smoking bans going too far?

[JFellows]

Strange that CA is simultaneously the most liberal state when it comes to marijuana smoking.

[Mikey-OH]

I think it's a bit ridiculous that you can't smoke in your own home. However, with apartments and condominiums I can see where they're coming from. With the way all the ventilation is hooked up in most complexes it would make it easy for your neighbors to smell you making a bag of popcorn let alone smoking a big ol' stogie. So as a way of privacy and courtesy I understand where the law makers are coming from.

We have a smoking ban here in Ohio for public places as well which I actually voted for. I personally only smoke cigars every so often as a social venture with my buddies (being a college athlete it can't be good for me but you only live once right?). And I am on the same page witht those who don't want to be bothered by smoke in a restaurant while trying to enjoy a meal with their family. It is harmful and those who don't wish to engage in the environment shouldn't need to. So I don't think smoking bans are necessarily bad. Regardless I'm starting to stray from the topic.

It is interesting that California always seems to have such a laid back attitude about most things and lets most acts slide and now they enact this one. Oh well, that's why I don't live out there (on top of it being expensive as hell!).

[cigar no baka]

I think it's a bit ridiculous that you can't smoke in your own home. However, with apartments and condominiums I can see where they're coming from. With the way all the ventilation is hooked up in most complexes it would make it easy for your neighbors to smell you making a bag of popcorn let alone smoking a big ol' stogie. So as a way of privacy and courtesy I understand where the law makers are coming from.

We have a smoking ban here in Ohio for public places as well which I actually voted for. I personally only smoke cigars every so often as a social venture with my buddies (being a college athlete it can't be good for me but you only live once right?). And I am on the same page witht those who don't want to be bothered by smoke in a restaurant while trying to enjoy a meal with their family. It is harmful and those who don't wish to engage in the environment shouldn't need to. So I don't think smoking bans are necessarily bad. Regardless I'm starting to stray from the topic.

It is interesting that California always seems to have such a laid back attitude about most things and lets most acts slide and now they enact this one. Oh well, that's why I don't live out there (on top of it being expensive as hell!).

My problem with your stance is that this should not be government enforced issue. Liberty requires that our government do what it must and no more than that. In this case, they are using the heavy hand of government to get involved where they should not.

I don't know about where you live, but the majority of restaurants where I live have no smoking policies in spite of there being not law against smoking in restaurants. Private businesses should be able to make these choices for themselves, and they are doing so. Just wait until the government pushes its heavy hand into your affairs, demonizes you, and ostracizes you, and your stance my indeed change.

This country used to be about liberty and individual freedoms. Now we give away our liberty for safety and "the common" good. That's a slippery slope, from the evidence history has to present.

[Mikey-OH]

My problem with your stance is that this should not be government enforced issue. Liberty requires that our government do what it must and no more than that. In this case, they are using the heavy hand of government to get involved where they should not.

I don't know about where you live, but the majority of restaurants where I live have no smoking policies in spite of there being not law against smoking in restaurants. Private businesses should be able to make these choices for themselves, and they are doing so. Just wait until the government pushes its heavy hand into your affairs, demonizes you, and ostracizes you, and your stance my indeed change.

This country used to be about liberty and individual freedoms. Now we give away our liberty for safety and "the common" good. That's a slippery slope, from the evidence history has to present.

I do agree with what you are saying. Many things are being taken away from us in this country due to our government sticking its hands in where they are not needed. Government laws are being passed without giving us, the people, the opportunity to say what we believe to be right and rather the government is telling us what is right. Not how things should be at all. We've definately grown away from what this country set out to do and give people their individual liberties.

However, this is where the smoking ban laws become seperate from providing individual choice. It may seem hypocritical to talk about this on a smokers forum but we as the educated individuals I believe all of you to be realize that smoking does no good for our health. Regardless, we have made the individual choice to engage in this practice because it is something we enjoy and have made apart of our social lives. This is one of those individual freedoms that we have been granted and have chosen to pursue. We also all know that our smoking affects those around us through secondhand smoke. Studies have proven that this is just as unhealthy as physically smoking a tobacco product yourself. So then those who individually do not choose to partake in the act of smoking are effected. I can relate to those people. I personally cannot stand the smell of cigarette smoke, which are obviously the most common form of tobacco product smoked in public areas. So I took my freedom, and right to vote, that while I was enjoying a meal I would not have to be subject to that kind of atmosphere.

Now I think that certain establishments (such as bars or clubs) should allow smoking. My reasoning behind that is that this is the kind of atmosphere that is created just by labeling a place as a "bar." It's something that would be expected. And those who wish to be excluded from smoking can easily do so by simply not going to those places.

So after writing a ton of words (sorry for being so lengthy) I believe that as long as these types of issues are voted on by the people that they are directly effecting then it is tolerable. Not to say that everyone is going to agree (this will never happen, and it never has, even since the insemination of our country) but people can learn to deal with it. This is what our country is based off of, being able to allow the people to create how they believe things should be run.

[Mikey-OH]

Baka,

Thanks for your reply as well. It's nice to be able to have mature conversations with people you share a common interest with. So just letting you know that I appreciate and respect your opinion as well as your cross examination of mine.

[ashauler]

I do agree with what you are saying. Many things are being taken away from us in this country due to our government sticking its hands in where they are not needed. Government laws are being passed without giving us, the people, the opportunity to say what we believe to be right and rather the government is telling us what is right. Not how things should be at all. We've definately grown away from what this country set out to do and give people their individual liberties.

However, this is where the smoking ban laws become seperate from providing individual choice. It may seem hypocritical to talk about this on a smokers forum but we as the educated individuals I believe all of you to be realize that smoking does no good for our health. Regardless, we have made the individual choice to engage in this practice because it is something we enjoy and have made apart of our social lives. This is one of those individual freedoms that we have been granted and have chosen to pursue. We also all know that our smoking affects those around us through secondhand smoke. Studies have proven that this is just as unhealthy as physically smoking a tobacco product yourself. So then those who individually do not choose to partake in the act of smoking are effected. I can relate to those people. I personally cannot stand the smell of cigarette smoke, which are obviously the most common form of tobacco product smoked in public areas. So I took my freedom, and right to vote, that while I was enjoying a meal I would not have to be subject to that kind of atmosphere.

Now I think that certain establishments (such as bars or clubs) should allow smoking. My reasoning behind that is that this is the kind of atmosphere that is created just by labeling a place as a "bar." It's something that would be expected. And those who wish to be excluded from smoking can easily do so by simply not going to those places.

So after writing a ton of words (sorry for being so lengthy) I believe that as long as these types of issues are voted on by the people that they are directly effecting then it is tolerable. Not to say that everyone is going to agree (this will never happen, and it never has, even since the insemination of our country) but people can learn to deal with it. This is what our country is based off of, being able to allow the people to create how they believe things should be run.

The free market.....and individual choice of which businesses to patronize would accomplish the same end result without the need for government regulation.

I for one do not need the government to protect me from my OWN CHOICES, i.e. if I choose to eat in a restaraunt that allows smoking then I have chosen to deal with the consequences and take personal responsibility for its affects on me.

[Mikey-OH]

The thing is with Ohio (or atleast my personal experience) is that I rarely, if ever, saw an establishment that specifically said they were a non-smoking one. If more businesses chose to do this it would be great, but in all reality many of them wouldn't because it usually deters business and really button-holes them as to the amount of potential customers they can have.

Like Baka said it really is a slippery slope and just one of those things that isn't going to have any clear cut agreement on it. But as for the topic, California of all places having these laws is something I don't get.

[ashauler]

The thing is with Ohio (or atleast my personal experience) is that I rarely, if ever, saw an establishment that specifically said they were a non-smoking one. If more businesses chose to do this it would be great, but in all reality many of them wouldn't because it usually deters business and really button-holes them as to the amount of potential customers they can have.

Like Baka said it really is a slippery slope and just one of those things that isn't going to have any clear cut agreement on it. But as for the topic, California of all places having these laws is something I don't get.

Such is the functioning of a free market........little demand = little supply. Here in backward Wichita, Kansas, you can find plenty of non-smoking establishments, be they bars/nightclubs or restaraunts. We have smoking bans in government buildings, hospitals, etc......but not private establishments.

No one is forced to go out to restaraunts or bars, nor do I believe it is an infringement on anybodies rights, at least I don't recall having a right to eat out and drink wherever I want and require the proprietor to make the setting suitable for me.

I'm not tryin to be an ass, just participating in the discussion.

[cigar no baka]

Mikey,

There is way to tell in any way, shape or form if second hand smoke kills anyone. The FDA had to make an educated guess, since there was no way to point to deaths and say 'second hand smoke caused these deaths'. So you are wrong that it is a fact that second hand smoke kills. What I will admit is that it is a pollutant, but far less of a harmful pollutant than industrial pollutants that we all agree to just live with.

So if we can agree to live with industrial pollutants that are proven to harm and kill people, why can't we live with a pollutant that cannot be proven to have killed anyone (with second hand smoke that is). Yes, smoking can kill the smoker, but there the FDA itself admits it cannot tie deaths directly to second hand smoke as there is no way to measure exposure, direct harm, etc.

The idea that second hand smoke is proven to kill and harm is more propoganda than fact. A result of the rampant hysteria of our times that there are things that are killing us and the government needs to make us safer. I think I'm going to pull a Colbert here and coin a word. Safiness. The government needs to ban smoking to improve our safiness.

[ashauler]

snip... I think I'm going to pull a Colbert here and coin a word. Safiness. The government needs to ban smoking to improve our safiness.

I love it!! Safiness This is a good discussion. Thanks CNB for pointing out the inability of anyone to prove/disprove the relationship of second hand smoke and health. As you state, the exposure level, etc....cannot be accurately measured, at least not in any practical way that would legitimately reflect that which occurs in the environment.

Quite frankly, I think the health issues are secondary to the real issue here, which is one of rights. Those of the business owner to run his establishment in any way they wish, and those of people who believe that every business should provide the type of environment that they want.

[Mikey-OH]

Mikey,

There is way to tell in any way, shape or form if second hand smoke kills anyone. The FDA had to make an educated guess, since there was no way to point to deaths and say 'second hand smoke caused these deaths'. So you are wrong that it is a fact that second hand smoke kills. What I will admit is that it is a pollutant, but far less of a harmful pollutant than industrial pollutants that we all agree to just live with.

So if we can agree to live with industrial pollutants that are proven to harm and kill people, why can't we live with a pollutant that cannot be proven to have killed anyone (with second hand smoke that is). Yes, smoking can kill the smoker, but there the FDA itself admits it cannot tie deaths directly to second hand smoke as there is no way to measure exposure, direct harm, etc.

The idea that second hand smoke is proven to kill and harm is more propoganda than fact. A result of the rampant hysteria of our times that there are things that are killing us and the government needs to make us safer. I think I'm going to pull a Colbert here and coin a word. Safiness. The government needs to ban smoking to improve our safiness.

I could be wrong, I'll admit that, but this site provides some good things to think about.

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422


Some notable things from this:

- New research indicates that private research conducted by cigarette company Philip Morris in the 1980s showed that secondhand smoke was highly toxic, yet the company suppressed the finding during the next two decades.

- Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen).

- Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.

- Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at work are at increased risk for adverse health effects. Levels of ETS in restaurants and bars were found to be 2 to 5 times higher than in residences with smokers and 2 to 6 times higher than in office workplaces.


So maybe these facts are propaganda or are made up. I'd tend to trust most of them done by the EPA and the private investigation done by Philip Morris. However, it seems that unfortunately a lot of things in this world can't be looked at as concrete fact.

But, like ashauler said we are talking about the freedoms here, so I kind of got the conversation off course.

Even more off topic Colbert Report is an amazing show. I'd definately vote for him if he ran.