Smoking ban

[NicoMoreno]

Most of the smoking bylaws (again in my neck of ontario) ARE designed to protect workers. (not patrons, although that helps in the promotion of it)


Here's an interesting thought:

Say I said that I support no-smoking bylaws because I want to be able to go in some place and enjoy what it offers.

Well, the obvious rejoinder is: "Well if want to go in there you just have to take the smoking"

To which one could point at the the non-smoking bylaws and say "If you want to smoke, you just go do it elsewhere"

In other words, both sides are saying "If you don't like it, then leave".

Really, I doubt for this there can be any acceptable compromise, and of course in true democratic fashion, that means the majority wins.

[Northern Whistler]

Well the fact remains that everyone looses, because the choice to go elsewhere is lost on both sides as the people who run the business do not have a right to run it as they would like to. It is just one more way that we loose in our freedom of choice.

[djm]

My favourite spin-off from all this guff is now called "enviromental sensitivity", and I get great yucks from it. The smarmy twats that got the smoking rooms closed down in my workplace now have these whiners who are "environmentally sensitive" to perfumes, or perfumed products like shampoo, hairspray, deodorant, etc. All of a sudden, these anti-smokers are getting a taste of their own, and they don't like it, not one little bit. So there, the asthmatics win out after all, and nobody's particularly happy.

djm

[Tyghress]

My favourite spin-off from all this guff is now called "enviromental sensitivity", and I get great yucks from it. The smarmy twats that got the smoking rooms closed down in my workplace now have these whiners who are "environmentally sensitive" to perfumes, or perfumed products like shampoo, hairspray, deodorant, etc. All of a sudden, these anti-smokers are getting a taste of their own, and they don't like it, not one little bit. So there, the asthmatics win out after all, and nobody's particularly happy.

djm

For me, it started in a workplace that banned perfumed products. It took a while to notice, but geez, it was nice! Then I met two people who are virtual shut ins because of these chemicals. One of them spent 14 years in bed due to what they thought was Parkinson's disease, but when they got ALL scented products out of the house he recovered. It must have been a mighty task. No scented products means getting rid of nearly all women's magazines, bread wrappers, laundry and soap detergents, lotions, aftershaves...and making sure they NEVER come back into the house. That means making sure every person who steps into their house accomodates them...no repairmen with Old Spice, no vistors with hair spray.

Anyway, for anyone interested, here is a link.

http://www.fpinva.org/

I do use scented products daily, except when visiting these people. But I feel so sorry for them. One of them is an Irish music enthusiast -- in Ireland -- who cannot for obvious reasons go into a pub. I certainly respect their need for a healthy environment to live and work.

[djm]

Tyghress, no question about it. These people, along with non-smokers, definitely have the right to a workplace that is safe and accommodates their needs. However, I question their rights to impose these needs on others, especially when they are in the tiniest minority. Working from home, or in a dedicated environment for people with like needs, makes much more sense than having a thousand people suddenly start catering to one or two individuals.

Same goes for smokers. They may not be in the majority, but 30 - 40% is still a significant minority, so while I agree they shouldn't impose their needs on others, there are still enough of them to justify a dedicated smoking area/restaurant/bar for their use, and non-smokers should have no right to impose or interfere with this.

djm

[Antaine]

on another level, it's a general public health and safety thing. in the late nineteenth century, opium users were a significant minority. the stuff was everywhere, and in everyday foods and medicines. it was the "secret ingredient" in coca cola. Eventually, enough lawmakers got it into their heads that even though people were using it in their homes in dilute form (or smoking it in specially designated places) its use posed a hazard to the health of the user, and consequently a secondary hazard to everyone else. In 1919, Congress made narcotics illegal. Overnight, there was no legal industry for it anymore, and those who enjoyed using it were simply SOL.

tobacco seems to occupy this magical legal place that other hazardous substances do not. Simply because euroamericans have been doing it since 1556 doesn't mean it should be allowed to continue. It seems as if the ultimate goal is to eliminate tobacco completely, but it is being done gradually to allow current users to either die off or get used to the idea that their only alternatives are soon going to be to quit or pay exorbitant prices; and to allow the big tobacco companies time and opportunity to diversify their operations so that it doesn't have a negative impact on them. After all, Philip Morris is into all sorts of non-tobacco related things now and runs anti-smoking commercials in the US (and they will continue selling in third world countries). Those companies aren't going to go under, nor will they even see a dip in profits.

a prediction: by the time you're an old man smoking will be at least twice as expensive as it is now, and by the time I'm and old man it will not be allowed in any public place and will be very rare indeed.

[djm]

Opium? I think you are referring to cocaine. It was used in Coca-Cola, was taken in snuff, was a regular ingredient in most tonics and remedies, and was regularly taken and prescribed by physicians, including Sigmund Freud.

While its taste for opium and laudenum may have tapered off, America's taste for cocaine has only increased by leaps and bounds. It drives a multi-billion dollar international industry. Its use in the US is so prevalent that some feel it has reached epidemic proportions. Sorry, but I think you've chosen a poor example to try to make a point (you were trying to make some sort of point, weren't you?).

djm

[Antaine]

there is a black market for everything that's illegal (tho I think cocaine use is down from it's "drug-of-choice" status in the 80s)

but regardless...you don't find it in tonics or sodas or any product you can buy in a store. Those who use it do so in secret, after buying it in secret. I think if you went with a percentage (after all...US population is WAY up from 1900) you will find a significantly smaller portion of the population using opiates today than when they were legal.

and we're not really talking about making tobacco illegal, perhaps in 300 years or so...but rather placing it so far out of reach monetarily and making it inconvenient to use while attaching a stigma to it. Sure, you'll still have smokers. Sure those who can't afford real cigarettes will buy cigarettes of dubious origin on whatever black market evolves, but it will (in 50 years or so...give or take...) decline drastically...such that young people then will find it as difficult to believe that people were ever allowed to light up in a restaurant, or that little buckets of sand were provided outside the doors of buildings, as most people find it difficult to believe that there ever was a narcotic in coca-cola (it is an interesting bit of trivia...one I would use with my classes...each year I found that only 1 in the roughly 100 students I had knew it, and less than half believed me when I told them).

[OnTheMoor]

Well Ottawa was in the first wave (I think) of no-smoking cities and I know I like it. Sure there was a slow down in the hospitality business at first, but I think it's fair to say that things picked back up, smokers haven't stopped stepping out of their houses. Is it really that big a deal to ask people to step outside to smoke, just like you ask them not to unzip and twinkle on your foot or spit in your beer? I don't see it as being too different. Heck when I was in Ireland last and was exposed to some heavyduty indoor smoking I certainly noticed that more than I would someone urinating on my foot.

[Antaine]

and probably easier to cope with health-wize, provided you were wearing shoes...

but I think what the counterpoint to that is not so much restaurants that won't let you smoke indoors (after all...public buildings in the US have had that rule for years) but places like CA where you can't even smoke outside...some places not within so many feet of a door, other places nowhere but your own property or car. Personally, I'd be satisfied with the restaurant rule...

Perhaps it's more than a bit Orwellian, but if they (the us or canadian or irish or....etc...government) want to pass laws making it so inconvenient for you to smoke that you are forced to quit, or all but quit, then they're doing you a favor. Even if your attitude is, "sure, it shaves years off my life, but they're the crappy nursing-home-years at the end, anyway..." then think of the money it saves you.

I think due to rising health care costs (which in canada are taken care of by the government with taxes) the governments of the countries involved decided that everyone needs to quit smoking, and if they're not going to do it themselves they will so paint the smokers into a corner that they are forced to.

Especially in canada where taxes take care of health care costs then i say triple the taxes on them. Every study i've seen shows smoking related illnesses to be a drain on the system and drive up the price for all...why should the smokers themselves foot the bill for the rise in cost to the government for socialized medicine?

[TomB]

Especially in canada where taxes take care of health care costs then i say triple the taxes on them. Every study i've seen shows smoking related illnesses to be a drain on the system and drive up the price for all...why should the smokers themselves foot the bill for the rise in cost to the government for socialized medicine?

I'm no smoking fan and I hear what you are saying, but then, what about people who ride motorcycles, or (pick your favorite dangerous activity). Those folks are a drain to, no? So, do we set-up some sort of actuarial system and tax people on a sort of points basis???

All the Best, Tom

[DCrom]

Especially in canada where taxes take care of health care costs then i say triple the taxes on them. Every study i've seen shows smoking related illnesses to be a drain on the system and drive up the price for all...why should the smokers themselves foot the bill for the rise in cost to the government for socialized medicine?

I'm no smoking fan and I hear what you are saying, but then, what about people who ride motorcycles, or (pick your favorite dangerous activity). Those folks are a drain to, no? So, do we set-up some sort of actuarial system and tax people on a sort of points basis???

All the Best, Tom

Though I agree that smoke is, generally, a bad idea, and I personally prefer not to deal with smoke in pubs and restaurants, the "public" cost issue is, IMHO, specious.

I've seen (can't remember where, or I'd include links) that smokers, non-seatbelt wearers, and motorcyclists-with-no-helmets all represenent less, probably far less, of a medical cost drain than the rest of us. Because, in most cases, they die earlier, and with less extended care, than the population at large.

Mind you, I don't smoke (couldn't - it gives me asthma - even if I wanted to), always wear my seatbelt, and wear a helmet when I ride. But as an adult, I think that all three should be my own decision. If I want to smoke in my car as I drive without seatbelts I might be a fool. but that should be my choice, not Big Brother's.

[Antaine]

not only are there helmet laws, but isn't there also higher insurance cost?

[DCrom]

not only are there helmet laws, but isn't there also higher insurance cost?

Yup. Though I think that's because

a) Though lifetime exposure is less, one-time exposure is higher. And people generally buy car- and cycle- insurance year-to-year, and often switch companies.

b) Death payouts to survivers will generally max the policy. See a)

[TomB]

[quote="DCromThough I agree that smoke is, generally, a bad idea, and I personally prefer not to deal with smoke in pubs and restaurants, the "public" cost issue is, IMHO, specious.

I've seen (can't remember where, or I'd include links) that smokers, non-seatbelt wearers, and motorcyclists-with-no-helmets all represenent less, probably far less, of a medical cost drain than the rest of us. Because, in most cases, they die earlier, and with less extended care, than the population at large.

Mind you, I don't smoke (couldn't - it gives me asthma - even if I wanted to), always wear my seatbelt, and wear a helmet when I ride. But as an adult, I think that all three should be my own decision. If I want to smoke in my car as I drive without seatbelts I might be a fool. but that should be my choice, not Big Brother's.[/quote]

I didn't know about that study, but thinking about it, it would not shock me.

I to wear a seatbelt and don't smoke, but I also am not certain that I should be "forced" or "legislated" by the government to wear the belt and not smoke.

All the Best, Tom