Oh Republicans, you're doing it again...

[Nate DaMac]

It's a matter of health. Constant exposure to secondhand smoke can be more dangerous than the actual smoking, especially in a place like a bar where the smoke just lingers in the air.

A risk everyone in said bar is aware of. If you don't want to be around second hand smoke, I guarantee that there is a place within walking distance that doesn't allow smoking.

And it's not just related to the customers, but the employees as well.

No one is forced to work anywhere. If you don't want to work around smoke, don't work there.

Furthermore, you run into issues with places like a Buffalo Wild Wings, which is a sports bar, but also a restaurant. And in that restaurant, children enter and have to breathe the secondhand smoke.

Children should absolutely not be allowed into a place that allows smoking.

And when smoking develops medical complications, it raises the cost of healthcare for everyone.

As the old saying goes, your rights end where mine begin. And when your decisions affect the cost of healthcare/health insurance and potentially my health, you're adversely affecting me.

These are the two parts that need further explanation to me. Why would health insurance rates raise for everyone? I've never heard that one before.

It just seems like they went lazy on this one. People were tired of going to places clouded with smoke but instead of trying to compromise and make some adjustments (i.e. No kids in places that allow smoking, None of this ******ed smoking/non smoking sections, etc.) they just eliminate it all together. I know the bars in my area are fucking ghost towns now. People who don't smoke don't go to these kind of dives anyway, but they fucked these people's businesses up.

 

[Nate DaMac]

The employees don't have the same choice and forcing them to work in that environment or be unemployed isn't acceptable under the law.

I go out applying for jobs. I go to this bar and put in an application. I've been inside, therefore I know smoking is allowed in this bar. I get the job and start working there. Now I don't want to be around cigarette smoke. How is this in any way the fault of the employer?

 

[Nate DaMac]

Let it be known here that I'm not really trying to be argumentative, I just want to fully understand the other side. I don't go out to bars or nothing anyway. I can get a 6 pack for the price of 2 bar beers at the convenience store and I don't have to be around a bunch of drunk douchebags in the process. I have kids, so I don't smoke in my house.

 

[Барбоса]

Not that I am defending smoking as I agree with its banning in public places but I do not think that the whole situation is completely black and white, even if much of the government's arguments seem to make it.

A bar that does not allow smoking within it until a certain time after which children are not allowed would seem to be perfectly acceptable as any non-smoker present would be actively choosing to expose themselves.

I understand that there is the strain on the healthcare system issue but it is somewhat difficult to uphold that argument given that there are plenty of other instances of self-inflicted health risks.

 

[Slyfox696]

The employees don't have the same choice and forcing them to work in that environment or be unemployed isn't acceptable under the law.

Well, they have the choice of not working there. That's not really what I was getting at.

A risk everyone in said bar is aware of. If you don't want to be around second hand smoke, I guarantee that there is a place within walking distance that doesn't allow smoking.

No one is forced to work anywhere. If you don't want to work around smoke, don't work there.

I understand that, I believe you're not seeing the big picture I'm painting.

When the employee which has worked in a smoking establishment all their life gets to age 50, they are at significant risk of lung cancer (and/or other medical conditions), especially if they were a smoker. They then require hospitalization and healthcare, which takes resources away from other people who also need assistance.

Let's use a hypothetical. If there are 8 rooms in a hospital, and three of them are occupied by smokers, what does that do for the other 7 people who need healthcare? I guess the hospital could build another wing, but who do you think is going to end up footing that bill?

It's a matter of health, and other people's decisions affect the healthcare I can receive.

These are the two parts that need further explanation to me. Why would health insurance rates raise for everyone? I've never heard that one before.

Because insurance companies are a for-profit business. They operate on the assumption that what they pay out will not equal what gets paid in. But when you have someone who develops a chronic medical condition that requires constant medical payments, then the insurance company is paying out more than they took in. At which point they have to raise the rates on everyone else to cover what they are paying out, plus the additional amount to cover their other expenses.

Why do you think insurance companies traditionally don't cover pre-existing conditions?

It just seems like they went lazy on this one. People were tired of going to places clouded with smoke but instead of trying to compromise and make some adjustments (i.e. No kids in places that allow smoking, None of this ******ed smoking/non smoking sections, etc.) they just eliminate it all together. I know the bars in my area are fucking ghost towns now. People who don't smoke don't go to these kind of dives anyway, but they fucked these people's businesses up.

No one is telling people they cannot go to a bar. You just can't smoke in the bar. Go outside if you wish to smoke, that's still legal, correct?

 

[Nate DaMac]

When the employee which has worked in a smoking establishment all their life gets to age 50, they are at significant risk of lung cancer (and/or other medical conditions), especially if they were a smoker. They then require hospitalization and healthcare, which takes resources away from other people who also need assistance.

Let's use a hypothetical. If there are 8 rooms in a hospital, and three of them are occupied by smokers, what does that do for the other 7 people who need healthcare? I guess the hospital could build another wing, but who do you think is going to end up footing that bill?

It's a matter of health, and other people's decisions affect the healthcare I can receive.

Because insurance companies are a for-profit business. They operate on the assumption that what they pay out will not equal what gets paid in. But when you have someone who develops a chronic medical condition that requires constant medical payments, then the insurance company is paying out more than they took in. At which point they have to raise the rates on everyone else to cover what they are paying out, plus the additional amount to cover their other expenses.

Why do you think insurance companies traditionally don't cover pre-existing conditions?



No one is telling people they cannot go to a bar. You just can't smoke in the bar. Go outside if you wish to smoke, that's still legal, correct?

A lot of that makes a bit more sense to me than other arguments I've heard. Just one thing though. It seems like that's more of an argument against smoking in general, not in public places. Like, nothing about any of that makes me believe that smoking is any worse in a public place than it will be if you do it at home. I mean, drinking is still allowed in these bars and they cause quite a bit of heath issues too.

 

[Барбоса]

It just seems like they went lazy on this one. People were tired of going to places clouded with smoke but instead of trying to compromise and make some adjustments (i.e. No kids in places that allow smoking, None of this ******ed smoking/non smoking sections, etc.) they just eliminate it all together.

Smoking and non-smoking sections are a waste of time under the same roof. Just because you are not being made to cough by smoke does not mean that harmful chemicals are not getting into your lungs on the far side of a restaurant from a smoking section.

I know the bars in my area are fucking ghost towns now. People who don't smoke don't go to these kind of dives anyway, but they fucked these people's businesses up.

I would be willing to bet that the banning of smoking is not a major part of the downturn in pub revenue. It is the economic crisis and the relative cheapness of supermarket.

I guess the only thing that somewhat wrangles with me is that whilst I agree about the argument about smoking not being a right, I think it is equally not a right for me to be able to go into a privately owned establishment that allows smoking. They are both choices.

 

[Slyfox696]

It seems like that's more of an argument against smoking in general, not in public places. Like, nothing about any of that makes me believe that smoking is any worse in a public place than it will be if you do it at home. I mean, drinking is still allowed in these bars and they cause quite a bit of heath issues too.

It is an argument against smoking in general. Which makes it an argument against smoking in public places.

I'm confused as to what you're getting at.

 

[Nate DaMac]

It is an argument against smoking in general. Which makes it an argument against smoking in public places.

I'm confused as to what you're getting at.

Why not just ban it all together?

 

[Slyfox696]

Why not just ban it all together?

Because that won't win you votes.

 

[Nate DaMac]

Because that won't win you votes.

Forget that though. I'm asking you if there's a legitimate reason not to ban smoking.

 

[Барбоса]

Why not just ban it all together?

Because that won't win you votes.

This, and the fact that taxing the shit out of smoking brings in too much money for the government.

 

[Nate DaMac]

Ah. See that makes sense.

 

[Slyfox696]

Forget that though. I'm asking you if there's a legitimate reason not to ban smoking.

I'm all for banning smoking. And the taxes things which was mentioned.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

As a non-smoker, I like the ban but I always felt the answer was to have state govts tax establishments for smoking licenses and put the revenue toward health care. It still gives the establishments, patrons and employees the freedom but if taxed at the appropriate rate should curb the amount of smoking and second hand smoke.

I don't like the strain on the health care system argument since there are about a million other things we choose to do in life that are not good for our health.

 

[Remix]

Why not just ban it all together?

Eventually, it will be. When few enough people are smoking that nobody gives a fuck, and the tax revenue low enough to be an absorbable hit to the budget, someone will do the necessary paperwork to make it illegal. Smoking's already a minority habit in the UK and it's trending downwards. Sooner or later the inevitable will happen and they'll be outlawed.

 

[LigerBomb]

I don't like the strain on the health care system argument since there are about a million other things we choose to do in life that are not good for our health.

That selective hypocrisy exists doesn't invalidate said argument.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

That selective hypocrisy exists doesn't invalidate said argument.

I'm not trying to win the Interwebs Debate Championship of the World, the hypocrisy and the losing the ability to do something people enjoy just makes me feel bad about the law. I also don't think the damage from second hand smoke inhaled in private establishments is such a great health epidemic that the law needed to be taken so far. There is a better solution.

I remember being a kid when they had a smoking section on airplanes. That was outrageous in such a small industry and based on what we know about health and airline safety today. Smoking in bars and restaurants is not nearly as big of a problem as it is made out to be.

Oh, and fuck those idiots that put together the Truth campaign. Those commercials are made by morons for morons.

 

[Moon Knight]

It was more for the other person who accused you of being liberal.

Ok, fair enough.

 

[Moon Knight]

I usually lean towards labeling myself as a liberal, but I disagree with too many liberal ideas to really call myself liberal.

Namely the ******ed smoking laws.

I agree with the leaning liberal, I just disagree with too many things to call myself a Liberal.

 

[LigerBomb]

Spoiler

I'm not trying to win the Interwebs Debate Championship of the World, the hypocrisy and the losing the ability to do something people enjoy just makes me feel bad about the law. I also don't think the damage from second hand smoke inhaled in private establishments is such a great health epidemic that the law needed to be taken so far. There is a better solution.

I remember being a kid when they had a smoking section on airplanes. That was outrageous in such a small industry and based on what we know about health and airline safety today. Smoking in bars and restaurants is not nearly as big of a problem as it is made out to be.

Oh, and fuck those idiots that put together the Truth campaign. Those commercials are made by morons for morons.

Bad feelings aside, tobacco smoking is an activity that by almost all accounts is counter productive to both the individual and society at large. That people enjoy it has increasingly become a moot point. Especially since our focus is on secondhand smoke (SHS) –as well as the arguments and laws pertaining to it.
Since you don't think the damage warrants current laws I'm left to wonder just how much damage to the public—and/or it's coffers—must accrue before you find the laws to be warranted? Just a quick browse on Google scholar and PubMed reveals that SHS increases the risk of coronary heart disease ≈ 30%. Tell me then, for your own personal tastes how much damage needs to be done?
Now an ≈ 30% increased risk is a sobering statistic on its own but it's made all the more cogent when you consider that according to the CDC's final tabulation, heart disease was the number 1 killer of Americans in 2009 –although with cancer ever nipping at its heels, I predict the top spot will be traded back and forth between the two over the next decade.
So, here we have an agent complicit in the development of the no. 1. Heart disease; 2. Cancer; 3. Chronic lower respiratory diseases; and 4. Stroke (cerebrovascular accidents/diseases) cause of mortality, all while aiding in the crippling of the economy via increased healthcare and decreased productivity. While I'm certainly open to reading your "better solution", current SHS laws seem on point to me.

Apologies for the digression of topic.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Bad feelings aside, tobacco smoking is an activity that by almost all accounts is counter productive to both the individual and society at large.

So are these internet discussions but we continue to have them.

That people enjoy it has increasingly become a moot point.

Not to those people

Especially since our focus is on secondhand smoke (SHS) –as well as the arguments and laws pertaining to it.
Since you don't think the damage warrants current laws I'm left to wonder just how much damage to the public—and/or it's coffers—must accrue before you find the laws to be warranted? Just a quick browse on Google scholar and PubMed reveals that SHS increases the risk of coronary heart disease ≈ 30%. Tell me then, for your own personal tastes how much damage needs to be done?

What 41,000 deaths a year due to the long term effects of SHS? That's not exactly an epidemic. You are basing laws on a different population from the population that your statistics come from (past - no knowledge of the dangers of SHS and future - knowledge of the dangers of SHS).

Now an ≈ 30% increased risk is a sobering statistic

Not if it based on a small segment of the population.

on its own but it's made all the more cogent when you consider that according to the CDC's final tabulation, heart disease was the number 1 killer of Americans in 2009 –although with cancer ever nipping at its heels, I predict the top spot will be traded back and forth between the two over the next decade.
So, here we have an agent complicit in the development of the no. 1. Heart disease; 2. Cancer; 3. Chronic lower respiratory diseases; and 4. Stroke (cerebrovascular accidents/diseases) cause of mortality, all while aiding in the crippling of the economy via increased healthcare and decreased productivity. While I'm certainly open to reading your "better solution", current SHS laws seem on point to me.

41,000 deaths a year is not that many, especially when you are talking about a past generation where smoking was allowed on airplanes and in daycares. Prohibition is not the answer here. There are far less stringent methods that make more sense and don't rile a particular portion of the population. Education and licensing would probably do just as well without alienating. I tend to find terms like Nanny State overblown and obnoxious but I completely understand the outrage when people are made to feel like they don't matter. This is how these laws make people feel.

Apologies for the digression of topic.

Apology denied

 

[LigerBomb]

I'll chalk up the opening to being glib, otherwise, why even join and actively participate in a forum, the sole point of which is discourse? Anyway, the fact of the matter, and rather than going point-by-point, is that SHS leads to disease and death and is a multifaceted drain on society. Dissemination of the information does nothing to change its conclusivity. To qualify a meaningful tax/license would be almost impossible—it would require finding the ever fluctuating dollar amount that is able to equal not only costs outgoing but losses due to decreased productivity—not to mention time consuming. So, in the meanwhile, a feasible and simple way to effectively eliminate the damage done is to severely restrict exposure. Current laws aim to do just that. And they are working. If you would like to frame the discussion in feeling, please do so. However, I will say that I'm rather callous towards the feelings of those who deliberately poison themselves and others, consent notwithstanding, especially when there's a chance that I'll have to foot the bill later on.

The apology was given to SlyFox

 

[George Steele's Barber]

I'll chalk up the opening to being glib, otherwise, why even join and actively participate in a forum, the sole point of which is discourse?

Internet discourse produces nothing, especially here. If anything it creates stress, strains eyes and fingers and mostly keeps people sedentary.

Anyway, the fact of the matter, and rather than going point-by-point, is that SHS leads to disease and death and is a multifaceted drain on society. Dissemination of the information does nothing to change its conclusivity. To qualify a meaningful tax/license would be almost impossible—it would require finding the ever fluctuating dollar amount that is able to equal not only costs outgoing but losses due to decreased productivity—not to mention time consuming.

Please, you are the one spouting stats about the effects on health. Just take the current cost,project it out using participation rates and health care costs trends, then discount your costs back at a reasonable (see low) discount rate. It is very simple if the current research is truly accurate.

So, in the meanwhile, a feasible and simple way to effectively eliminate the damage done is to severely restrict exposure. Current laws aim to do just that. And they are working.

Not if they're pissing people off to the point they start saying stupid things like, "I don't want to pay for other people."

If you would like to frame the discussion in feeling, please do so. However, I will say that I'm rather callous towards the feelings of those who deliberately poison themselves and others, consent notwithstanding, especially when there's a chance that I'll have to foot the bill later on.

Yeah, Tea Party rhetoric like that. Show me your food bill and then we can talk about your healthy lifestyle, then show me how much you exercise (non-impact of course, wouldn't want to pay for anyone's basketball injury), then test your basement for radon, then we can test the soil in your garden, then the paint on your walls along with the what is insides of them, then give me the distance you live from train tracks or an airport or a busy street, then tell me what your pillow case and mattress are made of, then let me know how much time you spend playing video games, talk on the phone, watch TV or sit in front of a computer, after that we can get in to your childhood and what you were exposed to then, then to finish things off we can get in to your sleeping patterns, sexual activity and mental health.

But don't expect me to be anything but callous if you are not meeting my definition of proper health on any of those fronts.

The apology was given to SlyFox

That just hurts.

 

[Slyfox696]

That just hurts.

In fairness, I am much more important than you.