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.
This is exactly the same logic that justified prohibition.
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.
This is exactly the same logic that justified prohibition.
Well, not exactly. Prohibition was mostly a puritanical movement based on nothing. That was also a global ban on all booze everywhere. If stopping smoking in public really has that much of a public health impact, you can't help but support it.
What about having separate but equal smoker-only facilities? Nobody should have a problem with that.
This is exactly the same logic that justified prohibition.
So, they tried it. They made several mistakes, however.
1. They ignored minority rights. A better solution would have been to ban the public consumption of alcohol. They went too far in trying to outright ban it. 2. They did not have the wide popular support that smoking bans have. 3. The meager benefit from the ban was far outweighed by the grievous harm it brought about. In light of the overwhelmingly negative consequences of the ban, the fact that it was kept in place for so long was a travesty.
3. The meager benefit from the ban was far outweighed by the grievous harm it brought about. In light of the overwhelmingly negative consequences of the ban, the fact that it was kept in place for so long was a travesty.
I agree with your other points but I feel the need to comment on this. The wheels of gov't grind very slowly, it's likely that a smoking ban would be in place for an equally long time even if it was determined to be detrimental overall. This is one of the reasons I oppose these sort of sweeping changes in general, they're very hard if not impossible to undo. So I hope everyone in NYC really wants this smoking ban, because it's going to be around for a very long time.
The major problem with prohibition was that they banned it completely, and thus created a black market. You can see the same thing happening with marijuana, meth, etc. right now.
The best way to deal with things like this is to legalize them, but severely limit them. If there is a legal channel to obtain these things, people will not go to the black markets. All that money will stay in the good economy, and not go towards organized crime. At the same time, by severely regulating the substances, you can minimize the damage they do to the society.
In summary. Organized crime damages society. Drugs everywhere damages our society. Solution: allow just enough drugs to eliminate all organized crime, but don't allow any more drugs than necessary.
So I hope everyone in NYC really wants this smoking ban, because it's going to be around for a very long time.
It's amazingly popular. There is overwhelming support for not only maintaining but expanding it. Both mayoral candidates are behind it, since it's such a popular issue.
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.
I'm quoting this because the analogy brings up a good point regarding universal public bans on smoking. There are restaurant franchises that serve complimentary peanuts as part of their business model. These establishments clearly mark that they serve peanuts, and that by entering the building one may be exposing themselves to peanut dust. This is done in deference to people with peanut allergies. I bring this up because in every ban on "public" smoking I've seen, there doesn't seem to be any option in place for businesses who wish to follow this route --- i.e., explicitly allow smoking on their premises, and make this fact publicly known. Anyone who chose to avoid smoke would be perfectly free to go elsewhere for their business, just as those with peanut allergies are free to not enter restaurants serving complimentary peanuts.
Again, no public smoking ban I've seen appears to leave this option open --- if you're a public business, you can't allow smoking, even if you want to and don't care about the non-smoker business it would deprive you of. This is a good thing?
Also, not to conflate the issue of public smoking with civil rights issues, but...yeah, just pointing out that just because a majority of people find something annoying doesn't give legislation against that thing a free pass.
I bring this up because in every ban on "public" smoking I've seen, there doesn't seem to be any option in place for businesses who wish to follow this route --- i.e., explicitly allow smoking on their premises, and make this fact publicly known. Anyone who chose to avoid smoke would be perfectly free to go elsewhere for their business, just as those with peanut allergies are free to not enter restaurants serving complimentary peanuts.
The rationale in New York was that no paid employee could be exposed to the levels of secondhand smoke found indoors at a smoking establishment, and that it was in fact a violation of OSHA regulations regarding a safe workplace. There were, and I believe still are, exemptions for private clubs without employees and the like.
It was also an issue of the tragedy of the commons, which led to no non-smoking bars really existing despite a general demand for them. Once smoking was banned in bars, bar attendance rose, and many bar owners stated that they would keep their own bans in place if the citywide ban were ever overturned.
I was going to reply about the paralels between bans on public smoking and thirties style prohibition, but others have said all I wanted on that point. Until people HAD to smoke outside, nobody wanted to admit just how unpleasant smoking in an enclosed place was. Just like until people saw videos of crash tests with seatbelts on and without, they didn't realise how dangerous their "right to not wear my seatbelt" was.
For one, the egg-skull thing is bullshit. Intent does matter, and like TheWhaleShark said, it would be manslaughter. For second,
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.
This is also bullshit. Smoking and secondhand smoke does not bother me a bit in the least. You're twisting this peanut shit around like crazy. The thing is, most people don't care- If someone else wants to smoke, then fine! It's their problem if they want to do that to themselves, but your making it out like since smoking bothers you for some reason, then you should ban smoking everywhere. Well since you don't like pop cause it burns your throat, why not ban that? Your argument is stupid, and it's your over-the-top, irrational sensitivity to secondhand smoke that is the problem.
I could go on and refute other points but since you have yet to refute my last comment I won't bother wasting time.
This is also bullshit. Smoking and secondhand smoke does not bother me a bit in the least.
Um, I would like to point out that you aren't necessarily speaking for the majority, here. I despise second hand smoke. My fiancee despises it. My whole family, and practically every friend I can think of either hates it or would gladly live without it. We live in a crowded city and it is a frequent occurrence. I often have to speed or slow my walking in order to get my face the hell away from a continuous cloud spewing from some asshole(s) plodding in front of me. Just because you are not bothered by it does not mean that Scott is in some bizarre minority that happens to dislike a stinky toxic puff in the face at any random moment outside.
You're twisting this peanut shit around like crazy.
lol, quote of the night.
The thing is, most people don't care-
Prove that, especially in terms of the NYC population.
Well since you don't like pop cause it burns your throat, why not ban that?
lol pop. I guess you're not from NYC. If people made frequent habit of spitting "pop" into my face in outdoor, public places, I think I would be in higher favor of a public ban. That would be obnoxious and disgusting. But soda remains in the drinker's mouth all the way down. There is no such thing as "second-hand soda-drinking", therefore...
Which is why smoking is banned in so many places? Because people don't care? If we use our common sense and a little guesswork, we can conclude that smoking was banned in public places because a large percentage of the population doesn't like it. =0 WOW. Isn't deductive reasoning fun?
Well since you don't like pop cause it burns your throat, why not ban that?
In addition to what Judith said- Soda isn't poison. Standing near a soda drinker will not make me inhale poison. I hate soda but it doesn't bother me when others drink it near me. It does bother me when people smoke next to me, and I have to breathe in poison that smells like burning hair on my dog's un-groomed ass.
Nobody I know or have met in person has had a problem with secondhand smoke has had a problem with it, unless they have asthma or something like that. Of course I can't prove it in terms of NYC, but this is just the case of my local population.
Um, I would like to point out that you aren't necessarily speaking for the majority, here. I despise second hand smoke. My fiancee despises it. My whole family, and practically every friend I can think of either hates it or would gladly live without it. We live in a crowded city and it is a frequent occurrence. I often have to speed or slow my walking in order to get my face the hell away from a continuous cloud spewing from some asshole(s) plodding in front of me. Just because you are not bothered by it does not mean that Scott is in some bizarre minority that happens to dislike a stinky toxic puff in the face at any random moment outside.
True, however Scott himself is in the minority where too much shit bothers him. He won't even drink soda.
lol pop. I guess you're not from NYC.
Haha, I actually use all of the different words depending on what situation I'm in.
If people made frequent habit of spitting "pop" into my face in outdoor, public places, I think I would be in higher favor of a public ban. That would be obnoxious and disgusting. But soda remains in the drinker's mouth all the way down. There is no such thing as "second-hand soda-drinking", therefore...
The point I was trying to make is that just because something bothers you doesn't necessarily mean it should be illegal.
My grandmother smokes in her trailer. As a result, I can't visit her very often because cigarette smoke makes me ill. It gets hard for me to breathe, I get nauseous, and my eyes water. Even the smallest bit of smoke can do this to me. I know it is an inconvenience, but banning smoking in public places would help people like me. I'm sorry about that, but what else can we do?
For the record, I have many allergies, so I'm probably more sensitive to this than most people.
My grandmother smokes in her trailer. As a result, I can't visit her very often because cigarette smoke makes me ill. It gets hard for me to breathe, I get nauseous, and my eyes water. Even the smallest bit of smoke can do this to me. I know it is an inconvenience, but banning smoking in public places would help people like me. I'm sorry about that, but what else can we do?
For the record, I have many allergies, so I'm probably more sensitive to this than most people.
Of course this is fine, because you have a legitimate excuse- you don't have to be sorry at all. "Being annoying and smelling like shit" is not an excuse though to make something illegal; yes, it's completely fine if a business doesn't allow smoking around a certain perimeter (i.e., hospitals, nuclear plants, etc.), however making it illegal for someone to smoke in public (like on a street or in a city) is something that I think is going overboard with the whole matter.
Just a note, he doesn't drink soda but he really doesn't have a problem with other people drinking soda.
This is true. I might tell you that you are rotting your teeth, giving yourself diabetes, etc. I might also talk about how diet soda is the opposite of diet. But I'm not going to tell someone they can't drink soda. It doesn't affect anyone but themselves.
Imagine this situation. Let's say there's a magical soda. Whenever you drink it, everyone within a ten foot radius also tastes it. Is it ok to drink this soda within a ten foot radius of people who don't want to taste it? The answer is obviously no. Thus, drinking of this magic soda should be limited to times and places when all present consent to tasting the magic soda. This is true even if the magic soda does no harm whatsoever.
True, however Scott himself is in the minority where too much shit bothers him. He won't even drink soda.
Just a note, he doesn't drink soda but he really doesn't have a problem with other people drinking soda.
I'm fully aware of this.
Just a note, he doesn't drink soda but he really doesn't have a problem with other people drinking soda.
This is true. I might tell you that you are rotting your teeth, giving yourself diabetes, etc. I might also talk about howdiet soda is the opposite of diet. But I'm not going to tell someone they can't drink soda. It doesn't affect anyone but themselves.
Imagine this situation. Let's say there's a magical soda. Whenever you drink it, everyone within a ten foot radius also tastes it. Is it ok to drink this soda within a ten foot radius of people who don't want to taste it? The answer is obviously no. Thus, drinking of this magic soda should be limited to times and places when all present consent to tasting the magic soda. This is true even if the magic soda does no harm whatsoever.
Alright, so by the same situation, lets say that you have a boombox your carrying around, or maybe your iPod with some speakers. You and everyone within a however many foot-radius can hear it, but they don't like the song. Should we make carrying speakers around illegal? No. How about the people who have the speakers in their car turned up with the window down. Should we make that illegal? No, not really. What if someone has some magical condition where they get hurt if they hear noise? Does that make the illegalization (word?) of it ok? In most cases, no. If it bothers them so much and they are aware that they have that problem than they shouldn't go near where loud music is playing.
Alright, so by the same situation, lets say that you have a boombox your carrying around, or maybe your iPod with some speakers. You and everyone within a however many foot-radius can hear it, but they don't like the song. Should we make carrying speakers around illegal? No. How about the people who have the speakers in their car turned up with the window down. Should we make that illegal? No, not really. What if someone has some magical condition where they get hurt if they hear noise? Does that make the illegalization (word?) of it ok? In most cases, no. If it bothers them so much and they are aware that they have that problem than they shouldn't go near where loud music is playing.
Uh, we should, and do, make carrying around a boom box illegal if it is too loud. It should be, and is, illegal to have your car be too loud. There are ordinances that say how many decibels the sound can be, and you get fined if you go over it. There aren't (that I'm aware of), but should be, similar ordinances for noise generated by car and motorcycle tailpipes.
If someone has a magical condition where they are hurt by noise, then it is just like the peanut allergy. It is up to them to avoid peanuts. However, this is the opposite situation. Loud noises and smoke affect everybody. Every single person, or at least an overwhelming majority, of people are affected by this. If over 51% of people had peanut allergies, then I would say yes, we should ban eating of peanuts in public.
If someone has a magical condition where they are hurt by noise, then it is just like the peanut allergy. It is up to them to avoid peanuts. However, this is the opposite situation. Loud noises and smoke affecteverybody. Every single person, or at least an overwhelming majority, of people are affected by this. If over 51% of people had peanut allergies, then I would say yes, we should ban eating of peanuts in public.
Yes, it effects everyone, but it doesn't bother everyone. Car exhaust affects everyone probably more than secondhand smoking does, but I would bet it doesn't bother as many people as it does. I think part of the reason why I feel the way I do is that I used to it; my Grandma smokes, so did my Grandpa, and aside from that, the percentage of people who smoke in Oklahoma are in the top 5 highest in the country.
Yes, it effects everyone, but it doesn't bother everyone. Car exhaust affects everyone probably more than secondhand smoking does, but I would bet it doesn't bother as many people as it does. I think part of the reason why I feel the way I do is that I used to it; my Grandma smokes, so did my Grandpa, and aside from that, the percentage of people who smoke in Oklahoma are in the top 5 highest in the country.
Oklahoma law passed, 37 to 9, had a few liberals in the mix, an amendment to place the Ten Commandments on the front entrance to the state capitol. The feds in D.C., along with the ACLU, said it would be a mistake. Hey this is a conservative state, based on Christian values...! HB 1330
Guess what.......... Oklahoma did it anyway.
Oklahoma recently passed a law in the state to incarcerate all illegal immigrants, and ship them back to where they came from unless they want to get a green card and become an American citizen. They all scattered. HB 1804. Hope we didn't send any of them to your state. This was against the advice of the Federal Government, and the ACLU, they said it would be a mistake.
Guess what.......... Oklahoma did it anyway.
Recently we passed a law to include DNA samples from any and all illegals to the Oklahoma database, for criminal investigative purposes. Pelosi said it was unconstitutional. SB 1102
Guess what......... Oklahoma did it anyway.
Several weeks ago, we passed a law, declaring Oklahoma as a Sovereign state, not under the Federal Government directives. Joining Texas , Montana and Utah as the only states to do so. More states are likely to follow: Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, the Carolinas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, Mississippi, Florida. Save your confederate money, it appears the South is about to rise up once again. HJR 1003
The federal Government has made bold steps to take away our guns. Oklahoma, a week ago, passed a law confirming people in this state have the right to bear arms and transport them in their vehicles. I'm sure that was a set back for the criminals (and Obamaites). Liberals didn't like it -- But ...
Guess what.......... Oklahoma did it anyway.
By the way, Obama does not like any of this.
Guess what....who cares... Oklahoma is doing it anyway.
Apple will no longer repair your device if it shows signs of being used for prolonged periods of time in a smoke-filled environment. It voids the warranty.
Apple willno longer repair your deviceif it shows signs of being used for prolonged periods of time in a smoke-filled environment. It voids the warranty.
This brings us back to the argument yet again. Is it ok for a smoker to do a very small amount of damage to electronic devices belonging to other people by smoking in their vicinity?
This is interesting. If the device fails principally because of smoke damage, then I'm all for this. Consequently, if someone else destroys your portable electronic device by secondhand smoke, and it is demonstrated that the device failed because of smoke damage, then you could probably sue them or something.
Granted, it probably takes years of exposure to smoke in order to do that, so you'd have to track down every person who ever smoked around you iPod and somehow demonstrate that they're all responsible for the damage.
Granted, it probably takes years of exposure to smoke in order to do that, so you'd have to track down every person who ever smoked around you iPod and somehow demonstrate that they're all responsible for the damage.
Exactly. This is why I kept trying to use the analogy of stealing a penny from someone. Just because the amount of harm you are causing someone is incredibly small in its magnitude does not mean it should be permitted. Yet it is impractical to try to find and sue or try a large number of people who each individually did a very small amount of damage. The only practical solution is to prohibit these slightly damaging activities.
Granted, it probably takes years of exposure to smoke in order to do that, so you'd have to track down every person who ever smoked around you iPod and somehow demonstrate that they're all responsible for the damage.
As far as iPods go, I'd guess that it would take years longer than iPods have even existed for one of them to actually acquire any smoke related damage.
Comments
What about having separate but equal smoker-only facilities? Nobody should have a problem with that.
1. They ignored minority rights. A better solution would have been to ban the public consumption of alcohol. They went too far in trying to outright ban it.
2. They did not have the wide popular support that smoking bans have.
3. The meager benefit from the ban was far outweighed by the grievous harm it brought about. In light of the overwhelmingly negative consequences of the ban, the fact that it was kept in place for so long was a travesty.
The best way to deal with things like this is to legalize them, but severely limit them. If there is a legal channel to obtain these things, people will not go to the black markets. All that money will stay in the good economy, and not go towards organized crime. At the same time, by severely regulating the substances, you can minimize the damage they do to the society.
In summary. Organized crime damages society. Drugs everywhere damages our society. Solution: allow just enough drugs to eliminate all organized crime, but don't allow any more drugs than necessary.
Again, no public smoking ban I've seen appears to leave this option open --- if you're a public business, you can't allow smoking, even if you want to and don't care about the non-smoker business it would deprive you of. This is a good thing?
Also, not to conflate the issue of public smoking with civil rights issues, but...yeah, just pointing out that just because a majority of people find something annoying doesn't give legislation against that thing a free pass.
It was also an issue of the tragedy of the commons, which led to no non-smoking bars really existing despite a general demand for them. Once smoking was banned in bars, bar attendance rose, and many bar owners stated that they would keep their own bans in place if the citywide ban were ever overturned.
For one, the egg-skull thing is bullshit. Intent does matter, and like TheWhaleShark said, it would be manslaughter. For second, This is also bullshit. Smoking and secondhand smoke does not bother me a bit in the least. You're twisting this peanut shit around like crazy. The thing is, most people don't care- If someone else wants to smoke, then fine! It's their problem if they want to do that to themselves, but your making it out like since smoking bothers you for some reason, then you should ban smoking everywhere. Well since you don't like pop cause it burns your throat, why not ban that? Your argument is stupid, and it's your over-the-top, irrational sensitivity to secondhand smoke that is the problem.
I could go on and refute other points but since you have yet to refute my last comment I won't bother wasting time.
For the record, I have many allergies, so I'm probably more sensitive to this than most people.
Imagine this situation. Let's say there's a magical soda. Whenever you drink it, everyone within a ten foot radius also tastes it. Is it ok to drink this soda within a ten foot radius of people who don't want to taste it? The answer is obviously no. Thus, drinking of this magic soda should be limited to times and places when all present consent to tasting the magic soda. This is true even if the magic soda does no harm whatsoever.
If someone has a magical condition where they are hurt by noise, then it is just like the peanut allergy. It is up to them to avoid peanuts. However, this is the opposite situation. Loud noises and smoke affect everybody. Every single person, or at least an overwhelming majority, of people are affected by this. If over 51% of people had peanut allergies, then I would say yes, we should ban eating of peanuts in public.
OKLAHOMA MAY JUST BE THE PLACE TO LIVE ! ! !
An update from Oklahoma :
Oklahoma law passed, 37 to 9, had a few liberals in the mix, an amendment to place the Ten Commandments on the front entrance to the state capitol. The feds in D.C., along with the ACLU, said it would be a mistake. Hey this is a conservative state, based on Christian values...! HB 1330
Guess what.......... Oklahoma did it anyway.
Oklahoma recently passed a law in the state to incarcerate all illegal immigrants, and ship them back to where they came from unless they want to get a green card and become an American citizen. They all scattered. HB 1804. Hope we didn't send any of them to your state. This was against the advice of the Federal Government, and the ACLU, they said it would be a mistake.
Guess what.......... Oklahoma did it anyway.
Recently we passed a law to include DNA samples from any and all illegals to the Oklahoma database, for criminal investigative purposes. Pelosi said it was unconstitutional. SB 1102
Guess what......... Oklahoma did it anyway.
Several weeks ago, we passed a law, declaring Oklahoma as a Sovereign state, not under the Federal Government directives. Joining Texas , Montana and Utah as the only states to do so. More states are likely to follow: Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, the Carolinas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, Mississippi, Florida. Save your confederate money, it appears the South is about to rise up once again. HJR 1003
The federal Government has made bold steps to take away our guns. Oklahoma, a week ago, passed a law confirming people in this state have the right to bear arms and transport them in their vehicles. I'm sure that was a set back for the criminals (and Obamaites). Liberals didn't like it -- But ...
Guess what.......... Oklahoma did it anyway.
By the way, Obama does not like any of this.
Guess what....who cares... Oklahoma is doing it anyway.
To Verify:
http://boards.history.com/topic/Current-Events/Oklahoma-May-Just/520060502
Granted, it probably takes years of exposure to smoke in order to do that, so you'd have to track down every person who ever smoked around you iPod and somehow demonstrate that they're all responsible for the damage.