IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags smoke

Reply
Old 23rd September 2006, 07:18 PM   #121
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
 
Blue Mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 6,626
Originally Posted by Topspy View Post
Originally Posted by Blue Mountain
Bars? If a bar goes under because it can't get smokers in, it sounds like it was a pretty borderline business to begin with. Also, if smoking is banned in all bars, then no one bar is at a disadvantage.
Actually, I bet in a lot of places right now a smoking bar would be a pretty popular place - standing room only. Ever been to the smoking bar in the Denver airport? They have a drink minimum for a given period of time (1 drink per 30 mins?) JUST TO BE THERE. And it's ALWAYS full! Impossible to find a seat most of the time, and those folks are paying inflated airport bar prices for drinks they probably don't care much about, just for a place to smoke......
More to the point, possibly any place where a smoker can be to smoke freely would be popular. However, drinking and smoking are very closely connected, so I can see that a bar that allows smokers would be very popular.

What I see here from the smokers is a lot of "But ... but ... but ...". These are the same arguments I've heard voiced (or heard about being voiced) in debates to end slavery and segregation, and they were also trotted out when we were debating extending the vote to women and giving women access to abortion. I also see them in debates over things like workplace safety and health acts and minimum wage.

Smoking is certainly lower on the scale of social wrongs than slavery, but for the most part we've dealt with those now. So now people are looking for other ways to improve society. I agree with the efforts to reduce the amount of cigarette smoke we're subjected to. It's understandable that smokers don't. But in my opinion society will be a better place when disgusting, stinking habits like smoking are given less tolerance than they are now.

Originally Posted by Topspy View Post
damn... the first paragraph above was a quote from a previous post. I'm new here. How do I quote from a previous post (in part only) and have it in the little blue box?
Format it like this, but replace "{" with "[" and "}" with "]", and the word "QUOTE" must be all uppercase:

{QUOTE=George Bernard Shaw}All great truths begin as blasphemies.{/QUOTE}

becomes:
Originally Posted by George Bernard Shaw
All great truths begin as blasphemies.
And remember to use the Preview Post button when posting; it can save you some grief.
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French)
Canadian or living in Canada? PM me if you want an entry on the list of Canadians on the forum.
Blue Mountain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2006, 07:44 PM   #122
Topspy
Scholar
 
Topspy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 119
Ah thank you Blue Mountain.

as for your obsevations, comparing smoking to slavery has me a bit....... under-enthused. My smoking when you are not present affects you not at all, and if you are present and object (say in my house) you are free to leave. Slaves couldn't just say "hey this sucks!" and leave.

You agree with the efforts to reduce the amount of cigarette smoke we're subjected to? Car exaust is something that you are exposed to every day, in much larger amounts (unless you're a bartender or such) but I don't see your thread on this. Get off your high-horse. Smoking is BAD. I'm a smoker, and I agree. But you inhale many more airborne pollutants every day (as a non-smoker that is not a bartender) than you do from cigarrette smoke.......) save your outrage for that. And leave us unrepentant smokers a place to go. You can stay away.
Topspy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2006, 07:50 PM   #123
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
 
Blue Mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 6,626
Originally Posted by Topspy View Post
I'm a chain smoker and I'm uncomfortable being placed in situations where I can't smoke (airplane flights and such.) It causes me stress that is obviously not good for me either. I'm not happy that I smoke but I'm realistic enough to realize I probably will never quit. Although I was initially chagrined when smoking was banned on airlines, restaraunts (most states, I think,) and workplaces among others, I will NEVER agree on a global ban in bars. NOTHING makes a smoker want to smoke more than having a drink. That's probably why bars were so smokey in the first place.
I won't deny this is so, but since I'm not a smoker, you'll have to fill me in as best you can on why this is so. Does drinking seem to trigger the urge to light up a cigarette? Or it it more of a psychological association with the bar and the drink? Does having a drink at home trigger the same urge?

Originally Posted by Topspy
Why not a compromise? Let those who want to have smoking bars put a big sign up outside that says "SMOKING ALLOWED HERE!" and leave it up to the customers to decide whether or not to enter? There seems to be a demand for non-smoking bars, so there should be plenty of alternatives for the non-smokers. Make it mandatory that employees are smokers also. Can't you say? Sure you can. Just change the laws yet again.
That could work, although given your previous comment that smoking and drinking are powerfully connected, a non-smoking bar would be at a significant disadvantage. There might be a demand for only one non-smoking bar per some large number of smoking bars, so in smaller communities there would not be enough demand to keep a non-smoking bar open.

Another compromise: smoking is not allowed in the bar proper. A small room could be set aside for people who wish to light up. Nothing fancy, but would require the installation of special equpment (ventilation to the outside.) The room should be kept small and designed to discourage social interaction so it doesn't become the focal point of the bar.

"What?" I hear pipelineaudio say. "ANOTHER facist dicatorial directive on how a bar owner should run his business!" But I sumbit to you that every bar in North America already has not one but two rooms in them similar to the one described above, as required by law. And I've heard of no bar that went out of business because they were mandated to be there.

Originally Posted by Topspy View Post
I don't think second hand smoke, in passing, is even 10% as bad for you as all the crap spewing out of car exausts, smokestacks, forest fires, coal-fired power plants, and the like....... so don't come whining around me till you get rid of your SUV
In fact, that's the point of this whole thread: the evidence for health harm caused by second-hand smoke is poor. Therefore it is nearly impossible to make an argument for a ban on smoking in public places on the basis of health issues.

So we're trying to determine if there are other reasons for doing this. My argument is one of personal discomfort for the non-smokers. Smokers don't believe this is a sufficiently strong reason.

PS: I don't have an SUV, and I ride my bike to work when weather pernits.
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French)
Canadian or living in Canada? PM me if you want an entry on the list of Canadians on the forum.
Blue Mountain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2006, 08:08 PM   #124
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
 
Blue Mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 6,626
Originally Posted by Topspy View Post
Ah thank you Blue Mountain.

as for your obsevations, comparing smoking to slavery has me a bit....... under-enthused. My smoking when you are not present affects you not at all, and if you are present and object (say in my house) you are free to leave.
But what if I'm present in a public place and you still want to smoke? Like at a bar? (Which I admit don't go to, but I'm sure there are lots of non smokers who go to bars.) Why should the rules be different for bars than they are for restaurants?

Originally Posted by Topspy
You agree with the efforts to reduce the amount of cigarette smoke we're subjected to? Car exaust is something that you are exposed to every day, in much larger amounts (unless you're a bartender or such) but I don't see your thread on this. Get off your high-horse. Smoking is BAD. I'm a smoker, and I agree. But you inhale many more airborne pollutants every day (as a non-smoker that is not a bartender) than you do from cigarrette smoke.......) save your outrage for that.

Indeed, I agree with you that the health effects of exhaust, smog, and industrial pollution are more serious than second hand smoke, making attempts to regulate smoking in public places on the basis of health claims untenable.

And leave us unrepentant smokers a place to go. You can stay away.
Maybe the bars can be smoke-free and entrepeneurs could start up a new type of establishment: a smoking-house. As much as a bar is a specialized place of business where the patons get together to socialize and drink, so a smoking-house would be a place where the patrons could get together to socialize and smoke.

But I don't know what the difference would be between a smoking-house with a liquor license and a regular bar. (Restaurants and even some theatres [stage theathres, not movie houses], after all, can get liquor licenses.)
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French)
Canadian or living in Canada? PM me if you want an entry on the list of Canadians on the forum.
Blue Mountain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2006, 08:09 PM   #125
Topspy
Scholar
 
Topspy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 119
Since you are a non-smoker let me inform you that yes! drinking, not the circumstances one is drinking in, triggers the urge to smoke. Once you have been trully addicted. smoking leaves a "flavor" in your mouth that you become habituated to. Eating or drinking removes this and re-enforces the need to smoke (ask any smoker if they like a cigarette after a meal.) Alcohol seems to make this need more urgent, perhaps because the solvent effects of alcohol remove the "taste" that cigarretes leave. Non-smokers would find this taste repugnant. Smokers find it irresistable.
I quit once for 3 months, and the smell of tobacco smoke after that smelled better than steak, sex, or whatever odor you define as pleasruable. Do what I say and instead of trying to legislate smoking try to eliminate it......without shutting down existing smokers
Topspy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2006, 08:13 PM   #126
Topspy
Scholar
 
Topspy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 119
Originally Posted by Blue Mountain View Post
But what if I'm present in a public place and you still want to smoke? Like at a bar? (Which I admit don't go to, but I'm sure there are lots of non smokers who go to bars.) Why should the rules be different for bars than they are for restaurants?


Maybe the bars can be smoke-free and entrepeneurs could start up a new type of establishment: a smoking-house. As much as a bar is a specialized place of business where the patons get together to socialize and drink, so a smoking-house would be a place where the patrons could get together to socialize and smoke.

But I don't know what the difference would be between a smoking-house with a liquor license and a regular bar. (Restaurants and even some theatres [stage theathres, not movie houses], after all, can get liquor licenses.)

Duh........ what have I been saying? why rename it? THIS IS A SMOKING BAR< ENTER IF YOU WISH.

same thing.....
Topspy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2006, 11:29 PM   #127
rockoon
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,106
Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey View Post
There's a huge difference between lighting up or splashing on, and walking around with invisible proteins. That difference is choice.
Bull.

Its a CHOICE to own an animal.

I call for the immediate ban of all pets nation-wide.

I will accept no excuses. Your rights end where my nose begins. I don't care if the pet is in your private home, because you drag that dander wherever you go.

I suppose we could have "Dander Friendly Businesses" - but only if you allow "Smoker Friendly Businesses" - since you are unwilling to allow that, I am unwilling to allow your Dander being shoved up my nose without my permission.

Hyprocritical jerks.
__________________
Quality never goes begging.
rockoon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2006, 08:20 AM   #128
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
 
Blue Mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 6,626
Originally Posted by rockoon View Post
Its a CHOICE to own an animal.

I call for the immediate ban of all pets nation-wide.
Strawman argument. I never called for the banning of cigarettes nation-wide. That's a stupid approach, and liquor prohibition in the 1920s showed definitvely that it would not work.

I'm supporting the right of non-smokers to enjoy an atmosphere free of cigarette smoke when they're out in public. Even in bars.
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French)
Canadian or living in Canada? PM me if you want an entry on the list of Canadians on the forum.
Blue Mountain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2006, 10:22 AM   #129
Topspy
Scholar
 
Topspy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 119
Originally Posted by Blue Mountain View Post
Strawman argument. I never called for the banning of cigarettes nation-wide. That's a stupid approach, and liquor prohibition in the 1920s showed definitvely that it would not work.

I'm supporting the right of non-smokers to enjoy an atmosphere free of cigarette smoke when they're out in public. Even in bars.

Yeah - But: Some places are more public than others. If you are a man, you really shouldn't go into women's public bathrooms. If you are a non-member, you shouldn't go into a health club even tho it's a publicly operated business. etc, etc. If you are a non-smoker and object to smoke, you don't belong in a SMOKING ALLOWED BAR. Very simple.

I agree that you should be able to enjoy smoke-free atmosphere when you are out in public. I just don't think that that means you are entitled to your expectations EVERYWHERE, just because that's how you want it. If we did things that way, people would be pitching crying babies out of airplanes too.
Topspy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2006, 11:09 AM   #130
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 15,621
Here are some recent studies that indicate that 2nd hand smoke is harmful:

miscarriage risk
respiratory health
bad for your heart
heart disease & lung cancer
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2006, 12:32 PM   #131
rockoon
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,106
Originally Posted by Blue Mountain View Post
Strawman argument. I never called for the banning of cigarettes nation-wide. That's a stupid approach, and liquor prohibition in the 1920s showed definitvely that it would not work.

I'm supporting the right of non-smokers to enjoy an atmosphere free of cigarette smoke when they're out in public. Even in bars.

Anti-smokers call for the ban of smoking anywhere near where they might potentialy be.

I am calling for the ban of pet dander anywhere I might potentialy be.

I don't see the difference....


Obviously one way to accomplish this is to ban pets nationwide. I propose to relieve the burder on pet owners somewhat by allowing tax dollars to be spent on the destruction of existing pets.

Are you willing to make sacrifices for the greater good? Are you willing to give up your rights to own a pet because I am discomforted by your selfish act of pet ownership?

If anti-smokers aren't willing to do that, then they are selfish morally corrupt hyprocritical bastards.
__________________
Quality never goes begging.
rockoon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2006, 12:56 PM   #132
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
 
Paulhoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 12,512
Sorry, but there is no pet dander at the bar.

Paul



Smoking just plain sucks, I will ask Randi when I see him.
__________________
For our money "IN WHICH GOD DO YOU TRUST"
Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given
Don't accept an answer that can't be questioned - God is Surperfluous
A society fails when ignorance outweighs knowledge
Science doesn’t know everything, but religion doesn’t know anything
Life is so horrent and also so beautiful, but without it there is nothing
Paulhoff is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2006, 05:03 PM   #133
Jeremy
Thinker
 
Jeremy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 150
This forum thread is for deciding if Second-Hand Smoke is harmful, not if it should be banned in public places. This is the Science forums, not Politics and Current Events.
Or, in other terms, this is supposed to be a level discussion, not a pissing match.
Jeremy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2006, 06:47 PM   #134
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
 
Paulhoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 12,512
It's the forum police.

Paul

__________________
For our money "IN WHICH GOD DO YOU TRUST"
Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given
Don't accept an answer that can't be questioned - God is Surperfluous
A society fails when ignorance outweighs knowledge
Science doesn’t know everything, but religion doesn’t know anything
Life is so horrent and also so beautiful, but without it there is nothing
Paulhoff is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2006, 02:22 AM   #135
rockoon
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,106
Originally Posted by Paulhoff View Post
Sorry, but there is no pet dander at the bar.
Its unavoidable. The pet owner was in a place with billions of bits of dander dust floating around in the air. It is not possible for him/her to dodge them all. Everything in the pet owners home is covered with it. Removing something from the home (such as a human being) amounts to dragging the dander everywhere it goes.

I can pick out most dog owners in the rain simply by their smell, thats not even counting my alergic reaction.

Selfish hypocritical smelly bastards!

I wont even mention the evil bastards who eat peanuts and then dont bother to wash their hands of the leathal peanut oil.
__________________
Quality never goes begging.
rockoon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2006, 06:46 AM   #136
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
 
Paulhoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 12,512
Quote:
Vance DeBar "Pinto" Colvig (born September 11, 1892 in Jacksonville, Oregon, USA – died of lung cancer on October 3, 1967 in Woodland Hills, California, USA) was a vaudeville actor, radio actor, newspaper cartoonist, prolific movie voice actor, and circus performer whose schtick was playing clarinet off-key while mugging. He graduated from Oregon State University in 1911.

Colvig is probably best known as the voice of Disney's Goofy and the original Bozo the Clown, a part he played for a full decade beginning in 1946. He also provided the voices for Sleepy and Grumpy in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Colvig worked for not only the Disney studio, but the Warner Bros. animation studio, Fleischer Studios, and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, where he voiced a Munchkin in The Wizard of Oz.He also was cocomposer of the well-known children’s song "Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?" in "Three Little Pigs," in addition to being the voice of Practical Pig in that film. Other roles at other studios included Gabby in 1939’s "Gulliver’s Travels," the Grasshopper in 1934’s The Grasshopper and the Ants" and Bluto in the Popeye cartoons.

He was also one of the pioneers in advocating warning labels about cancer risk on cigarette packages in the United States.
Paul

__________________
For our money "IN WHICH GOD DO YOU TRUST"
Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given
Don't accept an answer that can't be questioned - God is Surperfluous
A society fails when ignorance outweighs knowledge
Science doesn’t know everything, but religion doesn’t know anything
Life is so horrent and also so beautiful, but without it there is nothing
Paulhoff is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2006, 11:58 AM   #137
Phaycops
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 505
Ok....two things.

1. Drinking and smoking. I don't have time to track down the info referenced in this article, but since people were asking about drinking and smoking...From Seed Magazine:
Quote:
...Not only might cigarettes prompt more drinking by lowering blood alcohol levels, said psychologist Saul Shiffman of the University of Pittsburgh, but drinking actually seems to spur smoking.

"When people are drinking," he said, "they're more likely to smoke."

Some of that association, Shiffman said, is psychological—resulting from lowered inhibitions and a conditioned association between cigarettes and bars or drinking—but some is pharmacological: A 2004 study from Duke University suggests that even small amounts of alcohol can intensify the pleasurable effects of nicotine.

"There's some evidence that smoking is more rewarding when you've had alcohol," Shiffman said. "It's a self-perpetuating phenomenon."
2. New York State banned smoking in bars not too long ago. I realize in places like NYC this is not so widely enforced, but I live in Syracuse, where it is. Anyway, in no time at all, people had adjusted to walking outside to smoke. In nice weather, you can sit at tables outside at bars with sidewalk cafe permits, eve. You can't neccesarily take your drink with you. However, considering all the sturm und drang before the ban was effective, people adjusted extremely quickly and with a minimum of fuss. People have a real talent for making things "normal."

By the way, it was nice when my good friend was preggers that she could come with us to quiz night to drink sodas and have a good time without damage to her or her unborn baby.

Last edited by Phaycops; 27th September 2006 at 12:01 PM. Reason: fix coding
Phaycops is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2006, 06:06 PM   #138
Topspy
Scholar
 
Topspy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 119
Originally Posted by Phaycops View Post
Ok....two things.

1. Drinking and smoking. I don't have time to track down the info referenced in this article, but since people were asking about drinking and smoking...From Seed Magazine:


2. New York State banned smoking in bars not too long ago. I realize in places like NYC this is not so widely enforced, but I live in Syracuse, where it is. Anyway, in no time at all, people had adjusted to walking outside to smoke. In nice weather, you can sit at tables outside at bars with sidewalk cafe permits, eve. You can't neccesarily take your drink with you. However, considering all the sturm und drang before the ban was effective, people adjusted extremely quickly and with a minimum of fuss. People have a real talent for making things "normal."

By the way, it was nice when my good friend was preggers that she could come with us to quiz night to drink sodas and have a good time without damage to her or her unborn baby.
Actually that was the whole point of this thread as I saw it: Some people believe that second-hand smoke causes some provable harm to others as well as unborn children, and others DON"T. While I think it's laudable not to take chances with your pregnancy, some people are aghast at the prospect of eating irradiated tomatoes or geneticly altered corn as well. But those same people are not often adverse to say, having a fire in their fiireplace, breathing smoke from other sources (cooking food perhaps) eating other foods that they just don't think about as much (artificial flavors, colors, all sorts of additives,) and hundreds of other environmental variables. They just object to SMOKE, because it's annoying. The studies that show harm are far from conclusive, show bias, and are sponsered by/run by groups whose conclusions are reached BEFORE the testing is done. Any wonder that they find the results they expect?
Topspy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2006, 02:22 AM   #139
CaptainManacles
Muse
 
CaptainManacles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 821
Originally Posted by Blue Mountain View Post
But what if I'm present in a public place and you still want to smoke? Like at a bar? (Which I admit don't go to, but I'm sure there are lots of non smokers who go to bars.) Why should the rules be different for bars than they are for restaurants?
A bar is not a public place in the context of such an arguement, neither is a restaurant, it is a private business who can eject or admit people as they like. A hospital or a courthouse is a public place, feel free to ban smoking there.

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain View Post
Maybe the bars can be smoke-free and entrepeneurs could start up a new type of establishment: a smoking-house. As much as a bar is a specialized place of business where the patons get together to socialize and drink, so a smoking-house would be a place where the patrons could get together to socialize and smoke.
Or maybe, and this is a really crazy idea, so be prepared, just maybe, people don't need you to tell them how to run their lives.

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain View Post
Here are some recent studies that indicate that 2nd hand smoke is harmful:
I read some of those links. Part of the problem being that hundreds of such studies have been done. Yes, you can find one or two that show effects, but that's all. There are an equal number of studies that show smoking reduces cancer. It's just statistical deviations.
Also, if you read some of those studies, it would be impossible for them to double blind, which completely invalidates any results they got.
CaptainManacles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2006, 07:04 AM   #140
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
 
Paulhoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 12,512
Quote:
In 1962 and 1964 the Royal College of Physicians in London and the surgeon general of the United States released landmark reports documenting the causal relation between smoking and lung cancer.1 2 During the next quarter century, extensive research confirmed that smoking affects virtually every organ system. By 1990, the surgeon general concluded that "smoking represents the most extensively documented cause of disease ever investigated in the history of biomedical research."
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte...l/315/7114/961

This stuff has been know for years, so anyone that is young now and smokes, I'm sorry, but I don't in anyway feel sorry about the ban on smoking in many public places.

Paul

__________________
For our money "IN WHICH GOD DO YOU TRUST"
Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given
Don't accept an answer that can't be questioned - God is Surperfluous
A society fails when ignorance outweighs knowledge
Science doesn’t know everything, but religion doesn’t know anything
Life is so horrent and also so beautiful, but without it there is nothing

Last edited by Paulhoff; 28th September 2006 at 07:09 AM.
Paulhoff is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2006, 07:22 AM   #141
Fun2BFree
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 272
Originally Posted by CaptainManacles View Post
I read some of those links. Part of the problem being that hundreds of such studies have been done. Yes, you can find one or two that show effects, but that's all. There are an equal number of studies that show smoking reduces cancer. It's just statistical deviations.
Also, if you read some of those studies, it would be impossible for them to double blind, which completely invalidates any results they got.
I am sorry but while I agree that the link between second hand smoke and harm is not seen in every study--I know of no study where smoking REDUCES cancer..could you provide a reference?

What you see in second hand smoke effects is likely reflecting that any harmful effect it has is probably small---there is no ological reason it would be harmless...Smoking is a risky harmful behavior--there is no reasonable scientifc dispute about that--there is also no "safe" level of exposure...the risk rises with the dose...so second hand smoke is just a lower dose....
The questions are:

Is the risk so low as to be negligible? No one knows what that means-one man's negligible is another's panci level

Is the risk so high as to require government power to protect us? Clearly not--this is not people walking around with Plutonium endangering everyone to intolerable extremes.

Is the risk avoidable? Yes. Don't go to businesses that allow smoking.

So I think that governments have no role to play here....let the market decide..let restaurant and bar owners cater to their clientele's wishes and let the anti-smokers fles their market muscles not ask the government to do it for them....
I won't go to a place that is smoky..I wish all smokers would go away somewhere to do their nasty habit....but I am not going to ask Big Brother to do my bidding in this arena--this is social engineering and that is a nasty habit that conservaitves and liberals are indulging too much nowadays
__________________
"There is no expedient to which a man will not go to avoid the labor of thinking."
-Thomas Alva Edison
Fun2BFree is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2006, 09:55 AM   #142
Fun2BFree
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 272
Bar staff benefit from smoking ban

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/71816.html

by GRAEME SMITH for THE HERALD
Web Issue 2646 October 11 2006


""Our study shows that, across a number of health indicators, positive changes were evident, even in the first two months following the introduction of the smoking ban, which is a very rapid change," said Dr Daniel Menzies, principal investigator."
__________________
"There is no expedient to which a man will not go to avoid the labor of thinking."
-Thomas Alva Edison
Fun2BFree is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2007, 01:52 AM   #143
Questioninggeller
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 3,048
Youtube.com

Originally Posted by IllegalArgument View Post
At TAM3, someone questioned P&T on the second hand smoke show. Apparently, the questioner had send info P&T about the dangers of second hand smoke.

Penn said he had looked at the information agreed that second hand smoke did actually pose a real threat. Unfortuately, B*llsh!it doesn't have the budget to redo shows, or spend time correcting them in new shows. I haven't seen the details, Penn and the questioner didn't go into it, since it was a Q&A session.
Here's the video:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Questioninggeller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2007, 01:55 AM   #144
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 43,432
My respect for them has just gone up, if they are prepared to admit they made a mistake. Still, how much of a budget does it take to add a few words onto one episode for their audience?
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
“Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2007, 03:59 AM   #145
Euromutt
Graduate Poster
 
Euromutt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,092
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
My respect for them has just gone up, if they are prepared to admit they made a mistake.
Note that Penn didn't acknowledge they made a mistake; he said the content of the program was accurate, given the state of the scientific evidence at the time the program was made. What he is acknowledging is that more convincing evidence has emerged in the interim which, in retrospect, may invalidate a small amount of that show's content.
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
Still, how much of a budget does it take to add a few words onto one episode for their audience?
Not much, but is there a point to doing so? There's no guarantee that people who watched the secondhand smoke episode would watch whichever episode they issued the update on. It strikes me that an announcement on the website would be more effective.

I do find it curious to note that, contrary to Penn's statement, no such update was actually issued in the third season, nor is there any mention on the website. Perhaps, upon closer examination, their researchers found that the most recent study mentioned left few things to be desired as well.
__________________
"Sergeant Colon had had a broad education. He’d been to the School of My Dad Always Said, the College of It Stands to Reason, and was now a post-graduate student at the University of What Some Bloke In the Pub Told Me." - Terry Pratchett, Jingo

by birth, by choice
Euromutt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2007, 04:08 AM   #146
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 43,432
I would have thought it wise to be prudent on a matter of public health?
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
“Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2007, 04:35 AM   #147
Euromutt
Graduate Poster
 
Euromutt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,092
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
I would have thought it wise to be prudent on a matter of public health?
Undoubtedly, but when one errs on the side of caution (or what one believes to be the side of caution), one still errs.

Moreover, having become accustomed to the format of P&T:BS! episodes, I'd find it rather jarring if they made some announcement regarding an earlier show, two seasons previously, that was in no way related to the topic of the episode in question. That would be like a newspaper printing a correction as part of the text of an unrelated article.
__________________
"Sergeant Colon had had a broad education. He’d been to the School of My Dad Always Said, the College of It Stands to Reason, and was now a post-graduate student at the University of What Some Bloke In the Pub Told Me." - Terry Pratchett, Jingo

by birth, by choice

Last edited by Euromutt; 8th January 2007 at 04:50 AM.
Euromutt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2007, 05:22 AM   #148
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Originally Posted by roger View Post
To be honest, I don't look to Penn to evaluate scientific findings such as these. I don't think he can do it any better than I can. Give me six months of concerted effort in the field, and maybe I can evaluate the scientific merit, but other than that, no. Certainly as sceptics we can point out flawed methodology when it occurs, but otherwise we are left to seeing what the conclusions are of the majority of the experts.

With that said, it seems logical that second hand smoke can be somewhat harmful. The dangers of inhaling organics and particulates are well known. My hobby is woodworking, and there are many dangers associated with prolonged exposure to particulates down to 1 micron, solvents, etc. So in the absense of evidence in regards to second hand smoke, I'd prefer caution rather than a libertarian free for all in this matter.
Thank you for making this point that so many don't seem to be aware of and let's remove cigarette smoke from the statement(as you did): the dangers of inhaling organics and particulates is well known (coal dust, factory smokestacks, fly ash, etc./ acetone., gasoline, carbon tetrachloride etc. even the smoke from a wood fire can do it. None of this stuff is good for your lungs, never has been, never will be. So, back to cigarettes, they are by default bad for your lungs - like any of those others. Second hand smoke has lots less of the particulates (smoker gets those) but still enough of the organics and some particulates that there is no logical way it can't have an effect.
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2007, 06:47 AM   #149
Euromutt
Graduate Poster
 
Euromutt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,092
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
So, back to cigarettes, they are by default bad for your lungs - like any of those others. Second hand smoke has lots less of the particulates (smoker gets those) but still enough of the organics and some particulates that there is no logical way it can't have an effect.
That's highly plausible, but the contention that ETS has some effect is not, by itself, sufficient to inform government policy. If we are to weigh the benefits of outlawing certain behaviors against the drawbacks, we have to quantify those benefits and those drawbacks, and that means that we have to know how significant the effects of ETS are. For example, if things like vehicle emissions, bonfires, what have you, turned out to present a more severe threat to public health than ETS (especially if ETS were comparatively easy to avoid), it seems misplaced to implement smoking bans while failing to address the more severe threats.

One may argue that misplacing priorities does not, in and of itself, condemn a particular policy, provided that that policy protects some aspect of public health, but once you go down that road, where do you stop? This discussion is the result of a government policy to implement a blanket smoking ban in bars; the primary function of a bar, as opposed to a café, coffee shop, soda fountain, etc. is to serve alcoholic beverages, and of course, alcohol carries many health risks with it. Many bars play music, live or recorded, at levels which are bound to have some effect on the hearing of the patrons and the employees. Essentially, if we're concerned about public health, would it not make sense to simply outlaw bars?

Well, yes, but we're not concerned solely with public health; we're weighing that issue against the freedom of the average citizen to frequent bars and engage in behaviors (alcohol consumption, being exposed to loud music, finding sexual partners who might be infected with STDs) which the customers find pleasurable, even if it these activities are potentially or actually harmful to their health. Once we accept that the freedom to do so trumps the government's interest in protecting public health, we have to ask what makes smoking different. Why is it that smoking is the one behavior regarding which no compromise is possible?
__________________
"Sergeant Colon had had a broad education. He’d been to the School of My Dad Always Said, the College of It Stands to Reason, and was now a post-graduate student at the University of What Some Bloke In the Pub Told Me." - Terry Pratchett, Jingo

by birth, by choice
Euromutt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2007, 07:32 AM   #150
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by CaptainManacles View Post
There are an equal number of studies that show smoking reduces cancer.
What total and utter unadulterated horse crap.

---

The situation, as I see it, is as follows.

The majority of medical professionals now believe second hand smoke is dangerous.

Everyone agrees that second hand smoke can be a powerful irritant.

Governments across the globe have taken notice of both these aspects and are implementing measures to reduce people's exposure to second-hand smoke.

Smokers possessed of sense and reason - i.e. the majority - understand this. They welcome such action. They understand that smoking is not being banned and they understand that such regulatory measures are necessary and indeed inevitable in a progressive civilised society.

A small minority of selfish, small-minded individuals do not agree that smoking should be regulated. They have no valid argument other than they don't see why they shouldn't be able to do what they want when they want, regardless of who they physically harm or otherwise negatively affect. They argue is that non-smokers should stay indoors if they don't want to be exposed to others' smoke.

I don't see a problem. There are always those who are too stupid and / or selfish to voluntarily conform to change and need to be forced into compliance by the introduction of laws. However, they are being forced. So, although I do resent the very presence of such people in society, I am happy that in this instance their influence is being severely diminished.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2007, 08:42 AM   #151
CaptainManacles
Muse
 
CaptainManacles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 821
Originally Posted by baron View Post
What total and utter unadulterated horse crap.

---

The situation, as I see it, is as follows.

The majority of medical professionals now believe second hand smoke is dangerous.

Everyone agrees that second hand smoke can be a powerful irritant.

Governments across the globe have taken notice of both these aspects and are implementing measures to reduce people's exposure to second-hand smoke.

Smokers possessed of sense and reason - i.e. the majority - understand this. They welcome such action. They understand that smoking is not being banned and they understand that such regulatory measures are necessary and indeed inevitable in a progressive civilised society.

A small minority of selfish, small-minded individuals do not agree that smoking should be regulated. They have no valid argument other than they don't see why they shouldn't be able to do what they want when they want, regardless of who they physically harm or otherwise negatively affect. They argue is that non-smokers should stay indoors if they don't want to be exposed to others' smoke.

I don't see a problem. There are always those who are too stupid and / or selfish to voluntarily conform to change and need to be forced into compliance by the introduction of laws. However, they are being forced. So, although I do resent the very presence of such people in society, I am happy that in this instance their influence is being severely diminished.
What total and utter unadulterated horse crap.

Look, we've been going round this issue for 4 pages, and that's all been said before, and called out for the ridiculousness that it is. If you have something new to add to the conversation, feel free, but otherwise you're just trolling.
CaptainManacles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2007, 09:57 AM   #152
skeptifem
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,276
Originally Posted by baron View Post
What total and utter unadulterated horse crap.

---

The situation, as I see it, is as follows.

The majority of medical professionals now believe second hand smoke is dangerous.

Everyone agrees that second hand smoke can be a powerful irritant.

Governments across the globe have taken notice of both these aspects and are implementing measures to reduce people's exposure to second-hand smoke.

Smokers possessed of sense and reason - i.e. the majority - understand this. They welcome such action. They understand that smoking is not being banned and they understand that such regulatory measures are necessary and indeed inevitable in a progressive civilised society.

A small minority of selfish, small-minded individuals do not agree that smoking should be regulated. They have no valid argument other than they don't see why they shouldn't be able to do what they want when they want, regardless of who they physically harm or otherwise negatively affect. They argue is that non-smokers should stay indoors if they don't want to be exposed to others' smoke.

I don't see a problem. There are always those who are too stupid and / or selfish to voluntarily conform to change and need to be forced into compliance by the introduction of laws. However, they are being forced. So, although I do resent the very presence of such people in society, I am happy that in this instance their influence is being severely diminished.
because there are not any non smokers who disagree with anti smoking laws

My dad doesnt smoke, and Ive quit, and we both think a business owner should get to decide wether or not they allow smoking. if you dont like it, dont go there. its really that simple.

what i am sick of is a bunch of people thinking they somehow have a right to have a good experience in someone elses business. its not yours.
skeptifem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2007, 10:09 AM   #153
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by CaptainManacles View Post
What total and utter unadulterated horse crap.
Impressive. You used my own quote back at me. Although I hesitate to tackle such towering drollery and intellect, I feel I should remind you that it was you who posted the garbage that smoking prevents cancer. I merely mentioned that it was, er, untrue.

Originally Posted by CaptainManacles View Post
Look, we've been going round this issue for 4 pages, and that's all been said before, and called out for the ridiculousness that it is. If you have something new to add to the conversation, feel free, but otherwise you're just trolling.
It may have been said before, but not by me, and not in this thread. If you're genuinely concerned about repetition, as you seem to be, I suspect your time would be better spent in the Conspiracy Forum.

(And if you insist on providing response please try to include some semblence of intelligence or wit)
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2007, 10:51 AM   #154
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by nails View Post
because there are not any non smokers who disagree with anti smoking laws
Some do. Your point?

Originally Posted by nails View Post
My dad doesnt smoke, and Ive quit, and we both think a business owner should get to decide wether or not they allow smoking. if you dont like it, dont go there. its really that simple.
Would you find it acceptable to scrap fire safety legislation in privately-owned businesses? Oh, this club doesn't have a fire escape but that's OK because the business owner doesn't want one. People don't have to go if they don't want to, right?

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of individual items of legislation that businesses must comply with in the interests of health and safety. Now, protecting their clientele from the demonstrably dangerous effects of second-hand smoke will be another one. And rightly so.

Originally Posted by nails View Post
what i am sick of is a bunch of people thinking they somehow have a right to have a good experience in someone elses business.
Soon they will have the right, and therefore they will be correct in thinking that. You being "sick of it" will not change a thing.

Last edited by baron; 8th January 2007 at 10:54 AM. Reason: grammar
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2007, 05:38 PM   #155
aargh57
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 347
It seems to me that it is not the majority that is getting there way in this issue. I think that most people would be fine with non-smoking sections in bars and restaurants but more and more places are banning smoking completely. I live near Madison Wisconsin and they started a ban a few years back. Even the cigar bar had to keep people from smoking (which naturally shut it down.) Why would either side of the argument have a problem with a bar that had an area where non-smokers have a place to go segregated from smoking areas. Seems to me this was working in many places around the country for quite a number of years. Why this big push for all out bans recently.

It actually benefits me when a place is non-smoking as I don't smoke and I don't even go to bars, but I don't think it's right that a smoker doesn't have 1 bar in a town of 200,000 that they can go and smoke in.
aargh57 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2007, 07:24 PM   #156
Euromutt
Graduate Poster
 
Euromutt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,092
Originally Posted by CaptainManacles View Post
There are an equal number of studies that show smoking reduces cancer.
Originally Posted by baron View Post
What total and utter unadulterated horse crap.
Actually, his wording's a little sloppy, but he's got a point. As I noted in a post a year ago,[quote]
Originally Posted by Euromutt View Post
[...] the Congressional Research Service noted that, of the 30 studies the EPA incorporated into its analysis, "six found a statistically significant (but small) effect, 24 found no statistically significant effect and six of the 24 found a passive smoking effect opposite to the expected relationship."
Italics mine. Those last studies "show" that ETS reduces the risk cancer (and various cardio-pulmonary disorders) to the same extent the first batch "show" ETS increases that risk. Or we could agree that correlation does not equal causation and that the studies in question don't "show" anything.
Originally Posted by baron View Post
The situation, as I see it, is as follows.

The majority of medical professionals now believe second hand smoke is dangerous.
What they believe is beside the point; there was a time when a majority of medical professionals believed in the four humors, blood-letting and all that. What counts is what is supported by scientific evidence.
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Everyone agrees that second hand smoke can be a powerful irritant.
An irritant, certainly; how powerful is the matter under discussion here. I don't think it's unreasonable to assert that whereas an activity which carries a genuine risk of causing cardio-pulmonary disorders (lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease etc.) in others is a matter which justifies government intervention, something that at worst inflicts smelly clothes, brief headaches and minor respiratory discomfort makes for a less compelling case.

This applies especially in the context of imposing blanket smoking bans in bars. Nobody needs to visit a bar, in the sense that one needs to visit a grocery store or a doctor's office or a vehicle licensing center. One visits a bar to engage in activities one finds pleasurable, and many of these activities have potentially detrimental effects on one's health, not least the consumption of alcohol. The notion that the health of bar patrons needs protecting is a ludicrous one; even the anti-smoking crusaders acknowledge this, which is why they push for smoking bans under the guise of "workers' protection."
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Smokers possessed of sense and reason - i.e. the majority - understand this. They welcome such action. They understand that smoking is not being banned and they understand that such regulatory measures are necessary and indeed inevitable in a progressive civilised society.

A small minority of selfish, small-minded individuals do not agree that smoking should be regulated. They have no valid argument other than they don't see why they shouldn't be able to do what they want when they want, regardless of who they physically harm or otherwise negatively affect. They argue is that non-smokers should stay indoors if they don't want to be exposed to others' smoke.
I count at least two fallacies here, namely a false dichotomy regarding smokers' attitudes, and an argumentum ad hominem directed as smokers who don't agree with you (who are supposedly devoid of "sense and reason").

Have you actually read the thread? One smoker after another, myself included, has stated that he doesn't think that smokers should have the right to smoke anywhere they please. As I myself put it:
Originally Posted by Euromutt View Post
I don't care if I can't smoke everywhere, but I would like to be able have somewhere I can smoke and have a roof over my head and, ideally, a pint in front of me, all at the same time.
We're fine with not smoking in stores, office buildings, restaurants. We're fine with not smoking in bars of which the management has decided not to allow smoking on the premises because a substantial number of their customers demanded it. But what we refuse to accept is that there is a legitimate need to ban smoking in all bars by force of law.
Originally Posted by baron View Post
I don't see a problem. There are always those who are too stupid and / or selfish to voluntarily conform to change and need to be forced into compliance by the introduction of laws.
But if you're going to go that route, why not extend it to all recreational activities with potential health risks? If any threat to public health justifies outlawing an activity, what reason is there not to outlaw bars, nightclubs and the like entirely? Why not outlaw sports which might result in severe injury and thus place an unnecessary burden on the health care system, not to mention the expense of mounting search and rescue operations in the case of climbers and boaters? Why not outlaw the use of motor vehicles for recreational purposes (such as going on holiday)?

Personally, I detest the term "nanny state," but it sounds to me like that is what you're advocating. Or are you like so many people, who resents government intervention when it affects them personally, but is perfectly happy to have it inflicted on others?
__________________
"Sergeant Colon had had a broad education. He’d been to the School of My Dad Always Said, the College of It Stands to Reason, and was now a post-graduate student at the University of What Some Bloke In the Pub Told Me." - Terry Pratchett, Jingo

by birth, by choice
Euromutt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2007, 09:31 PM   #157
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
 
Blue Mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 6,626
Originally Posted by nails View Post
My dad doesnt smoke, and Ive quit, and we both think a business owner should get to decide wether or not they allow smoking. if you dont like it, dont go there. its really that simple.
But what if there is no such establishment? What if NO BAR IN TOWN disallows smoking? Or no restaurant? Or no movie theatre?

And, IMHO, that's a very valid "what if". Sometimes the market can make bad decisions.
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French)
Canadian or living in Canada? PM me if you want an entry on the list of Canadians on the forum.
Blue Mountain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2007, 11:55 PM   #158
CaptainManacles
Muse
 
CaptainManacles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 821
Originally Posted by Blue Mountain View Post
But what if there is no such establishment? What if NO BAR IN TOWN disallows smoking? Or no restaurant? Or no movie theatre?
Then you deal with the smoke or don't go. What if you're in a town with no bars? Or what if the guy who owns the one nice restaurant in town hates you and has told you you're not welcome there?

Quote:
And, IMHO, that's a very valid "what if". Sometimes the market can make bad decisions.
Sometimes the market does things that *you* don't like. That's life. If non-smokers, who greatly greatly outnumber non-smokers, cared enough to stop going to bars that allowed smoking, those places would be non-smoking overnight. The reality is that it just doesn't bother almost anyone as much as they claim, it's certainly doesn't bother you as much as it bothers smokers to stop smoking. The market makes the right call, it doesn't just act on some misguided sense of "majority rules", or some misguided sense that your personal values are some how objectively better then other people's. It works to maximize utility, and as smokers become less in number and more willing to quit, non-smoking establishments grow in number.

The issue just comes down to a group of people who can't get everything that want by fair means right away so they use violence to get their way. I think that's rarely an acceptable way to reason, certainly not because of a minor irritation.
CaptainManacles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2007, 08:16 AM   #159
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
 
Blue Mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 6,626
Originally Posted by CaptainManacles View Post
Sometimes the market does things that *you* don't like. That's life. If non-smokers, who greatly greatly outnumber non-smokers [my edit], cared enough to stop going to bars that allowed smoking, those places would be non-smoking overnight. The reality is that it just doesn't bother almost anyone as much as they claim, it's certainly doesn't bother you as much as it bothers smokers to stop smoking.
It's this incredible arrogance I see from smokers that irritates me. The reality is that it just doesn't bother almost anyone as much as they claim ... you're claiming that your filthy, dirty, stinking, obnoxious habit doesn't bother me? You're not the one who has to change his clothes and take a shower after an evening out because of the stench you carry home with you; you're in in all the time, so you don't notice it. You also probably don't notice the running, stinging eyes and the raw, sore throat either, because you've built up a certain resistance to the smoke. And maybe you like coming down with colds, headaches, and other minor but not debilitating diseases all winter because your body is busy fighting off the irritants from cigarette smoke in addition to the bacteria and viruses about you.

And I in no way claimed you had to stop smoking altogether, as you implied in the last line I quoted from your post. Just don't pursue your obnoxious behaviour in places where others find it objectionable.

Sometimes it's the smokers' attitudes that stink as much as the smoke.
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French)
Canadian or living in Canada? PM me if you want an entry on the list of Canadians on the forum.
Blue Mountain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2007, 09:37 AM   #160
cafink
Thinker
 
cafink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by Blue Mountain View Post
But what if there is no such establishment? What if NO BAR IN TOWN disallows smoking? Or no restaurant? Or no movie theatre?

And, IMHO, that's a very valid "what if". Sometimes the market can make bad decisions.
If a town is unable to support a non-smoking bar, then I daresay that having no non-smoking bar in that town is not a bad decision. If, on the other hand, it is as good as you suggest, then surely it will not be long before some enterprising businessman recognizes this and opens such an establishment.

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain View Post
It's this incredible arrogance I see from smokers that irritates me. The reality is that it just doesn't bother almost anyone as much as they claim ... you're claiming that your filthy, dirty, stinking, obnoxious habit doesn't bother me? You're not the one who has to change his clothes and take a shower after an evening out because of the stench you carry home with you; you're in in all the time, so you don't notice it. You also probably don't notice the running, stinging eyes and the raw, sore throat either, because you've built up a certain resistance to the smoke. And maybe you like coming down with colds, headaches, and other minor but not debilitating diseases all winter because your body is busy fighting off the irritants from cigarette smoke in addition to the bacteria and viruses about you.
If a significant portion of the population felt this way, there would be virtually no market for establishments that permit smoking. The popularity of such estiblishments suggests, then, that you are in the minority on this point. Why should a private business owner be forced to cater to your whims over those of anyone else (in particular, over those of the more profitable majority, who enjoy or don't strongly object to smoking)? You are free to patronize businesses whose rules and regulations are more to your liking.

Last edited by cafink; 10th January 2007 at 10:16 AM.
cafink is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:49 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.