I am a non-smoker, and I have been all of my life. I have worked in a bar for the majority of the past 7 years, and I HATE that it is always filled to the ceiling with smoke! I can't wait til the new law banning smoking in bars goes into effect in MI this year. I think that there should be no smoking anywhere that food is being served.

Why? Is it more unhealty to smoke where you eat xD ?

I can't say I'm sure what you're getting at, Tut.

---

Edit: After much more careful consideration, I think I've come up with a good way to explain my stance on this issue.

I'm going to use a likely hypothetical situation, but instead of "cigarettes," "smoking," "smoke," and the like, I'll be using the terms "guns," "firing," and "bullets." I think it'll come across a bit more clearly this way.

---

You live in a society where it is perfectly legal to carry a loaded gun. You're even allowed to fire it in many places, and as far as the law is concerned, there are no ramifications for a stray bullet.

You take your girlfriend out to a nice restaurant. The maitre'd asks you, "Firing or non-firing?" You insist to be placed in the non-firing section, you are seated, and your dinner continues as usual.

Halfway through appetizers, your girlfriend decides she wants to fire up. She pulls out a small handgun, but the waiter sees her and kindly asks that she not fire her arms in the non-firing section. She smiles and puts her gun away. "Of course," she says, "I had forgotten."

As you are waiting for dessert, you hear gunshots coming from the firing section. They're rather loud and un-muffled--the half-walls that separate the two sections hardly offer anything near an adequate barrier. You figure it's not something to be upset about though, and you continue your conversation with your girlfriend. Suddenly, you're struck in the chest with a stray bullet. You collapse on the floor in a pool of blood as your girlfriend shrieks in horror.

You survive the incident, but you're not quite the same. The bullet struck you in the lung, and you require an oxygen tank in order to breathe properly. The injury on your lung is not healing well, prone to bleeding out on occasion. You require extensive, and rather expensive, medical care. "This is absurd!" you think to yourself. "I don't even own a gun!"

Months later you die from your injury. Your wound became infected and your body was simply too weak to battle the illness. Your death is moving to the community, and you are quickly turned into a martyr by the anti-firing community. The owner of the gun whose bullet hit you is never even tracked down--after all, it's legal to fire guns in several public places, regardless of the people around you. That's your choice as an American!

A protest group forms outside of the restaurant. One prostestor remarks, "I just want to limit firing to your own home and the outdoors. It's less likely for me to get hit by a stray bullet when someone fires blindly into the air."

A counter-protestor haggles the crowd. "Why do you want to take away our choice to fire guns?! You can't tell me where to aim, the government can't control what I choose to do with my guns! Heck, most of the time I just shoot at my feet! The chance of ricochet is too small to consider the safety of others over my right to guns! C'mon, I have the second amendment to back me up!"




Personally, I'd like to keep guns inside and ban them from outdoor public places. It's easier to avoid restaurants filled with the sounds of gunshots than change my walking route to class because I might come across someone packing some heat.

At least with alcohol, you're playing Russian roulette with yourself, and your gun is simply loaded with a very expensive bullet. The only time you'll kill someone else is if you fire it while driving--which, by the way, is already illegal.

It's a crying shame that cigarettes aren't actually protected by law (such as the second amendment). Then there would be at least SOME legal basis for not banning them outright. However, I must stress again that I do NOT support a full ban, or a ban in public indoors. I'd simply like a ban for public outdoors.

It's already illegal to starve your children, regardless of whether or not you're using the money to fuel an addiction. Banning it wouldn't stop addiction, it would make it less likely for people to get help to combat it in fear of legal ramifications. The people in rehab for addictions to illegal substances are usually there by court order or as part of some plea deal. Making those substances illegal also hasn't stopped anyone from doing them.

Also, this topic is about smoking, which I said I don't support a full ban of (several times).

But no, I wouldn't ban alcoholic substances, because I use isopropyl alcohol at home and I much prefer it over hydrogen peroxide as an antiseptic.

I don't smoke, but I think people should have the right to, but also people with health problems should have the right to breathe clean air.

The government could approach a cigarette company right now, say "hey, you can't sell these anymore unless you tell us exactly what's in them", and bam. It'd be out.

Don't even TRY to say that they couldn't do that, the government does anything they please at this point.

Also, on alcohol, a lot of alcoholics get into their cars and drive. And cause major accidents. Which can cause very instant, or very slow and painful, death.

Reiketsu: That IS what they're doing, but it's only this past July that we put a law in place that gave the government the power to do that. Right now, however, they haven't yet started collecting the data, so we still can't say what's in them with any sort of certainty.

What is your point about drunk driving? That's already illegal because it endangers the lives of others. Shouldn't smoking tobacco be treated the same way? Why should smokers get a free pass? Is it because the death isn't instant? Is it because it can take 20 years for someone to die from a complication related to second-hand smoke, instead of 20 minutes from a car accident related injury? Several states don't even have a statute of limitations for manslaughter, so why should time be a factor? "We can't prosecute you because you spent 20 years killing this person. Off you go, smoke around some more people, there are no legal ramifications for your actions!"

Driving a car puts others in danger Keyori. Not only is it a potential hazard, but it sends out fumes of more poison than cigarettes do into the air.

Humans being sick potentially puts other humans in danger of being sick or dying. Is it illegal for a sick person to leave their home?

Landfills are a big pile of contaminated waste that can potentially harm other humans. Is it illegal to create them?

Domesticating cows for food puts humans in potential danger due to the excess concentrated methane that gathers. Is it illegal to domesticate cows?

There are so many things that can potentially harm another human its not even funny. Why limit the legalities to just cigarettes?

You're absolutely right about all of those things, but the real question is when the right to being healthy is being overridden by someone else's right to choose what to do with their own body.

But, to answer in order: quarantine; yes (several areas require that landfills not be near residential areas); depends on the volume of cattle (how many are in one place) and their life time (cattle with shorter life spans produce less methane).

As for driving a car, the benefits of travel clearly outweigh the risks. What are the benefits of smoking? A nicotine high for the smoker. What are the risks? Lung cancer, emphysema, reactive airway disease, bronchitis, asthma, periodontal disease, and an increased risk of heart disease, stroke, poorly controlled diabetes, respiratory disease and premature babies, for the smoker AND for people who are around him (to name a few).

What are the alternatives for the situations you asked me about? What are the benefits of those alternatives? What are the risks? Are those alternatives better for people?

Can we harm people by needlessly quarantining them? Sure. That's why we don't do it often, if at all. Just this past year, Mexico City was shut down entirely over swine flu, because the benefits of shutting down the city outweighed the perceived risks of having so many ill or potentially ill people in such a small area. Were peoples rights violated? It's arguable. You could say that businesses were stripped of their right to make money. People were stripped of their right to move about freely in public areas. Is a business's profit or someone's walk in the park more important than the health of the people who make up the city? I'd say no.

Can we harm people by not having landfills? Absolutely. I'd rather not live in my own filth. Preferably, I'd like to produce less waste, but with the way companies package things, it's very difficult not to produce any, and without some sweeping reform, it's unlikely that companies will stop generating products that result in producing waste. Do I try to do my part? Sure. I buy cheese slices in bulk instead of the Kraft individually-wrapped slices. I reuse plastic bags as trash bags in my bathrooms; when I can, I take cloth sacks to the market to reuse. I also sometimes use the cloth sacks to take my belongings with me to class. But feasibly, the alternative to landfills is no landfills, and I would think that would be much more harmful to public than to bury it at a fair distance from residential areas.

Domesticating cows produces methane. What should we do? Should we kill all the cows? Or should we work to bio-engineer cows to have much shorter life spans? Or should we switch to organic cows with much longer life spans in the name of being humane?

Cars are dangerous. Should we take them away? How will people commute? I had a job last summer that required me to commute 38 miles in one direction. If we eliminate commuting, populations will become concentrated and we will see a rise in disease, among other things. What are other alternatives? Fuel-less cars will not have emissions. Will there still be collision risks? Absolutely. How many people have accidents each year? How many people don't? I'd argue that the benefits outweigh the risks.

These issues aren't clear cut, and they're certainly more complex than black-and-white "all or nothing" attitudes. We, as a society, need to be willing to seek compromises, and, as time progresses, we need to be willing to review and modify these compromises as better solutions surface.

What are the alternatives to smoking? Well, there's not smoking, for one, but I don't think it's a good idea to ban smoking. We could also restrict how many people are impacted by making it clear where there will and won't be someone smoking. If you force them outside, then any number of people could be affected directly. If you force them inside, then the people affected directly is strictly limited to the people who are in that building, who patronize that business, who live in that home. It is easy for me to choose where I do and don't take my business. If a business has yellow walls and smells foul, I won't want to work there or shop there or whatever. I'll go somewhere else, because it's clear to me that smoking takes place there. If I'm outside, I have no way of telling whether or not I'll have smoke blown in my face against my own will. I think that it is the most practical compromise between my right to choose not to smoke and someone else's right to choose to smoke.

I really don't understand why you and Shtona are coming at me with all of these absolutes when I am trying to foster a reasonable compromise that satisfies the most people. I know that a lot of people treat this as a black-and-white issue, but as a non-smoker (and as an occasional smoker), I don't really feel that way.

For the most part, I don't smoke. I shouldn't smoke; both I and my brother have health problems related to my mother smoking (after less than two years of exposure, at that). But, I do own a hookah and I smoke shisha once or twice a week in the comfort of my own home. My housemates also smoke shisha, and two of my housemates smoke cigars, but do so in the garage since the smell is more foul and we'd rather not have it in the house. I certainly don't take my hookah on the road (I'd rather not break it), so I'm not blowing smoke into the face of some stranger and risking their health on top of mine. If I smoked cigarettes, I don't think it would be unreasonable to ask me to not smoke around other people. If the weather sucked, yeah, I might not be ecstatic about the idea, but it's my choice to smoke in the first place, not theirs, and I respect that.

So can someone tell me why this issue has turned into "Let me smoke wherever I want or just ban it altogether"? I just can't wrap my head around why it has to be that way.

There is no right to be healthy. It is a privilege to be healthy. If there was a right to be healthy there would be no homeless people and there would be government regulations requiring restaurants and grocery stores to only provide healthy foods and at affordable costs for everyone. Health care would not have to be paid for. It would simply be offered. There is a difference between having a right to be healthy and having the privilege of being healthy.

Quarantine only occurs for serious and unknown illnesses, what about the common cold?

Landfills still exude harmful chemicals and gases into the air though.

Methane being produced by domesticated cattle will still be in excess whether or not they live long or not. The amount of cattle domesticated depends entirely on the audience that eats them up or uses them for some purpose.

One individual making a decent living through having a job by being able to commute farther versus destroying the entire environment and every living organism in it?

and?

All those could happen by destroying the environment through driving vehicles. Driving vehicles is still legal though. Not to mention all the short term potential dangers like crashing, or manslaughter or something equivalent to that.

Though on the other hand you could argue that killing people off second handedly without being a direct cause helps prevent overpopulation (another leading cause of environmental concerns) which will directly benefit humanity as a whole. Thus the death huge populations will actually serve our survival needs more.

Then why make smokers live in theirs?

The question is legalities and limits of those legalities, not preferences. An individual dying is not a detriment to a whole society. In fact, if it was illegal to dispose of trash, then individuals would probably find a more beneficial way to live to keep themselves alive.

Nope, just go vegetarian. Make it illegal to consume meat. Why not? More healthy for everyone. And none of those methane consequences.

If there wasn't overpopulation, then commuting with vehicles wouldn't be a necessity. How did people commute before vehicles?

I am well aware of your specific views as we discussed and agreed earlier. I am just questioning you on the whole legality aspect that you keep saying about second hand deaths and that this would be the reason of why it should be illegal. You reference alcohol as not being second hand unless through reckless driving or starving your family. The latter two are already illegal, but drinking in an of itself is not. You pointed out that smoking indirectly affects other non-willing participants. I showed other things in society that are still legal and not even being questioned about their legality that do the same.

I am not coming at you with absolutes directly. Just absolutes in reference to the arguments you provide. They don't make any sense since we as a society do many things that harm us, and they are still legal and not even being questioned. Smoking is no different.

Please show me where I said that smoking should be illegal.

That seems to be insinuating illegalizing smoking.

Smoking itself? No, just as drinking is not illegal in itself. Injuring or killing someone due to your own actions in an unlawful manner (such as drunk driving)? I believe that is completely justifiable as a punishable offense. I really just don't understand how (as an example) if my brother died from lung cancer caused by my mother's smoking, that she wouldn't be brought to justice for that, especially when doctors even tell her to quit so that my brother's health isn't forfeit. (She did eventually quit--three years after he was diagnosed with asthma, made several trips to the hospital due to his respiratory health, and moved out of her apartment entirely--it's really just a shame that he has so many problems and he's not even 17 yet--still well below the smoking age!)

Additionally, if this issue really is about a smoker's right to choose, then it is equally about a non-smoker's right to choose (erroneously worded as "right to health" earlier). If a smoker is afforded his or her right to smoke, then it would be unethical to not afford me the same right. To smoke around someone who is a chosen non-smoker is essentially to take away their right to choose by forcing them to smoke second-handed. I think that my solution would work best because both sides retain their right to choose whether or not to smoke.

But smoking to create secondhand effects yes? We're not discussing the legality of smoking at all, just in certain places..at least that is what I thought we were discussing.

All the actions I listed above (domesticating cattle, driving a vehicle, being sick and exposing yourself to others, and disposing of your waste) are all actions that can indirectly harm someone just as smoking does.

If smoking is an action that should be punished, then the four actions I listed above should be punishable as well through the logic you are using.

And anarchists like myself are being subjected to society's accepted terms of polluting the environment through their industrial standards. What's the difference?

The non-smoker does not have to smoke, therefore fulfilling the right. Just as I do not have to promote industry and personally go green, therefore fulfilling my right. However, society and industry will still do the same thing just as smokers will do the same thing or should be able to.

What you are saying could be applied to a lot of things. If non-smokers have the right to not breathe in second hand smoke, then public areas should not be able to distribute nativity sets, and children should not be subjected to others praying or saying the pledge in school since people have a right to be non-religious and non-patriotic. Right now it stands that you, personally, can opt out of participating, but they are not forced to remove it completely to suit your personal wants.

Praying and saying the pledge doesn't give me lung cancer.

But, those are already against the law to force children to do (unfortunately, it doesn't stop it).

If you blow smoke in my face, it's pretty difficult for me to just not breathe it. It's easy enough for me to not pray or not say the pledge.

If not my suggestion, what would you propose to solve this issue?

It was meant to show same concepts. Not necessarily same effects. Praying can influence children and thus "poison" certain children as according to their strictly religious or non-religious parents. Saying the pledge instills a false sense of loyalty to a country that doesn't help its citizens very much. Some parents would consider that false sense of loyalty a "poison."

And it is against the law to force a non-smoker to actually smoke. It is not against the law to let people pray and say the pledge in public places therefore it should not be against the law to let people smoke in public places.

The words and the idea being introduced in the first place is what poisons in the prayer/pledge example. Once that idea is implanted, it rockets from there. Soon enough you have a devout Muslim family with a Christian child. As far as smoking and literally blowing it in your face...that's only the rude assholes and is usually and generally a looked down upon action even in the smoking community.

No rights, no industry, no organized society. Solve your own personal problems the way you are best able to.

That'll go over real well in Congress :)

It will prove to be quite an obstacle to overcome. Probably won't happen for a while yet, but I can always be hopeful ;)

Thunder is useless to steal. I steal lightning ;)

My whole opinion on smoking is a complete no to it. Smoking doesn't do anything but give you more stress when you think you're losing stress, because it's a mind thing, really. Chew gum or punch your pillow, but smoking only does you harm. There's no point to it.
Plus, there's things to consider.

• Second-hand smoke
• Your lungs, for Christ's sake
• Asthma!!!

And a bunch of other crap.
So yes, smoking should be banned.

In the United Stated I agree that it is a freedom issue, but here in Canada where it is already banned, everyone's taxes go towards healthcare and if someone is rendered unhealthy because they had been smoking, this uses everyones' tax money. In the states healthcare is not payed for through taxes but even so some employers must cover their employees' healthcare and therefore smoking can be troublesome to them and a waste of just the large necessity for doctors in general.

EDIT: 100th post!~