The smoking ban is interesting because it is a great issue to determine how people think about government and its relationship to private property.

I'm for the ban, but I'm also horribly allergic to cigarette smoke (causes my airways to close pretty quickly, even outside).

Right...so what you need is a sign that says "This establishment allows smoking"...so you don't go in there.

If you are allergic to peanuts...you would appreciate that a food containing peanuts was appropraitely labelled. Ans so it should be. BUT that doesn't mean that peanuts should be illegal.

So what about when someone in front of me is smoking on campus while I'm walking to class? Should the burden to move be on the one using a product that can harm others, or on the person who is harmed?

So the entire state of Ohio should not be able to engage in a legal activity as GeneralsIcer89 may be around the next corner?

Should we actually have a product that can cause harm as such be legal? Let me note before it goes to this, as opening it up isn't my intent. I consider alcohol to be an issue of personal responsibility, namely the harm from the product is completely on the burden of the one using it. With smoking, I consider the harm to be from the product itself. I don't have anything against smokers.

Alcoholism?
Cirrhosis of the liver?
Obesity (AKA beer gut)?
Bulbous nose?

ernest_t_bass wrote: I read in another thread about "responsibility." It is the responsibility of the consumer to make wise choices. I think that the "responsibility" card can play out here, as well.

As a consumer, YOU are responsible to make the right decisions. "Let the buyer beware." If you are buying a 12,000 calorie burger, beware that it may clog your arteries. If you are buying and drinking sugar loaded soda, beware that it may rot your teeth...

If you are going to go to this restaurant, beware... they allow smoking. If second hand smoke bothers you, you may want to find another restaurant. As a business, it is THEIR responsibility to make it known to their customers that smoking is allowed. It is YOUR decision to make the choice of where to consume.

You changed your example in the middle. It is buyer beware when you CHOOSE to smoke the cigarettes. People don't go to restaurants to smoke, they go to eat. I can accept responsibility for the burger and pop, but I'm not going there to choke on someone else's smoke. We are both going there to EAT and serving food is the business.

ernest_t_bass wrote: Alcoholism?
Cirrhosis of the liver?
Obesity (AKA beer gut)?
Bulbous nose?

Sorry, that should have read "harm to others" rather than just harm. If anyone wants to willingly harm him or herself, that's their business. It's when what they use harms others that it turns into an issue. Alcohol itself doesn't hurt others, but the irresponsibility of the user certainly can. With smoking, it is the product causing harm to others, not the smoker. The product itself is that with which I have an issue.

With smoking, it is the product causing harm to others, not the smoker.

We're all allergic to drunk drivers are we not?

ytownfootball wrote:

With smoking, it is the product causing harm to others, not the smoker.

We're all allergic to drunk drivers are we not?

That's the responsibility of the driver to not get behind the wheel (or those around him/her to make sure he/she doesn't). The driver is ultimately the one causing the harm. I don't consider smoking to be that way in a vast majority of cases (though it does happen - I'm not exactly fond of people who smoke at home around their kids or women who smoke while pregnant). I just don't think a lot of smokers realize the product they use can cause harm to others in the vicinity so badly. I'm not against smoking in and of itself, but there needs to be a better way of protecting those that don't smoke from having to breathe it. If a public ban accomplishes that, then so be it.

What I always find curious about these arguments is how people think exposure at any level is a health risk (the whole "my right to clean air argument"), when science has, in fact, been unable to determine what level actually constitutes significant (in terms of statistical theory) risk. Going further, the major studies are flawed and the findings are not replicable, meaning they've not been able to conclusively establish significant risk at any level.

Mind you, these inconclusive studies all focus on spouses and co-workers with many multiples of exposure levels relative to a few hours in a restaurant or a few minutes behind someone walking to class. It's an axiom: toxicity is a function of doseage and frequency. The smell from those smoking sections of restaurants may have irritated you, but the idea that a few hours exposure to that put you at risk is a joke. I think people do actually possess more common sense than that, but what happens is most of us know it's an infringement on property rights and a waste of tax dollars and resources, but the "serious health risk" is just a mechanism through which people justify indulging their own self-interest because smoke-free is nice. As a political tool, fear never fails.

Anyway, back on topic. I don't think it needed to be regulated because what this boils down to is people were inconvenienced by smoking but obviously not enough to actually vote with their wallets. That said, in present form it's silly not to regulate it like they do with liquor licenses. There is no need to dictate whether a business should allow smoking when 99.9% of the state population will never set foot there and could readily make a determination to tolerate the smoking there if they should happen to patronize the place.

Could not have said it better myself, Gut.

I get more toxins in my lungs from burning leaves in the fall, staining, painting, or glueing things together than second hand smoke. The only good thing is my wife no longer knows I stopped off at the bar after work.

gut wrote: What I always find curious about these arguments is how people think exposure at any level is a health risk (the whole "my right to clean air argument"), when science has, in fact, been unable to determine what level actually constitutes significant (in terms of statistical theory) risk. Going further, the major studies are flawed and the findings are not replicable, meaning they've not been able to conclusively establish significant risk at any level.

Mind you, these inconclusive studies all focus on spouses and co-workers with many multiples of exposure levels relative to a few hours in a restaurant or a few minutes behind someone walking to class. It's an axiom: toxicity is a function of doseage and frequency. The smell from those smoking sections of restaurants may have irritated you, but the idea that a few hours exposure to that put you at risk is a joke. I think people do actually possess more common sense than that, but what happens is most of us know it's an infringement on property rights and a waste of tax dollars and resources, but the "serious health risk" is just a mechanism through which people justify indulging their own self-interest because smoke-free is nice. As a political tool, fear never fails.

Anyway, back on topic. I don't think it needed to be regulated because what this boils down to is people were inconvenienced by smoking but obviously not enough to actually vote with their wallets. That said, in present form it's silly not to regulate it like they do with liquor licenses. There is no need to dictate whether a business should allow smoking when 99.9% of the state population will never set foot there and could readily make a determination to tolerate the smoking there if they should happen to patronize the place.

And what of the people like me who are allergic to it to the point that even this gives severe migraines and closes airways? I know it's a vast minority, but we're still out there. :-/ Not trying to step on toes or anything, but the whole unable to breathe thing is a concern, you know?

GeneralsIcer89 wrote: And what of the people like me who are allergic to it to the point that even this gives severe migraines and closes airways? I know it's a vast minority, but we're still out there. :-/ Not trying to step on toes or anything, but the whole unable to breathe thing is a concern, you know?

I don't see it as any different than people with peanut allergies. It sucks, but you have to manage it. We don't dictate the world live in a sterile bubble but for a few.

You can still goto a resturant and not order something with peanuts. The people with peanut allergies can control what they put in themselves.

How many non smoking bars where there before the ban? just curious about the options for non smokers back then?

Glory Days,

I'm sure there had to be enough restaurants that never allowed smoking.

Otherwise, General would never have ate at a restaurant his whole life.
Or been to a bar, if he's old enough.

If there was demand, anyone (particularly non-smokers) could have opened a bar.

As has been mentioned several times, people were willing to tolerate smoking in a restaurant/bar in order to be at the "in" places. For all the talk about the nuisance and the "health risks", people simply refused to vote with their wallets.

Why isn't aspartame illegal? It causes cancer, right?

I think it points back to what gut said about "inconvenience" to those who "don't like smoke," along with the whole "quantity" of smoke inhaled.

It's political weight, and nothing else. Hell, that's why it's on the "Politics" forum.

Certainly the sentiment for smoking/nonsmoking was different then. In the '60's it was the epitome of coolness to have a suntan, a scotch and soda, and a cigarette. None of those are popular or considered healthy now. With the vast majority of people being non smoker's, even if the ban was repealed, a lot, if not almost all, of restaraunts would stay non smoking, so the 'options' question (even if it were considered more necessary than personal freedoms) is not really relevant. The question really revolves around whether it should be 'allowed' to have dedicated smoker's restaruants.

I believe suntans are still popular, aren't they? Just different ways of receiving the "tan" appearance now.

I'm going to see if I can get LJ to change the poll to:

I don't smoke - Against the ban
I don't smoke - For the ban
I smoke - Against the ban
I smoke - For the ban

See if we can revote

suntan's have seen a decrease in popularity because of the health issues....some people still ignore those issues. Still it would not be inconcievable that tanning places could be 'banned' in much the same way as smoking or "trans fat' legislation.

The key to focus on here is really 'ban'. A 'ban' does not allow an activity under any circumstances. There really should be no objection by non smokers if smokers want a bar or restaraunt of their own. There is a huge difference between a 'ban' and 'regulation'. Freedom loving Americans should oppose any and all bans just on general principles and no matter how well intentioned.

I've updated the poll per ernest's request. Everyone re-vote or else!

Former smoker. Against the ban.