Anti-Smoking Laws

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Let's be perfectly clear here: if a guy is stupid enough to get picked up for DUI, then it's no one's fault but his own. It's not the bar's fault, it's not the cop's fault, and it certainly is not the fault of the people putting a smoking ban in place. It's the fault of the knob who was stupid and irresponsible enough to drive drunk. It has 0 to do with the smoking ban.

What, would he be less drunk in his car if he didn't have so far to drive? Is a short distance okay to drive drunk but not a long one? This makes no sense.

[Colchek]

Why the frak would I throw a punch at you if you dont do anythign to deserve it? Like getting up in my face about somethign I'm doing. I mean if I was a smoker and I lit up in a public space and you came over and got all high and mighty in my face about my smoking then you may have earned a punch in the face but otherwise you stay on your side and I stay on mine and there be no punches flying or anything bad a-happening.

What did I do to deserve you lighting up while I'm eating and expose me to your poison?

Wow you might wanna change your point of view there pardner. It must be difficult to breathe with where your head is right now. To compare smoking with punching someone in the face is not only bad logic but comparing apples to oranges. One is physical violence which should only be used when appropriate and the other is a personal behavior/right to act that some people get bent about and shouldnt.

Same difference. Both are a physical act. Sending that smoke towards me is no different than throwing a punch, both will harm me, but it has the added effect of harming everyone else around.

I have never said avoid public places. I have said if you have such a big issue and problem with being around smokers no one is forcing you to go where there are smokers and thereare and always have been plenty of options available pre-ban. No one is holdign a gun to your head and tellign you you have to go be around smokers. you however are holdign a gun to smokers head (figuratively hopefully) and telling them they dont have the right to make a choice as an adult about the way they behave.

There were no places to go before these bans. I'd like to join RecoveringKinkoid in requesting examples. Point out a restaurant that banned smoking. My workplace had people smoking all over the floor, now I can do my job without worrying about the health effects. They still have places to go outside, where I know they are, and can avoid that area. The reason for the 20 foot rule is so that smoke doesn't enter the building, which it will if you're standing right by the door. People are free to smoke before they enter public places, smoke at home, and smoke in their car. Smoking itself isn't being stopped. The threat to public health is.

[anriana]

I live in a state with one of the highest smoking rates in the country. People here smoked EVERYWHERE before the ban. Every restaurant, every bar, every doorway was full of smokers pumping out smoke. I am extremely sensitive to smoke and had to deal with watery eyes and several minutes of coughing everytime I wanted to go anywhere, just from walking through the door. And heaven forbid I went out to eat with a relative - I was too young to have any say over where we went and we would always end up somewhere full of smoke where I would end up sick. I am incredibly thankful for the ban. I was able to get a job I needed at a restaurant, I'm able to actually enjoy going out to eat with my family/friends, and many businesses outside of the culinary region have implemented stricter rules too. My work has less cigarette butts littering our yard and no one is allowed to smoke in front of our doors - they have a nice gazebo in the parking lot and the buildings have cameras. I would never want to live in a city that didn't have this law.

[ebonyknight]

Peanut allergies are a medical condition. Smoking is a smoker's personal choice. You're comparing apples to oranges.

A person eating peanuts isn't going to know people nearby are allergic to them until that person mentions it. For those who know that they can have, or have had, an anaphylactic response to them, they typically wear bracelets to alert people to their condition. That's why restaurants that serve peanuts have notices to inform them that going into that restaurant may pose a risk to them. If they risk it, that's their choice. As for certain restaurants serving peanuts, they're food. That's what they do.

Smoking, on the other hand, has documentation galore about its health effects. Everyone, in some way, is affected by it. Therefore a smoker lighting up in a public place is making a conscious decision knowing that anyone near them is going to be affected by what they are doing. If the majority that do not care would respect that it affects everyone, there wouldn't be a need for the laws.

I still stand by my argument that the situations are completely different.

All of that and still didn't answer my question.

Again, everyone has been chanting like a mantra that when what someone else does affects another, that's crossing the line. Either it is or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.

*If they risk it, that's their choice. As for certain restaurants serving peanuts, they're food. That's what they do.*

Same for non-smokers. Until the law was changed, that's what bars did, serve drinks and allow a place for indoor smoking because you could no longer smoke indoors in designated places at work (IE usually the bathroom). You still haven't given a decent reason why the same shouldn't be done for this deadly allergy.

First it was you want us to get rid of them all? No, just like you guys say, keep it out of the public places....contaminate your own homes if you like.

Then it was a valuable source of nutrition. Not for those allergic to them. Not benefit for them, just for you at their expense (which is exactly what you claim smokers do.

Now you claim that they enter an establishment known for this environment at their own risk. DING, DING, DING!!! The shoe now seems to be on the other foot.

Every point you continue to come up with can apply to the reverse. Just as this guy with the deadly allergy can avoid this establishment by going to another, so can a non-smoker.

Let the business "owner" make the choice as to whether or not to allow it. If there is no revenue drop as everyone says, then I am sure that plenty will convert over of their own free will, instead of with a boot on their neck.

So let me guess, when what you do affects another, that's crossing the line.....with caveats....right? Who makes those caveats? The will of the people? Well, the will of the people who own and pay taxes on the establishments didn't want to do that. So who else?

These bans infringe upon other's rights just as you say the other is doing. But as long as it's in your favor it's okay. Let the person who owns the place make the decision, they are the ones who pay for it and work for it. I am sure that economics will balance it out. Customers can vote with their feet. But putting a ban in place is just as facist as you claim the smokers are about their smoking.

[ebonyknight]

The dust off peanuts, based on the article posted about them, from concentrated peanuts is such a ridiculously minuscule amount that it's VERY doubtful that people can be harmed just by being near them. Touching peanuts, yea, but not breathing in air somewhere nearby where someone is eating a few. Smoking carries a lot more in a bigger volume.

We're finished. This is another reason why I wasn't bothering to respond to you.

http://www.wl.k12.in.us/hh/documents/peanutFAQ.pdf

*Can ingestion of small fragments of peanuts/nuts be enough to cause life-threatening anaphylaxis?
Absolutely, yes. Even small amounts of peanut dust or peanut molecules could be life-threatening.*

You tout the validity of studies in one hand (when they support you), then when one is presented that directly contradicts what you just said, you ignore it.

We aren't having a debate, we are having a pissing contest. While I don't agree with Colchek's stand, he does make some good points that I am willing to explore.

[Greenday]

Just because I refuse to say why it is ok for peanuts to be legal and smoking illegal doesn't make my arguments invalid. You cannot compare the two. They are two totally different things. Smoke will easily distribute across an entire room. Unless you are eating at one of those places where there are tons of peanuts around and you can just throw the shells on the ground, it's not going to affect you unless you actually order something with peanuts.

Please, point me to any study I posted that I'm basing my knowledge on.

It's a fact that smoking harms people, both who smoke and don't.

[Colchek]

Peanuts are not a poison. Tobacco smoke is.

Now before you start yelling, "They are to those with allergies!", yes, to them, they are just as bad as a poison. To them, and only to them. Approximately 1 percent of the US population has peanut allergies. They know they have them, and they have to live with that, until medical science finally finds a means to treat their condition so that they will not have to. Therefore, as a courtesy to them, restaurants that serve peanuts, since they are edible, post warnings to those who have those allergies to alert them to the dangers. In my area, there is only one restaurant that serves peanuts in the shell (which I believe is required to achieve the dust levels you refer to) on a regular basis, and that's Texas Roadhouse.

Tobacco smoke is a known poison. It contains numerous deadly chemicals, carcinogens, and other substances never intended to be put into the human body. It affects anyone who is exposed to it. A person chooses to accept the risks of smoking by taking those chemicals into their body, however, by smoking, they are introducing a source of harm to their immediate environment, and not only themselves. There is a reason why I have not mentioned chewing tobacco, snuff, or any other non-smoked form of tobacco, and that is because its consumption harms only the person using it, not anyone in the room with them. As a co-worker said, "Back when I used to dip snuff, I said, 'When I dip, it's suicide, not murder.'" A strong sentiment, perhaps, but it does make a point.

I do see the point you are trying to make, and I acknowledge it. Why can peanuts be served when it's known there are people allergic to them, but smokers can't smoke. Why are people allowed to smoke in public places when people know that it's harmful to everyone around? To avoid peanuts, a person simply must either not eat them, or choose a restaurant that doesn't offer peanuts in the shell. They do this because they do not have any choice otherwise, or they will die. Smokers have a choice when they start their habit, a dangerous habit. Why should they be allowed to impose a habit that they chose to start on everyone?

I am an asthmatic. I know that, and I accept that. Cigarette smoke is one of the most severe triggers of my asthma, and will set me off into an attack. I avoid smokers as much as possible, but if smokers are in every restaurant, every bowling alley, every grocery store, every amusement park, every mall, every department store, smoking away and putting smoke everywhere, how do I avoid it? A peanut allergy sufferer can avoid triggering his condition by avoiding peanuts. If smoking is allowed in all public places, I can't avoid it. More and more evidence is being offered every year, confirming more and more that tobacco smoke is poisonous and harmful to everyone's health.

I'll boil it down to the key point that is the basis for my argument. A person has no choice when it comes to allergies or other medical conditions. A person has a choice to take up smoking. That choice should not affect everyone trying to live their lives, be it asthmatics, bronchitis sufferers, emphysema patients, people with one lung, or people with two healthy lungs who want to keep them that way. Smokers are imposing their habit on others. Peanut allergy sufferers are not, they simply live with their condition and everyone makes sure to let them know what may be harmful to them. Therefore I do not believe the shoe is on the other foot, as you say.

[Boozy]

For some people it may be that addictive and for others it is no more addictive than a glass of water.

Not weighing in on either side here, but I feel that one thing should be made clear:

Nicotine is the most addictive substance known to man. It addicts almost 98% of all users within the first year. Compare this to heroin (second on the list) at 87%.

Nicotine withdrawal symptoms are worse than that of cocaine.

Carry on.

[ebonyknight]

I do see the point you are trying to make, and I acknowledge it. Why can peanuts be served when it's known there are people allergic to them, but smokers can't smoke. Why are people allowed to smoke in public places when people know that it's harmful to everyone around? To avoid peanuts, a person simply must either not eat them, or choose a restaurant that doesn't offer peanuts in the shell. They do this because they do not have any choice otherwise, or they will die. Smokers have a choice when they start their habit, a dangerous habit. Why should they be allowed to impose a habit that they chose to start on everyone?

Just as eating peanuts is a choice as well. There are alternatives, so why not ban them in public places as well???? People who have peanut allergies cannot eat a lot of processed foods because manufacturers do not process the food on separate equipment. They can't just go out and eat for the same reasons you claim. You can do the same to avoid those establishments. I'm sorry. Do you really expect me to believe that until these bans went into effect you had never been to a bar, restaurant, etc because they had smokers?

I ate something at this one particular chain restaurant. Never found out what it was that did it, but I got sick for two days. Did I demand they investigate and find out what they did wrong? Afterall, they "crossed the line". Nope, I just don't patronize that establishment anymore.

I am an asthmatic. I know that, and I accept that. Cigarette smoke is one of the most severe triggers of my asthma, and will set me off into an attack. I avoid smokers as much as possible, but if smokers are in every restaurant, every bowling alley, every grocery store, every amusement park, every mall, every department store, smoking away and putting smoke everywhere, how do I avoid it? A peanut allergy sufferer can avoid triggering his condition by avoiding peanuts. If smoking is allowed in all public places, I can't avoid it. More and more evidence is being offered every year, confirming more and more that tobacco smoke is poisonous and harmful to everyone's health.

Exaggerate much? Smokers are not in every restaurant. Quite a few already had non-ban imposed restrictions on smoking. Smoking in a grocery store? Amusement parks are outside (where I believe you said smokers could go). Never heard of a department store where you could smoke or a mall where you could.

Just as Mr peanut can avoid these places, you can as well. As I stated before I am an asthmatic as well. I have done my share of albuterol inhailers, prednisone and numerous other drugs over the years. You should try Singulair...it does wonders. Even had to go through the annoyance of getting allergy shots every week for over 10 years.

I was in the same boat as you 10 years ago where it seemed like everyone smoked everywhere. Know what? The places that let people smoke indoors, I avoided and went to EVERY PLACE you listed. Was it fair? No, but just as you said, you realize you are an asthmatic, just as people with other allergies and illnesses cope.

I even remember vividly being burned by a smoker when I was 8 years old. I even still have the scar on my arm. I am walking with my mother and someone who was being careless with their cig was walking with it at their hip level (which was my arm level). I walked into her or vice versa and got burned. She then "crossed the line and affected me". So, now do we ban them outside as well?

I'll boil it down to the key point that is the basis for my argument. A person has no choice when it comes to allergies or other medical conditions. A person has a choice to take up smoking. That choice should not affect everyone trying to live their lives, be it asthmatics, bronchitis sufferers, emphysema patients, people with one lung, or people with two healthy lungs who want to keep them that way. Smokers are imposing their habit on others. Peanut allergy sufferers are not, they simply live with their condition and everyone makes sure to let them know what may be harmful to them. Therefore I do not believe the shoe is on the other foot, as you say.

What about the mantra of crossing the line when what you does affects me???? You can't have it both ways.

Now you have gone from the same line of reasoning that going from how oppressed you were under smokers to the other away around. Afterall, if you now imply that you can't smoke at amusement parks, grocery stores, department stores, etc, where you and I both know nobody smokes inside of anyway (amusement parks the exception, usually being outside) where do they get to smoke? Only at home? Now who is oppressing whom?

[Greenday]

Colchek did a great job in summarizing my beliefs on that matter.

I decided to talk to my analytical chemistry professor about the peanut allergy vs cigarette smoke and smoking in general. Even in the concentrated amounts stated earlier, it is such a small amount that it will not affect people not near it. Smoking contains an ungodly amount of chemicals that are harmful to the body and are released in a very high concentration (a high concentration being one that will affect people farther away). According to her research into the subject, the amount of chemicals inhaled by the smoker is much smaller than the amount blown out by the smoker. The filters only increase this difference.

Here's a nice, valid link from the Department of Health in the UK: http://nds.coi.gov.uk/environment/fu...epartment=True

[Colchek]

I'm still maintaining the key difference in that tobacco smoke is a poison, and a drug. Peanuts aren't. There are millions of people with allergies of various types, to things in the environment that are sometimes unavoidable, like pollen and molds. Smoking /is/ avoidable, because it is a choice made by the people who do it. Peanuts and other foods have been consumed by humans for thousands of years, long before smoking was ever conceived of. Smoking was invented by man, and as it was discovered later, harms man. Peanuts are found in nature, and some people, because of malfunctions in their immune systems, are sensitive to one ingredient in that peanut, the same that some people are allergic to tomatoes, or wheat, or milk, etc, etc, etc. People with healthy immune systems, and even more so those without, are affected by smoking, a creation of man.

I'm sorry, but I will not accept that they are one and the same. I cross the line when I /purposefully/ put someone's life in danger, by doing my best to inflict upon them that which harms them. If I took a peanut, went up to a person with an allergy, and rubbed it on them, or snapped it beneath their nose, then you would have a case. Otherwise, the consumption of a peanut by me, isn't going to harm that person. Peanut dust is not going to travel anywhere near the distance smoke from smoking does, unless concentrated, like the restaurant I mentioned before. They have signs to warn people about it. A smoker, smoking and allowing the smoke to enter my lungs, is doing the same thing as if I was forcing a peanut on a person allergic to them. If they were making a conscious effort to keep their smoke to themselves, as the warnings and cautions about peanuts and where they are located does for peanut allergy sufferers, then it would be a different story.

As for my being in places with smokers, many of the places I listed did have people smoking, especially back in the early 80's. These days they don't, mostly because of the bans. To address amusement parks specifically, there were always people smoking in the lines waiting to get on rides. Outdoors or not, that's right in the middle of a group of people. Now those areas are non-smoking, and I feel for the better. I remember walking in malls back in the day, and people were smoking. People shopping, and smoking. It was everywhere.

[Seshat]

To compare smoking with punching someone in the face is not only bad logic but comparing apples to oranges. One is physical violence which should only be used when appropriate and the other is a personal behavior/right to act that some people get bent about and shouldnt.

I don't think you understand how violently a smoke-intolerant person reacts to cigarette smoke. I used to be severely intolerant. Quite frankly, back then, I'd have preferred to be punched in the face. It would hurt less.

(I've improved my general health, including my liver function, and I'm less smoke intolerant than I used to be.)

One cigarette in a room the size of a typical movie theatre would get me coughing. I'd start coughing, and my husband would look around to find out who was smoking - I'd not even smelled it, I'd just be coughing.

Walking past a bar could cause me to be bent double trying to breathe.

Trying to get through a group of smokers clustered outside the front of a building I was trying to get into - say, a doctor's office - would leave me coughing at best. Struggling for breath was a possibility too.

Actually going into a bar? Impossible.

Not all non-smokers are smoke-intolerant. But for smoke-intolerant people, smoking around us causes us genuine pain and real problems. And looking at the 'smokers' side of this conversation, it looks like few, if any, of you actually understand that.

So I'll break this up a bit into several different categories of issue.

The smoke intolerant: survival & avoidable pain

This is the only part where I don't see a reasonable compromise. Smoke intolerant people must have access to their places of work, their doctors, government buildings, and the like. Therefore, in government buildings, medical offices, and other spaces where people must go, smoking (yes, and peanuts!) should be banned both in the building and in the accessways to the building.

Of course, smoke-intolerant people have no more business choosing to work in smoke-permitted bars than peanut-allergic people have working in a peanut-butter factory. So 'places of work' does have some compromise cases.



The smoke intolerant and non-smokers: public spaces


If there are both smoking and non-smoking bars, clubs, pubs, restaurants, movie theatres and the like, that's fine. I'd ask that smokers respect the non-smoking places & not smoke if they enter them, & not smoke in the accessways to them. I'd also ask that non-smokers respect the smoking places, and not make a fuss about people smoking there.

As for the peanuts situation: as someone else pointed out, there are restaurants and the like which serve peanuts, and restaurants and the like which don't. Those that do apparently tend to have signs (I'd not noticed, but it makes sense). So yes, I'm treating smoke and peanuts in exactly the same way.



Rights and freedoms


To me, this isn't about rights and freedoms at all. It's about whether or not smoke-intolerant people are permitted to breathe.

Making it about rights and freedoms - well, I can only assume that those of you saying that have no idea how much smoke-intolerant people suffer. Especially since the non-smoking side of this debate (on fratching, at least) has repeatedly said that we're happy to let you smoke out in the open, or in designated smoking bars etc.

We just want to be able to do our thing without having to put up with coughing fits and severe asthma attacks. Keep your cigarettes away from the places we need to go, and we're all cool.




I hope this clarifies my viewpoint, and I think this meshes (at least generally) with the viewpoint of the others on the 'non-smoking' side of this debate.

[Greenday]

I agree with most of those, but the problem is, in most places, there are no smoke-free restaurants or bars or anything. Back home there were none until the ban. I'm in college now, different state, and I can't find one non-smoking place.

I also can't agree with comparing peanuts to cigarettes. There are people allergic to aspirin. If we ban peanuts because people are allergic to that, why not aspirin? What about dairy? Smoking doesn't affect only those with allergies like the other ones I mentioned. Smoking affects everyone.

[ebonyknight]

I'm still maintaining the key difference in that tobacco smoke is a poison, and a drug. Peanuts aren't. There are millions of people with allergies of various types, to things in the environment that are sometimes unavoidable, like pollen and molds. Smoking /is/ avoidable, because it is a choice made by the people who do it. Peanuts and other foods have been consumed by humans for thousands of years, long before smoking was ever conceived of. Smoking was invented by man, and as it was discovered later, harms man. Peanuts are found in nature, and some people, because of malfunctions in their immune systems, are sensitive to one ingredient in that peanut, the same that some people are allergic to tomatoes, or wheat, or milk, etc, etc, etc. People with healthy immune systems, and even more so those without, are affected by smoking, a creation of man.

Well I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. It seems that you are in the minority. Man that will of the people thing is a two edged sword. So how would you feel if a peanut ban went into effect? (rhetorical question)

As for my being in places with smokers, many of the places I listed did have people smoking, especially back in the early 80's. These days they don't, mostly because of the bans. To address amusement parks specifically, there were always people smoking in the lines waiting to get on rides. Outdoors or not, that's right in the middle of a group of people. Now those areas are non-smoking, and I feel for the better. I remember walking in malls back in the day, and people were smoking. People shopping, and smoking. It was everywhere.

What area of the country (what country) was this? People were not smoking in grocery stores, department stores and the like. Amusement parks, sure the asshole smokers will do that. But you haven't any people smoking indoors in public places since the mid to late 70's. At least not in the metropolitan area I have lived in my whole life.

I'm sorry, but I will not accept that they are one and the same. I cross the line when I /purposefully/ put someone's life in danger, by doing my best to inflict upon them that which harms them. If I took a peanut, went up to a person with an allergy, and rubbed it on them, or snapped it beneath their nose, then you would have a case. Otherwise, the consumption of a peanut by me, isn't going to harm that person. Peanut dust is not going to travel anywhere near the distance smoke from smoking does, unless concentrated, like the restaurant I mentioned before. They have signs to warn people about it. A smoker, smoking and allowing the smoke to enter my lungs, is doing the same thing as if I was forcing a peanut on a person allergic to them. If they were making a conscious effort to keep their smoke to themselves, as the warnings and cautions about peanuts and where they are located does for peanut allergy sufferers, then it would be a different story.

Well, now you have a problem. Your caveat is that you "purposefully" endanger someone. We are now in a crisis, because you have now called every smoker an attempted murderer. Whether you really feel that way or not, it's not going to fly in a court.

You trying to kill/harm a person with a peanut, isn't going to fly. If they run, you will run after them. After all your purpose is to harm them. A smoker is not going to chase you down and do mouth to mouth on you. They are going to go on with their intended purpose, to derive pleasure while you leave. If they were purposefully trying to do you harm, you would have to call the police, because people would be knocking on your door and entering your home to smoke.

What's your next caveat, since that one doesn't work?

[ebonyknight]

Rights and freedoms


To me, this isn't about rights and freedoms at all. It's about whether or not smoke-intolerant people are permitted to breathe.

Making it about rights and freedoms - well, I can only assume that those of you saying that have no idea how much smoke-intolerant people suffer. Especially since the non-smoking side of this debate (on fratching, at least) has repeatedly said that we're happy to let you smoke out in the open, or in designated smoking bars etc.

We just want to be able to do our thing without having to put up with coughing fits and severe asthma attacks. Keep your cigarettes away from the places we need to go, and we're all cool.

I hope this clarifies my viewpoint, and I think this meshes (at least generally) with the viewpoint of the others on the 'non-smoking' side of this debate.

Well I can't argue with that, if you are willing to be even handed in your treatment. If you are going to give one segment of society special treatment, then you have to be willing to accommodate others. If not, you have a case of the haves and the have nots.

The mantra non-smokers espouse (I mean publically, not just here) of "when what you do affects me, crosses the line", can't work if you are going to be selective.

I just find that side of the argument to be a reverse of assholish (is that a word?) treatment. Going from one extreme straight to the other, without compromise. And I think everyone (I hope) would agree that sure doesn't work for other issues, like race relations, for instance.