaging their hearing. If someone is blind and deaf, they probably should be smoking.
We would have to run many numbers to figure this out, but the tobacco industry is a relatively large part of the economy. Any economic benefit in terms of reduced expenditures on health care would be balanced by a loss of jobs and sales in the tobacco industry. A great deal of math would have to be done to figure out exactly which costs more economically.
You might say that clearly the lives saved and extended by reduction in smoking-related diseases outweighs the loss of jobs and money, regardless of the numbers. However, losing jobs and declining economy pretty much does lead directly to shortened lives. If we don't ban or limit smoking, more people will die of lung cancer and such. If we do ban or limit it, fewer people will die of smoking-related illnesses, but more people will die from not having money or a job.
This is why I did not venture down the economic road earlier.
Except that a lot of those former/would-be smokers will have a greater amount of disposable income to spend on other goods and services, thus creating jobs and living longer, more profitable lives. To maintain a smoking habit is incredibly costly.
I'd say that the various national anti-smoking campaigns have had a far greater effect in reducing the frequency of smoking.
I think in order to reduce smoking, we should actively ostracize smokers. If people want to smoke on the sidewalk, we should make glass booths. Smoking will only be permitted in said booths. And, of course, we should make being in those booths as unpleasant as possible. There should be horrific and gory images of nasty lungs. Gory enough to make people puke. If people shut their eyes, we'll have a high pitched annoying noise that will drive people crazy without actually damaging their hearing. If someone is blind and deaf, they probably should be smoking.
Has the smoking ban actually reduced smoking at all? It's reduced theplaceswhere smokers can do their thing in public, but I'd say it's a stretch to claim an actual reduction in the number of smokers and the amount of smoking they do.
A quick bit of googling...
Scotland:
Two independent reviews have concluded that the number of heart attacks has fallen sharply in countries enforcing the smoking ban in public areas. Findings published in Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology suggested a 26% fall in annual rates. This is much higher than the 10% fall originally forecast by the Department of Health earlier this month.
Kansas:
Public smoking bans do more than just clear the air in offices, bars and restaurants — they lead to quick and dramatic declines in heart attacks.
Two teams of researchers came to this conclusion after independently examining evidence from more than a dozen locales in the United States, Canada and Europe that had enacted smoking restrictions.
Not only was the drop in heart attacks almost immediate, the declines tended to be greater the longer the bans were in place, the researchers found.
After smoking restrictions went into effect, heart attack rates dropped an average of 26 percent in a year, one study found. After three years, heart attack rates were down by an average of 36 percent, according to the other study.
General:
It's all over the news. A major analysis published this week of more than a dozen studies in North America, Italy, Scotland, and Ireland designed to determine the effect of smoking bans on heart attack rates shows a 17 percent reduction in heart attacks in places where bans were in effect for one year. That rate more than doubles to 36 percent in places where bans have been in effect for three years.
For me this issue is so clear cut there isn't even any question. People have to be saved from their own stupidity. Seatbelts saved lives. Not smoking also saves lives. In ten years we'll look back at this and say "I can't believe people actually smoked so much!" It'll be like finding out doctors didn't wash their hands between autopsies and delivering children.
I'd say that the various national anti-smoking campaigns have had a far greater effect in reducing the frequency of smoking.
I think in order to reduce smoking, we should actively ostracize smokers. If people want to smoke on the sidewalk, we should make glass booths. Smoking will only be permitted in said booths. And, of course, we should make being in those booths as unpleasant as possible. There should be horrific and gory images of nasty lungs. Gory enough to make people puke. If people shut their eyes, we'll have a high pitched annoying noise that will drive people crazy without actually damaging their hearing. If someone is blind and deaf, they probably should be smoking.
I almost agree with this. Almost. I actually sort of like the idea of having public "smoking huts" that keep the crap contained and out of everyone else's way. I don't think we should have the annoying noise and images of diseased lungs, though. We actually want people to use these things. Eventually, people will get tired of being crammed into a box whenever they want to smoke, and they'll give up.
I'm going to look more into the efficacy of these smoking bans, but if Luke's preliminary Googling is any indication, then I may lean towards supporting them.
EDIT: Damn, have to pay for the full-text article from the JoACC. I want more information about their methods.
I'm going to look more into the efficacy of these smoking bans, but if Luke's preliminary Googling is any indication, then I may lean towards supporting them.
There is quite a bit of evidence both of economic and health benefit from even the current bans. As I said, pragmatic governance for the good of all. Ideologically, a smoking ban is greatly against my sensibilities. But, I recognize a clear benefit to society, as well as to me personally, and so back it nonetheless.
Now, if we could just legalize marijuana, and restrict the same as cigarettes and alcohol, we'd be set. Or, how about all the places where the governments give clean, free heroin to addicts? There's clear evidence that it's more effective and less harmful than our current broken system of methadone and/or prison rape.
I'm going to look more into the efficacy of these smoking bans, but if Luke's preliminary Googling is any indication, then I may lean towards supporting them.
There is quite a bit of evidence both of economic and health benefit from even the current bans. As I said, pragmatic governance for the good of all. Ideologically, a smoking ban is greatly against my sensibilities. But, I recognize a clear benefit to society, as well as to me personally, and so back it nonetheless.
Now, if we could just legalize marijuana, and restrict the same as cigarettes and alcohol, we'd be set. Or, how about all the places where the governments give clean, free heroin to addicts? There's clear evidence that it's more effective and less harmful than our current broken system of methadone and/or prison rape.
Sure, I'm all about legalizing and regulating pot (and all drugs, really). I also wouldn't necessarily be opposed to their public use, unless harm could be demonstrated to others.
As for the evidence of economic and health benefits from the current plans, I'm not entirely convinced. I'm pretty sure you don't have access to journals that I don't have, so I doubt you're reading full studies. I may actually purchase that most recent JoACC article to review the methods used in that meta-study that Luke mentioned.
Comments
Plus, look at it pragmatically. Should we strike down all of our anti-littering laws? Do you really, honestly think that this would be a good idea?
Also Hungry Joe, you still don't get what I mean by should. Forget your lawyer ways. Forget what the law is. We all know what the law is. We don't care.
What we care about is what you think is morally correct. Regardless of what country, or state you are in. Regardless of what laws are written on paper. Do you think it is right to blow foul smelling gases around other people?
I am in complete agreement with you about what the law currently says. I'm saying that my morality does not match the law, and I want it changed. You seem to avoid discussing issues of morality, as if the law as written and your morality are one and the same. What do you think is right?
There are large number of laws that we could enforce very crushingly. The question is whether or not there is actually a net benefit to society, or rather a net harm caused by a lack of enforcement. The problem with littering is that it can harm you without you being able to do anything about it, by providing an environment that can harbor the presence of disease-causing organisms. If someone is about to light up a cigarette, you can get away from them (most of the time), and thus mitigate any damage that it might cause. In the former case, there is a net harm that cannot really be mitigated through personal action. In the latter case, you can in fact mitigate the harm in most cases.
If you want to ban smoking in confined spaces, I'm cool with that. Out in public, where there's room to get away? Not so much.
EDIT: OK, really? Now you're just fucking with people. You've already used argumentum ad populum more than once; you could at least be more subtle.
Now imagine if everybody had a peanut allergy. Every single person. Well, then of course we can ban peanuts. It's no longer a special case. If some people like peanuts so much that they are willing to eat them and get hives, then that's their choice. But they need to keep their peanuts far far away from people who have not chosen to suffer the allergic reaction.
Smoking is like everyone in the world having a peanut allergy. Get it the fuck away from me.You live in Albany. In New York City, there is no room to get away. The sidewalk is only so wide. There is a cloud of smoke covering every entrance to almost every single building. On some streets, like the one with all the jewelry stores, there are people smoking lined up and down the entire sidewalk almost every day almost all day.
We're not talking about smoking in your backyard. We're talking about a lot of people smoking, right fucking next to you. If we allow just one person, we have to allow every person. If it was just one person, you could probably avoid it, but not when it's a bunch of people.
The thing is, while there are a bunch of smokers, they are still in the vast minority. It's simply that the radius of smoke is so great that just one smoker can disturb multiple non-smokers. If just one in twenty people is smoking on a sidewalk, it is unavoidable. Every day when I walk to and from the office from GCT I have to be constantly alert to smokers and hold my breath as I walk past. It's basically impossible to just walk in peace. Why should I have to work hard to avoid poison gas clouds every day while I walk to work? Get them the fuck out of here.
Democracy itself is nothing more than decision ad populum. Or, should we get rid of that too?
Seriously, should we have litter laws or not?
Moreover, it goes back to the issue of knowledge. With a peanut allergy, you may not actually know whether or not the allergen is present in any given location. The amount of allergen necessary to produce a reaction is often undetectable through conventional means. Hence, the best route is to keep a place peanut-free. When it comes to smoking, you can see a smoker. You know where the smoke cloud lies. You can take evasive action, and at worst, you may be momentarily inconvenienced as you pass nearby.
I've been in the city plenty of times. I know how crowded it gets, and I know what it's like to pass by a throng of smokers. You know what? I walk faster to get by them. At worst, it's a momentary inconvenience, much the same as breathing in the exhaust fumes of an idling bus. Any urban environment is full of airborne pollutants that cause as much, if not more, of an inconvenience than smokers.
You don't have a right to not be inconvenienced. It's a necessary byproduct of living in a society that values individual liberties. Every now and again, someone else's liberties may inconvenience you, but unless it causes a real, measurable, demonstrable harm, you have no basis for complaint. Aren't you the one who always says that people need to ignore trolls on the Internet, because life is tough and you need to deal with it? People who smoke are effectively trolling you, and you need to be able to deal with it.
1. I support the existing smoking ban
2. I support the new smoking ban for public parks and beaches.
Majority right: smoking banned in many public places
Minority right: smoking not banned in some public places, and not banned in private homes/cars/etc...
How have I been pwned? Democracy allows people to vote to create laws to restrict certain behaviors within the confines of the constitution. The vast majority of New Yorkers want a general smoking ban in many public places, and so it comes to pass. It's no different than any other law. It's enforced fairly evenly. Most people are very happy with it. I have everything I want, and the smokers have their minority rights maintained. How have I lost? It's no different than a littering law.
Scott, however, has been pwned. You should smoke a cigar in his face and then spill your brandy on his evening jacket. ^_~
The best argument you can make is that you claim a net gain to society through the enforcement of a smoking ban. I disagree. I contend that the smoker is more inconvenienced by being kicked out than you are by being in proximity to him. At best, the smoking ban has had a net neutral effect on society as a whole. You may perceive a net positive gain in your life, but you do not reflect on society as a whole.
Also, to go ahead with the littering argument, I say remove the fines for littering. They're already unevenly enforced, and total enforcement of those laws would require significant manpower that could be better spent elsewhere. The majority, I contend, will not litter, simply because that same majority are those who would put litter laws into place to begin with. Those who do litter are going to do it anyhow, since they're not stopped by current laws (only inconvenienced). It's exactly the same as speeding laws.
Again, the right for them to swing their fists, and spread their smoke ends at my face. Even if they ever so slightly graze my face doing an immeasurably small amount of harm, that's crossing the line. If I have to suffer an unpleasant smell for even one fraction of a second, it's too much.
You people keep talking about it being ok because the amount of harm is so small. Ok, so let's say I steal a penny from you, is that ok? Seriously, a penny is so worthless. Ok, now I steal a penny from you every single day. Actually, on your way to work ten different people each steal one penny from you. Then on the way back from work twenty different people each steal a penny from you (there are more smokers out at 5pm than at 9am). Thirty cents a day adds up.
I think it's pretty clear that this doesn't work. Obviously if someone does more harm, especially with intent, then that is a more severe crime than only doing a slight bit of harm. Madoff gets a lot more years in jail that a car jacker. But that does not mean that doing only a seemingly insignificant amount of harm should be completely permissible. Harm is harm is harm. If you want to smoke somewhere that it can't possibly ever get in my face, that's fine. But you get your hand off my pennies.
I'd say that the various national anti-smoking campaigns have had a far greater effect in reducing the frequency of smoking.
You might say that clearly the lives saved and extended by reduction in smoking-related diseases outweighs the loss of jobs and money, regardless of the numbers. However, losing jobs and declining economy pretty much does lead directly to shortened lives. If we don't ban or limit smoking, more people will die of lung cancer and such. If we do ban or limit it, fewer people will die of smoking-related illnesses, but more people will die from not having money or a job.
This is why I did not venture down the economic road earlier.
Scotland: Kansas: General: For me this issue is so clear cut there isn't even any question. People have to be saved from their own stupidity. Seatbelts saved lives. Not smoking also saves lives. In ten years we'll look back at this and say "I can't believe people actually smoked so much!" It'll be like finding out doctors didn't wash their hands between autopsies and delivering children.
Of course, the draconian drug laws we have in effect have totally solved our drug problems.
I would like to see a smoking ban around public playgrounds and a fine for smoking in a car with children under a certain age.
I'm going to look more into the efficacy of these smoking bans, but if Luke's preliminary Googling is any indication, then I may lean towards supporting them.
EDIT: Damn, have to pay for the full-text article from the JoACC. I want more information about their methods.
Now, if we could just legalize marijuana, and restrict the same as cigarettes and alcohol, we'd be set. Or, how about all the places where the governments give clean, free heroin to addicts? There's clear evidence that it's more effective and less harmful than our current broken system of methadone and/or prison rape.
As for the evidence of economic and health benefits from the current plans, I'm not entirely convinced. I'm pretty sure you don't have access to journals that I don't have, so I doubt you're reading full studies. I may actually purchase that most recent JoACC article to review the methods used in that meta-study that Luke mentioned.