American Voice said:
Okay, but why do you feel that way? In what way does it set a bad precedent to enact a law to protect the health of people?
Smoking Bans: good idea, or bad?
- Thread starter American Voice
- Start date
Okay, but why do you feel that way? In what way does it set a bad precedent to enact a law to protect the health of people?
So where do you stop?
It becomes the 'slippery slope' argument.
Do we ban pregnant women from having a glass of wine, because they may have more?
Do we outlaw restaurants because they may use more butter than they should in the sauces?
Do we stop keeping score at peewee hockey because the losing side may feel bad? (dont laugh-- some soccer leagues here actually DO THAT!)
I guess it boils down to weighing the needs of the public vs the freedom of the individual
It becomes the 'slippery slope' argument.
Do we ban pregnant women from having a glass of wine, because they may have more?
Do we outlaw restaurants because they may use more butter than they should in the sauces?
Do we stop keeping score at peewee hockey because the losing side may feel bad? (dont laugh-- some soccer leagues here actually DO THAT!)
I guess it boils down to weighing the needs of the public vs the freedom of the individual
Haggis McBagpipe said:
Well said.
I also think that one should pay for medical attention if they do smoke and come down with respiratory complications.
Here is a little article that I found:
"Since the 1957 report suggested a link between smoking and lung cancer, the connection has been firmly established.
Lung cancer now kills 20,000 people every year and health experts predict that life-time smokers have a 50% chance of dying of a smoking-related illness in middle-age.
It is also been established that tobacco smoking causes 25 different diseases including heart disease and strokes.
By 2020, the World Health Organisation expects the worldwide death toll to reach 10 million, causing 17.7% of all deaths in developed countries.
There are believed to be 1.1 billion smokers in the world, 800,000 of them in developing countries. "
>>Do we outlaw restaurants because they may use more butter than they should in the sauces?
Eating heart-attack food does not affect the circumspect diner at the table next to you who orders vegetarian.
>>Do we stop keeping score at peewee hockey because the losing side may feel bad?
I don't see the correlation. There is no reason to protect, by law, anybody from getting their feelings hurt. There IS reason to legally protect people from chemical warfare which is, in an overly dramatic sense, what happens when non-smokers are heavily exposed to second-hand smoke.
Are you saying that there should not be a law to protect the health of employees? That employees, usually the working-poor that are working minimum wage, do not deserve protection against a kbown health hazard?
I guess it boils down to weighing the needs of the public vs the freedom of the individual[/quote]
Yes! Freedom of the individual to be able to go about their business and pleasure without breathing in toxic fumes. I agree.
Eating heart-attack food does not affect the circumspect diner at the table next to you who orders vegetarian.
>>Do we stop keeping score at peewee hockey because the losing side may feel bad?
I don't see the correlation. There is no reason to protect, by law, anybody from getting their feelings hurt. There IS reason to legally protect people from chemical warfare which is, in an overly dramatic sense, what happens when non-smokers are heavily exposed to second-hand smoke.
Are you saying that there should not be a law to protect the health of employees? That employees, usually the working-poor that are working minimum wage, do not deserve protection against a kbown health hazard?
I guess it boils down to weighing the needs of the public vs the freedom of the individual[/quote]
Yes! Freedom of the individual to be able to go about their business and pleasure without breathing in toxic fumes. I agree.
Sorry haggis-- perhaps I was obtuse.
We are talking about regulating behaviour, for health, mental health and so on.
I didnt mean to imply the obvious difference between the behaviours you pointed out.
For example, drinking to excess can lead to drunk driving-- and that too, is a phblic health hazard.
As to restaurants, unhealthy diets lead to heart disease ond obesity, also public health hazards.
I am in concurrance with you re smoking and workers health.
Im just not sure where we stop-- or even IF we can stop. There needs to be a new mechanism, I think.
The slippery slope argument isnt usually relevant to the case at hand-- its the 'down the road' Im looking at.
Bright side is the Court of Appeals.
Down side are the lawyers.
We are talking about regulating behaviour, for health, mental health and so on.
I didnt mean to imply the obvious difference between the behaviours you pointed out.
For example, drinking to excess can lead to drunk driving-- and that too, is a phblic health hazard.
As to restaurants, unhealthy diets lead to heart disease ond obesity, also public health hazards.
I am in concurrance with you re smoking and workers health.
Im just not sure where we stop-- or even IF we can stop. There needs to be a new mechanism, I think.
The slippery slope argument isnt usually relevant to the case at hand-- its the 'down the road' Im looking at.
Bright side is the Court of Appeals.
Down side are the lawyers.
Hello my evil twin.
>>We are talking about regulating behaviour, for health, mental health and so on.
I do not feel that we are talking about regulating behaviour. Are we not talking about an environmental issue on one hand - a pollution - and the health and safety of employees in the workplace? Regulating behaviour would be to create a blue law that banned smoking for the safety of the smoker. This, however, is a law to protect the innocent, the non-smokers and the workers.
>>For example, drinking to excess can lead to drunk driving-- and that too, is a phblic health hazard.
Yes, and it is regulated, just as smoking in public places should be.
>>As to restaurants, unhealthy diets lead to heart disease ond obesity, also public health hazards.
Yes, but that is still another story, is it not? I can eat an unhealthy diet. It might hurt me, but it isn't going to hurt you except, possibly, your pocketbook at tax time.
>>Im just not sure where we stop-- or even IF we can stop. There needs to be a new mechanism, I think.
What would that mechanism be? What would be an easier pill to swallow?
>>Down side are the lawyers.
Downside is ALWAYS the lawyers, the bastids.
>>We are talking about regulating behaviour, for health, mental health and so on.
I do not feel that we are talking about regulating behaviour. Are we not talking about an environmental issue on one hand - a pollution - and the health and safety of employees in the workplace? Regulating behaviour would be to create a blue law that banned smoking for the safety of the smoker. This, however, is a law to protect the innocent, the non-smokers and the workers.
>>For example, drinking to excess can lead to drunk driving-- and that too, is a phblic health hazard.
Yes, and it is regulated, just as smoking in public places should be.
>>As to restaurants, unhealthy diets lead to heart disease ond obesity, also public health hazards.
Yes, but that is still another story, is it not? I can eat an unhealthy diet. It might hurt me, but it isn't going to hurt you except, possibly, your pocketbook at tax time.
>>Im just not sure where we stop-- or even IF we can stop. There needs to be a new mechanism, I think.
What would that mechanism be? What would be an easier pill to swallow?
>>Down side are the lawyers.
Downside is ALWAYS the lawyers, the bastids.
OK bro (you were always moms favorite)
I am in agreement re second hand smoke.
It all boils down to the mechanism.
The law would have to SPECIFICALLY relate to second hand smoke (maybe under environmental protections?)
By the way, that drinking is regulated hasnt stopped drunk driving, so...you get the rest
My interst was picqued when you referred to unhealthy diets at tax time. As with smoking, there is an argument to be made as to why I should not be responsible to pay for your choice in unhealthy living. Healthcare is a BIG bite out taxes, right?
I am in agreement re second hand smoke.
It all boils down to the mechanism.
The law would have to SPECIFICALLY relate to second hand smoke (maybe under environmental protections?)
By the way, that drinking is regulated hasnt stopped drunk driving, so...you get the rest
My interst was picqued when you referred to unhealthy diets at tax time. As with smoking, there is an argument to be made as to why I should not be responsible to pay for your choice in unhealthy living. Healthcare is a BIG bite out taxes, right?
>>OK bro (you were always moms favorite)
Well sure, 'cause I was a MUCH nicer kid, after all.
>>By the way, that drinking is regulated hasnt stopped drunk driving, so...you get the rest
But it slowed it down and resulted in a greatly increased public awareness of the dangers inherent in excess drinking. Thirty years ago, for a small example, there was no such thing as 'dry grad', for example.
>>My interst was picqued when you referred to unhealthy diets at tax time. As with smoking, there is an argument to be made as to why I should not be responsible to pay for your choice in unhealthy living. Healthcare is a BIG bite out taxes, right?[/quote]
Oh boy, that complex little gem of an issue! Compared to the smoking issue, it is kind of like understanding eternity as opposed to, say, solving the Rubic cube.
So, YOU start.
Well sure, 'cause I was a MUCH nicer kid, after all.
>>By the way, that drinking is regulated hasnt stopped drunk driving, so...you get the rest
But it slowed it down and resulted in a greatly increased public awareness of the dangers inherent in excess drinking. Thirty years ago, for a small example, there was no such thing as 'dry grad', for example.
>>My interst was picqued when you referred to unhealthy diets at tax time. As with smoking, there is an argument to be made as to why I should not be responsible to pay for your choice in unhealthy living. Healthcare is a BIG bite out taxes, right?[/quote]
Oh boy, that complex little gem of an issue! Compared to the smoking issue, it is kind of like understanding eternity as opposed to, say, solving the Rubic cube.
So, YOU start.
No, you were moms fav because you wore that cute little sailor suit and hat. Be nice-- or I'll posy those naked pictures of you in the bath tub (its genetic--mothers MUST take naked pics in tub).
OK, as for drinking and driving-- its still a major issue. Seat belts have cut down on fatalities, but its still a cause for public concern.
Now, the question of being 'our brothers keeper' so to speak, well, that is effectively what separates us from 'lower' animals. By reason of reason or morality, we do extend ourselves-- otherwise we'd say, no hospitals, let natural selection run its course.
That by the way, is why Im against the death penalty, tough as that is at times.
Now that Ive taken care of that, you can conquer Rubic's Cube.
OK, as for drinking and driving-- its still a major issue. Seat belts have cut down on fatalities, but its still a cause for public concern.
Now, the question of being 'our brothers keeper' so to speak, well, that is effectively what separates us from 'lower' animals. By reason of reason or morality, we do extend ourselves-- otherwise we'd say, no hospitals, let natural selection run its course.
That by the way, is why Im against the death penalty, tough as that is at times.
Now that Ive taken care of that, you can conquer Rubic's Cube.
researchok said:
Whoa, what's up with this? We are in total agreement about the health issue AND about the death penalty.
This is just too much, whatever happened to decent sibling rivalry? I never find it tough to be against the death penalty, though. It never, even with the worst criminal, seems like any answer at all.
PS The sailor suit, you know, had pockets, lots of 'em. In those pockets was the dozens of treats AND money that mom gave ME and not YOU. She didn't want you to know, poor little bugger.
OK, sory I missed you last night-- phone rang..etc.
Actually. Im not at all surprised we can share similiar views.
What we have ain common (besides mom) are a more than a few shared values. Where we differ is our political views. Those are two very different things.
Shared values are inherently different than shared interests. Interests, over time, change whereas values mature and refine. and so on.
Now, you may want to make the argument that values=politics. In the 'heat of the battle' thats often thrown out. But in truth, Patriots come in all stripes. As a personal example, Danial Patrick Moniyhan-- a politician with whom I was at odds with often-- I consider a true patriot. Although his politics were different than mine, there is no question his motivations-- his VALUES were identical. He truly had the best interest of the people in mind. We differed in the road taken-- no more, no less-- to achieve the ideal of a better society.
Same can be said, in my opinion, for Joe Lieberman, for example. Discounting his run with Gore for the highest office, he has always been a moral anchor. His values are unimpeachable.
John MCain, in my opinion, falls into that category as does (forgive me here) Jeb Bush-- moreso than even his brother. His motivations are clear. I could go on, but you get the point. Certainly no one can say these men aren't patriots in the truest sense of the word, differences in politics notwithstanding.
Its about values- not political interests. And thats why we can agree on much. It's a shame that the current political climate is so antithetical to commonalities, and focus is placed on political expediency.
Actually. Im not at all surprised we can share similiar views.
What we have ain common (besides mom) are a more than a few shared values. Where we differ is our political views. Those are two very different things.
Shared values are inherently different than shared interests. Interests, over time, change whereas values mature and refine. and so on.
Now, you may want to make the argument that values=politics. In the 'heat of the battle' thats often thrown out. But in truth, Patriots come in all stripes. As a personal example, Danial Patrick Moniyhan-- a politician with whom I was at odds with often-- I consider a true patriot. Although his politics were different than mine, there is no question his motivations-- his VALUES were identical. He truly had the best interest of the people in mind. We differed in the road taken-- no more, no less-- to achieve the ideal of a better society.
Same can be said, in my opinion, for Joe Lieberman, for example. Discounting his run with Gore for the highest office, he has always been a moral anchor. His values are unimpeachable.
John MCain, in my opinion, falls into that category as does (forgive me here) Jeb Bush-- moreso than even his brother. His motivations are clear. I could go on, but you get the point. Certainly no one can say these men aren't patriots in the truest sense of the word, differences in politics notwithstanding.
Its about values- not political interests. And thats why we can agree on much. It's a shame that the current political climate is so antithetical to commonalities, and focus is placed on political expediency.
A word on this issue. As a smoker this issue is close to my heart (and my lungs).
I understand completely why they want to ban smoking in public places. Public smoking causes diseases in non-smokers, it raises insurance costs for business owners, etc.
Tere are also a some very good reasons not to ban smoking. One is that the government of my province, New Brunswick, is really screwing small business owners.Up to this point The law has been that you are allowed to have a smoking section in your bar/restaurant but only if you buy a special air ventilation system with a price tag of about $100,000! Now, granted this cost was absorbed on their tax returns but it likely put more than a few small business owners in to hauk.
I do not eneter in to this debate without a potential solution. Haggis insightfully pointed out that "If there are non-smoking bars and smoking bars, the non-smoking bars suffer loss of business and therefore rarely stick with it. If ALL bars are non-smoking, then this is not an issue." which I have no doubt is true. However, perhaps these non-smoking bars were not properly motivated. Offer tax credit, exeptions, and incentive for these locations to go non-smoking. That way they will have the money to put on promotions to make sure that business continues booming (one such humourous attemptby a local business was to start a "faxy boxing" event at his bar). That way those few who, due to their educational level, or skill set, have no choice but to wait tables will have the choice to work in a bar with or without smoking.
I hope this gives some food for thought and I look forward to your responses.
I understand completely why they want to ban smoking in public places. Public smoking causes diseases in non-smokers, it raises insurance costs for business owners, etc.
Tere are also a some very good reasons not to ban smoking. One is that the government of my province, New Brunswick, is really screwing small business owners.Up to this point The law has been that you are allowed to have a smoking section in your bar/restaurant but only if you buy a special air ventilation system with a price tag of about $100,000! Now, granted this cost was absorbed on their tax returns but it likely put more than a few small business owners in to hauk.
I do not eneter in to this debate without a potential solution. Haggis insightfully pointed out that "If there are non-smoking bars and smoking bars, the non-smoking bars suffer loss of business and therefore rarely stick with it. If ALL bars are non-smoking, then this is not an issue." which I have no doubt is true. However, perhaps these non-smoking bars were not properly motivated. Offer tax credit, exeptions, and incentive for these locations to go non-smoking. That way they will have the money to put on promotions to make sure that business continues booming (one such humourous attemptby a local business was to start a "faxy boxing" event at his bar). That way those few who, due to their educational level, or skill set, have no choice but to wait tables will have the choice to work in a bar with or without smoking.
I hope this gives some food for thought and I look forward to your responses.
Re: RE: Smoking Bans: good idea, or bad?
Hey, a smoker who isn't militant on this subject! Nice to meet you, Rob. Your idea has a lot of merit and would be the best solution if one is going to allow both smoking and non-smoking bars, yet I still maintain that the best solution is a total ban. Why? Because it works and at the least expense all around.
If you ban all smoking, bars really would not suffer in the least except at the very start. Smokers would declare their heartfelt intentions of never going to bars again as long as they live, but would return in relatively short order simply because there are many other draws to a bar; alcohol, camaraderie, ambience, entertainment. I just don't see any loser in this equation.
There can be a surprise advantage, too. In California, when such laws were put into place, a good percentage of smokers eventually just quit since there was no place to smoke except at home. That's not such a bad thing, really.
I have to know, off-topic or not; what is faxy-boxing?
eastcoastrob said:
Hey, a smoker who isn't militant on this subject!
Nice to meet you, Rob. Your idea has a lot of merit and would be the best solution if one is going to allow both smoking and non-smoking bars, yet I still maintain that the best solution is a total ban. Why? Because it works and at the least expense all around. If you ban all smoking, bars really would not suffer in the least except at the very start. Smokers would declare their heartfelt intentions of never going to bars again as long as they live, but would return in relatively short order simply because there are many other draws to a bar; alcohol, camaraderie, ambience, entertainment. I just don't see any loser in this equation.
There can be a surprise advantage, too. In California, when such laws were put into place, a good percentage of smokers eventually just quit since there was no place to smoke except at home. That's not such a bad thing, really.
I have to know, off-topic or not; what is faxy-boxing?
I think that a no smoking in all places where people eat and stay is a good idea. I smoke cigarette but I know people who do not and it is just the right thing these days.
It is not fair to non-smokers to make them breathe in bad air.
It is not fair to non-smokers to make them breathe in bad air.
Re: RE: Smoking Bans: good idea, or bad?
"faxy-boxing" is a typo. I meant to say foxy-boxing which (as I'm sure you've guessed) involves semi-attractive bikini clad women boxing in front of a room full of hooping men.
The thing about me is that I'm a self serving SOB. That's why I am trying so desparately to come up with a viable alternative to this smoking ban. As mentioned previously the ban is not without its merits. It may encourage smokers to quit which would decrease the strain on our public health system in Canada and maybe (I'm almost afraid to say it) facilitate some tax relief. However, we need to bare in mind that we are now forcing the citizens who are most vulnerable to illness out in to the bitter cold, rain, snow (that' in my area BTW- not really applicible to California) and whatever else nature throws our way.
I am also concerned that we are being led down a very slippery slope where soon door-to-door salespeople will be able to sue the smoking owners of the houses that they enter for damages sustained from the smoke in their house. I see in the not-so-distant future children being removed from their homes because of their parents' addiction to cigarettes.
Let's suppose for a moment that a voluntary smoking ban were to work. There is now a 50-50 split between those businesses who allow smoking and those who do not. The non-smokers of this world would not be satisfied. They would always feel like they were missing out on something because they don't want to go in a bar that allows smoking. And thus the petitions would begin again.
Smokers, generally, are a very accomidating breed. We've allowed ourselves to be beaten into submission with taxes, self-rightious banter and dramatics from non-smokers. And we have taken it all with a smile on our face and a tumur in our lung. All we want is a place where we can gather, have a butt, and a beer, listen to band and go home. We want this place to be somewhere we present a danger to nobody but ourselves. Is that so much to ask?
"faxy-boxing" is a typo. I meant to say foxy-boxing which (as I'm sure you've guessed) involves semi-attractive bikini clad women boxing in front of a room full of hooping men.
The thing about me is that I'm a self serving SOB. That's why I am trying so desparately to come up with a viable alternative to this smoking ban. As mentioned previously the ban is not without its merits. It may encourage smokers to quit which would decrease the strain on our public health system in Canada and maybe (I'm almost afraid to say it) facilitate some tax relief. However, we need to bare in mind that we are now forcing the citizens who are most vulnerable to illness out in to the bitter cold, rain, snow (that' in my area BTW- not really applicible to California) and whatever else nature throws our way.
I am also concerned that we are being led down a very slippery slope where soon door-to-door salespeople will be able to sue the smoking owners of the houses that they enter for damages sustained from the smoke in their house. I see in the not-so-distant future children being removed from their homes because of their parents' addiction to cigarettes.
Let's suppose for a moment that a voluntary smoking ban were to work. There is now a 50-50 split between those businesses who allow smoking and those who do not. The non-smokers of this world would not be satisfied. They would always feel like they were missing out on something because they don't want to go in a bar that allows smoking. And thus the petitions would begin again.
Smokers, generally, are a very accomidating breed. We've allowed ourselves to be beaten into submission with taxes, self-rightious banter and dramatics from non-smokers. And we have taken it all with a smile on our face and a tumur in our lung. All we want is a place where we can gather, have a butt, and a beer, listen to band and go home. We want this place to be somewhere we present a danger to nobody but ourselves. Is that so much to ask?
I have to tell you, I seriously did not guess what you meant by faxy-boxing, and believe it or not, I would not have guessed about foxy-boxing, either. Yes, I am that naive... or should I say, that much out of touch with the bar scene.
You have some very good points, I might say,but I think the 'worst case scenario' stuff, ie salesmen sueing smoking households, etc., might be construed as a bit of far-fetched fear-mongering.
I have one quibble in regards to the idea of 'forcing the citizens who are most vulnerable to illness out into the cold, etc., etc.'. I think we have to ask, who is forcing them out into the cold? The non-smoking regulations or the cigarette addiction?
You have some very good points, I might say,but I think the 'worst case scenario' stuff, ie salesmen sueing smoking households, etc., might be construed as a bit of far-fetched fear-mongering.
I have one quibble in regards to the idea of 'forcing the citizens who are most vulnerable to illness out into the cold, etc., etc.'. I think we have to ask, who is forcing them out into the cold? The non-smoking regulations or the cigarette addiction?
I was being a little bit reactionist on that one for sure. Been reading too much Michael Moore lately.
As to your "quibble" (love that word BTW) you must admit that, at very least, it's a little from colum A and a little from colum B. If I am addicted to a substance that our governments profit from through tax revenure I think that I should be allowed to use comfortably. I mean I pay ten buck a pack!
As to your "quibble" (love that word BTW) you must admit that, at very least, it's a little from colum A and a little from colum B. If I am addicted to a substance that our governments profit from through tax revenure I think that I should be allowed to use comfortably. I mean I pay ten buck a pack!
Re: RE: Smoking Bans: good idea, or bad?
Now on this point I agree wholeheartedly, but you sure don't want to know my solution to the hypocracy!
eastcoastrob said:
Now on this point I agree wholeheartedly, but you sure don't want to know my solution to the hypocracy!
That certainly hasn't been the case in Winnipeg. Bars have seen a definite fall-off in business. Those with patios where people can smoke are finding their business is way up in the summer, but down in the winter. Casino profits are way down.