Is Calabasas Right to Ban Outdoor Smoking?

[Moonbear]

My point was that you, and most people, won't treat someone you see drinking too much at a party the same way you'd treat a smoker even though that person might kill a family driving home drunk, or, more subtly, screw something up the next day at work that affects a lot of people adversly.

Actually, I do treat them the same...meaning, if I know someone is drinking too much, I absolutely, positively do not allow them to drive, even if it means taking their keys away and getting them mad at me. They can drink all they want, as long as it doesn't put anyone else at risk. If they attempt to do something that will put others at risk, I put a stop to it. I went out drinking tonight, and my friend drove. I watched her consumption and even though she didn't drink much and stopped drinking long before we were ready to leave, I still asked if she was absolutely certain she was okay to drive us home tonight, let her know I was definitely not okay to drive, and also let her know that I had enough money for cab fare to get us both home if it was needed (she lives walking distance from the bar, so it was also an option to just walk back to her apartment).

It's interesting you bring this up tonight, because I actually shared with my friend tonight the stories of when I was a teenager and my step-father used to drink and drive with the whole family in the vehicle. I used to make excuses to sit in the middle of the front seat (my mom had usually been drinking too on those occassions...family parties used to get pretty wild), and the entire reason was that I wanted to be able to grab the wheel if I thought we were heading for a collision. It scared me to death to see how he drove those nights, and I was completely unable to stop my parents from getting in the car and driving at that time, despite pleading for them to wait until they were sober or to spend the night. So, now that I'm older and know better how to prevent people from doing that, I'll gladly pay the cab fare for myself AND friends, or I'll take their keys away and give them no choice but to spend the night or take a cab home. I've never had anyone get mad at me for it, and even if they did, it's a risk I'm willing to take...I figure they'll probably forgive me once they're sober and realize what I stopped them from doing, and if they don't forgive me, at least they're still alive to be mad at me.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Banning smoking in an entire city is probably going too far, but the outdoor bans make sense in the two places I've actually seen them already instituted - at theme parks and within 20 feet of entrances and exits that are used by the general public. In those cases, if smoking is allowed in those places, it is inevitable that people who do not want to breathe in smoke, and might be adversely affected by doing so, will be forced to do so at some point.

I can see these. Here all the outside smoking areas are pretty far removed from the building entrances, and there are always very obvious signs about it.

The only reason I don't have a problem with drinking alcohol is that it isn't dangerous in moderation. In fact, it can be a healthy thing to do in moderation. Getting absolutely wasted, on the other hand, is banned in public. Public drunkeness has been a crime for as long as I've been alive, and I would imagine much longer. The thing about cigarettes is that even just one, or even just part of one, can have very bad effects. Hell, I'll never forget the anti-smoking group that came into my school when I was in third grade, and used a little robot that inhaled smoke into a plastic lung. The lung turned completely black with tar after a single puff. That image will forever be ingrained into my mind and it impressed into me how completely disgusting and pointless a habit this is. There are plenty of ways to deprive one's brain of oxygen. Why cigarettes?

I'm not defending the habit, much less reccomending it, and it's excellent that the school demonstration sunk in for you.

My complaint is with the vehemence against smokers, because it's popular to be that way, as opposed to the lack of vehemence on a direct personal level, against people who don't drink moderately and also against pot smokers. I am not saying it's OK for a person to smoke, but it strikes me as so mild compared to the worse things that don't occupy the same level of importance in people's minds.

 

[Evo]

I think I should be able to dance without having to mind people who knowingly walking into my space (I'm having second thoughts about choosing that example).

How are they "knowingly" walking into your space? Yes, I think we're just talking about bad examples.

But a person going out to eat at a public restaurant should NOT be walking into an unknown life threatening situation. People that smoke should be able to control themselves long enough to eat a meal. Right? Don't you think that's reasonable? Not smoke for 30 minutes to an hour? Will that kill them? If so, they can walk outside away fom people and puff away. Right?

 

[Moonbear]

Unless, of course, this isn't based on courtesy. Then it's about harming others via second hand smoke, which I'm trying to understand with my interpretive dancing analogue.

I think it's both. The reason it's a courtesy issue is that the second-hand smoke is harmful to others, and thus, it's rude to expose people to a health risk they aren't willing to take themselves. There's no doubt that second-hand smoke is a health risk...what does it matter if you're the one purposely inhaling the smoke or if you're the one unintentionally inhaling the smoke from someone else's cigarette when they light up next to you? It's the same smoke either way. The question really becomes: how far away from the cigarette is it safe to breathe without risk from the second-hand smoke? That's really where the distinction arises between needing a law or not -- the difference between when it is a health hazard and when it's just an annoyance, like strong perfume or body odor. If it's a health hazard, I go along with laws preventing it, when something is just an annoyance, or you actually have to have an allergy for it to be harmful, then I don't think a law is necessary.

Whoever commented about places specifically intended for smoking, I have to agree with them. I don't have a problem with a place that is intended to be a cigar bar, or for smoking hookah, or whatever kind of smoking they're intended for. The name of the place tells all. If someone wants to open a place for cigar smokers, I think that's just fine, because non-smokers know exactly what the place is for and can choose to avoid it. I've avoided restaurants that allow smoking for years too. I actually prefer a ban on outdoor smoking over indoor smoking. I can choose to avoid indoor places where people smoke, and if the business owners feel that they want non-smokers to buy from them, they can choose to ban smoking. It's a lot harder to avoid outdoor places.

 

[Jelfish]

How are they "knowingly" walking into your space? Yes, I think we're just talking about bad examples.

But a person going out to eat at a public restaurant should NOT be walking into an unknown life threatening situation. People that smoke should be able to control themselves long enough to eat a meal. Right? Don't you think that's reasonable? Not smoke for 30 minutes to an hour? Will that kill them? If so, they can walk outside away fom people and puff away. Right?

And to remedy that situation, restaurants have smoking and non-smoking sections. I guess my opinion is that laws should only be made to protect people from things that they should not be expected to protect from themselves. That is, if you are standing in line to buy a ticket for something outside, and someone is smoking in front of you, sure, it's annoying and they shouldn't do it out of courtesy. But, does it warrent gov't intervention? Despite the fact that I would probably enjoy seeing a police officer tell that person to put it out, in specific regard to such kind of legislation, I'm still leaning on no.

 

[Cyrus]

You would love Austria moonbear. They smoke in the airports over there. Nothing is more fun than waiting to board the airplane with a line full of Pissed off Austrian chain smokers. My eyes were starting to burn. They hand out cigarettes over there like its candy. You can find those old style vending machines where you put money in and pull the lever out to dispense the cigarettes in the open streets, which means any kind can go up to one and buy a pack of smokes.

Jelfish get real. Smoking/nonsomking sections are a joke and you know it.

 

[Jelfish]

I think it's both. The reason it's a courtesy issue is that the second-hand smoke is harmful to others, and thus, it's rude to expose people to a health risk they aren't willing to take themselves. There's no doubt that second-hand smoke is a health risk...what does it matter if you're the one purposely inhaling the smoke or if you're the one unintentionally inhaling the smoke from someone else's cigarette when they light up next to you? It's the same smoke either way. The question really becomes: how far away from the cigarette is it safe to breathe without risk from the second-hand smoke? That's really where the distinction arises between needing a law or not -- the difference between when it is a health hazard and when it's just an annoyance, like strong perfume or body odor. If it's a health hazard, I go along with laws preventing it, when something is just an annoyance, or you actually have to have an allergy for it to be harmful, then I don't think a law is necessary.

Whoever commented about places specifically intended for smoking, I have to agree with them. I don't have a problem with a place that is intended to be a cigar bar, or for smoking hookah, or whatever kind of smoking they're intended for. The name of the place tells all. If someone wants to open a place for cigar smokers, I think that's just fine, because non-smokers know exactly what the place is for and can choose to avoid it. I've avoided restaurants that allow smoking for years too. I actually prefer a ban on outdoor smoking over indoor smoking. I can choose to avoid indoor places where people smoke, and if the business owners feel that they want non-smokers to buy from them, they can choose to ban smoking. It's a lot harder to avoid outdoor places.

That's interesting. I suppose this stems from cigarette smoke being added to the official list of toxic substances. In that regard, any law prohibiting the spread of toxic substances would give precedence to a ban on second-hand smoke.

I also wonder how effectively it can be enforced. I've always thought that a law is really only as good as how well it can be enforced.

I don't know. You make a good point and I guess I'm starting to see how it could be reasonable to ban smoking outdoors. Although I think that the volume/density of smoke that a second-hand smoker inhales is much much smaller than the amount that a smoker inhales, especially if the second-hand smoker usually tries to avoid smoke.

 

[Moonbear]

And to remedy that situation, restaurants have smoking and non-smoking sections. I guess my opinion is that laws should only be made to protect people from things that they should not be expected to protect from themselves. That is, if you are standing in line to buy a ticket for something outside, and someone is smoking in front of you, sure, it's annoying and they shouldn't do it out of courtesy. But, does it warrent gov't intervention? Despite the fact that I would probably enjoy seeing a police officer tell that person to put it out, in specific regard to such kind of legislation, I'm still leaning on no.

The problem with smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants is that they have never been sufficiently separated. The smoke still passes into the non-smoking section, and sometimes there is nothing more than a half wall dividing the two areas, or even just an imaginary line...you can be in a non-smoking section, right next to the first table in the smoking section and have someone light up right next to you. Though, like I said in my previous post, I would walk into those restaurants, take two sniffs and tell the host(ess) that I wasn't interested because there was too much smoke. In one restaurant, they insisted the two areas were very well separated, and after sitting down and smelling the smoke, I told the waitress it was unacceptable and I walked out just leaving payment for the soda I had ordered...it wasn't long before I heard through others that that particular restaurant had completely changed their seating plan, and had the smoking section now moved far from the non-smoking section. Indeed, I returned to check it out, and they had made the two areas separated enough that I no longer smelled smoke in the non-smoking section and was happy to give them my business back again. That was before there were laws against smoking in restaurants. I imagine others must have complained too, since it's unlikely just one complaint would result in such a dramatic change. But, yeah, while I personally enjoy the benefits of the laws against smoking in restaurants, I also think it was possible to accomplish the same effect simply by speaking up as to why I was walking back out of a restaurant. If I was in the minority and it wasn't going to affect their business to keep operating at the status quo, then fine, I can cook my own meals at home. There are plenty of restaurants that have chosen to go smoke-free even in places where there are no laws. In the town I live now, there's no law against smoking in restaurants, but the Applebees is still smoke-free as are several other restaurants, and that gets them my business. They've never seemed empty any time I've been in there (the smoke-free Chinese restaurant is always packed), so it's sure not hurting their business, even when there are plenty of other places that allow smoking.

 

[Jelfish]

You would love Austria moonbear. They smoke in the airports over there. Nothing is more fun than waiting to board the airplane with a line full of Pissed off Austrian chain smokers. My eyes were starting to burn. They hand out cigarettes over there like its candy. You can find those old style vending machines where you put money in and pull the lever out to dispense the cigarettes in the open streets, which means any kind can go up to one and buy a pack of smokes.

Jelfish get real. Smoking/nonsomking sections are a joke and you know it.

I've seen those machines when I was younger (in and around Boston). My point about the smoking/nonsmoking sections was that the restaurant owner should cater to its customers in a way that he/she feels fit. There shouldn't be an officer ready to write a citation for an owner that allows someone to smoke. There are restaurants that don't allow smoking at all. You have the choice to go there.

 

[Moonbear]

I don't know. You make a good point and I guess I'm starting to see how it could be reasonable to ban smoking outdoors. Although I think that the volume/density of smoke that a second-hand smoker inhales is much much smaller than the amount that a smoker inhales, especially if the second-hand smoker usually tries to avoid smoke.

It is less, but even small amounts of smoke are harmful. So, it might take twice as long to get cancer from exposure to second-hand smoke as compared to choosing to smoke, but it's still a risk. That risk has certainly been lessened by all these laws that reduce exposure. When I was a kid, and visited my mom at her office, it was just filled with smoke...there were no laws then against smoke in the workplace, so just one smoker would expose everyone in the office to smoke, and in a confined space, that was a lot of smoke exposure for non-smokers. The generation of people growing up since a lot of these laws have been enacted probably can't appreciate the amount of second-hand smoke people used to be exposed to. I can even remember the cloud of smoke that used to escape the teacher's lounge in my elementary school whenever the door opened. So, I have seen the benefits these laws have had for non-smokers who used to be exposed to incredible amounts of second-hand smoke. It's quite different now that most people are not entrapped in a room filled with smoke for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. Is there a point where the laws may go too far; yes, it's possible. Like I said, I don't really know what a safe distance is from cigarette smoke, so maybe once dissipated in outdoor air, it's just not an issue and is just an annoyance, not a health risk. I do think these laws are slowly working toward banning cigarettes altogether. My concern with that is that those who are currently smoking truly are addicted, and they really can't just stop without experiencing withdrawal. If you're going to ban smoking, there first needs to be something set up to help those who are addicted to get over their addiction without just cutting them off cold-turkey with no support system in place for them.

 

[Evo]

I've never had anyone get mad at me for it, and even if they did, it's a risk I'm willing to take...I figure they'll probably forgive me once they're sober and realize what I stopped them from doing, and if they don't forgive me, at least they're still alive to be mad at me.

My ex-girlfriend and I would have terrible fights over her being too drunk to drive. I remember one night I had to push her into the backseat of her car and take off with her keys to prevent her from trying to drive, she was too intoxicated to stand up, but she was sure she could drive.

 

[Moonbear]

I've seen those machines when I was younger (in and around Boston). My point about the smoking/nonsmoking sections was that the restaurant owner should cater to its customers in a way that he/she feels fit. There shouldn't be an officer ready to write a citation for an owner that allows someone to smoke. There are restaurants that don't allow smoking at all. You have the choice to go there.

There are now, thanks to the laws that led them to consider it. It was unheard of when I was a kid (yep, back when those cigarette machines were found right alongside the soda machines in every building). When the first bans came into effect, restaurant and bar owners were dead set against it, thinking they'd lose all their business. Much to their surprise, business has continued to thrive, and they've even regained a lot of the non-smokers' patronage that they had lost and didn't even know they had lost. So, now that the laws have been in effect a while, business owners have seen first-hand that this is a choice worth considering, but it wasn't always that way.

 

[Jelfish]

It is less, but even small amounts of smoke are harmful. So, it might take twice as long to get cancer from exposure to second-hand smoke as compared to choosing to smoke, but it's still a risk. That risk has certainly been lessened by all these laws that reduce exposure. When I was a kid, and visited my mom at her office, it was just filled with smoke...there were no laws then against smoke in the workplace, so just one smoker would expose everyone in the office to smoke, and in a confined space, that was a lot of smoke exposure for non-smokers. The generation of people growing up since a lot of these laws have been enacted probably can't appreciate the amount of second-hand smoke people used to be exposed to. I can even remember the cloud of smoke that used to escape the teacher's lounge in my elementary school whenever the door opened. So, I have seen the benefits these laws have had for non-smokers who used to be exposed to incredible amounts of second-hand smoke. It's quite different now that most people are not entrapped in a room filled with smoke for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. Is there a point where the laws may go too far; yes, it's possible. Like I said, I don't really know what a safe distance is from cigarette smoke, so maybe once dissipated in outdoor air, it's just not an issue and is just an annoyance, not a health risk. I do think these laws are slowly working toward banning cigarettes altogether. My concern with that is that those who are currently smoking truly are addicted, and they really can't just stop without experiencing withdrawal. If you're going to ban smoking, there first needs to be something set up to help those who are addicted to get over their addiction without just cutting them off cold-turkey with no support system in place for them.

I honestly cannot picture a full out ban on cigarettes, just because of how profitable cigarette companies are and also how much tax the gov't collects on cigarettes, but that's a whole different discussion.


What greatly helps the ban is that smoking is generally seen as an unattractive thing now-a-days. If the restaurant had banned alcohol, I would imagine the effect would not be similar. And in that respect, I think the best way to change behavior is a cultural shift rather than legislation. We all know that prohibition didn't work too well.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I honestly cannot picture a full out ban on cigarettes, just because of how profitable cigarette companies are and also how much tax the gov't collects on cigarettes, but that's a whole different discussion.

This is the thing. No one is more addicted to cigarettes than the government.

https://mysmokersrights.rjrt.com/servlet/StateInfo?stateCode=ca

California's excise tax per pack of cigarettes: $0.870
California's excise tax collection for the fiscal year ending June 2004: $1,030,057,000
(Click image for larger view)
Sales tax on tobacco products: 7.25%
Tobacco products sales tax collection for the fiscal year ending June 2004: $329,023,000
Local tax on tobacco products: $0
Federal excise tax per pack of cigarettes: $0.39
Total federal excise tax collections in fiscal year 2004: $7,778,569,117
Number of six-packs of beer that must be sold in California to produce the same state excise tax and settlement revenue generated by one carton of cigarettes: 138
Number of bottles of wine that must be sold in California to produce the same state excise tax and settlement revenue generated by one carton of cigarettes: 387

 

[loseyourname]

My complaint is with the vehemence against smokers, because it's popular to be that way, as opposed to the lack of vehemence on a direct personal level, against people who don't drink moderately and also against pot smokers. I am not saying it's OK for a person to smoke, but it strikes me as so mild compared to the worse things that don't occupy the same level of importance in people's minds.

Frankly, I think it's just the health craze of the moment. People have begun to realize what a terrible snowjob the tobacco industry has been running on us for over a century, somehow making it trendy to destroy one's own ability to breathe.

Like I said, I won't speak for everyone, but I am particularly vehement against this because I am asthmatic and allergic to cigarette smoke and because that hasn't stopped smoking friends of mine from smoking around me simply because they couldn't control their addiction, which I found despicable (I'm also biased against addicts in general because my marriage ended in part due to my ex-wife's inability to control her addiction to stronger drugs). I used to be sympathetic, but it grows tiresome watching so many people I know destroy their own lives and hurt the people around them through addiction.

I know cigarette addiction doesn't usually have the same effect, but the effects of having friends of mine, plus my wife, addicted to stronger drugs, and then people not being able to refrain from smoking around me even though they know I'm likely to have a hay fever fit at the very least, has thoroughly eroded whatever patience I once had. A friend of mine when I was a child even died from an asthma attack, brought on by environmental factors. It wasn't cigarette smoke, but it easily could have been.

If it makes a difference, I'm equally impatient with and unsympathetic toward those addicted to alcohol, in theory anyway. I've never actually known an alcoholic.

 

[loseyourname]

hmm. I didn't consider an asthma attack. I guess that's a good point.

What about this: Say I had this special interpretive dance that I enjoyed doing in my spare time in the local public park. This dance involves me flailing wildly such that if anyone were to walk in the vicinity, they would definitely get hurt. Should this dance be outlawed if it is general knowledge that walking near me would result in trauma?

Smoking, unlike interpretive dance, is pretty much guaranteed to at least annoy most non-smokers, and possibly endanger anyone allergic to the smoke. A better analogy might be if you walked around throwing pebbles at everyone around you. It's generally annoying, but not likely to be harmful, except on the rare occasions that you hit someone in the eye or throat or some other overly sensitive area.

 

[tribdog]

All this arguing is causing me a lot of stress, and as we all know stress is bad for your health. I think a law should be passed that you can't argue in my vicinity.

 

[tribdog]

In Calabas can you get arrested for smoking in your car while you are driving down the road?

 

[GeorginaS]

Smoking indoors in any public place is completely illegal here. For a while, government implemented laws about strict separation between smoking and non-smoking areas of public places. That meant, smoking areas of food fairs in shopping malls or smoking sections of restaurants, had to be entirely walled off (usually with plexiglass or something similar) and then have a separate ventilation system for the smoking area. A lot of buildings (like office buildings with public common areas) and restaurants went to the expense of creating these completely separate areas. Because, yes, an imaginary line between the smoking section and non-smoking section was stupid. The smoke didn’t know to stop.

Then the governments changed their minds again (and/or got lobbied hard enough) and banned it altogether in all public places. Which, okay fine. But smoking outside? Ban smoking outside. That makes me sigh. I can walk out of a store and breathe in a lung-full of exhaust fumes from a passing bus. I’m trying to feature that being less harmful to me than walking past someone sitting nearby having a smoke. Sure, I can smell it, but so what? I don’t know. There are so many other things spewing toxic crap into the air, I think it’s a bit much to get on smoker’s cases. Then again, I live downtown where car and industry fumes abound.

Indoors, no. You want to smoke, take it outside. People should always be courteous if they’re going to light up around other people and ask first and also stand down wind. That’s only proper. If people around you don’t do that, mention it to them.

The one thing, though, that I have quite a bit of trouble wrapping my mind around is, where did all of these “smoke sensitive” people come from in the first place? I’m not poking fun or saying it isn’t real, it’s just that, when I was a kid, everyone smoked. I mean everyone, everywhere. People smoked in grocery stores, in department stores, in elevators, in hospitals, in doctor’s offices, I mean everywhere. It was totally normal, most people did it, and I cannot remember even once hearing anyone who didn’t smoke complain about it. I don’t ever recall anyone saying, “I’m asthmatic and can’t be around smoke”. Again, I’m not saying that people aren’t, I’m just wondering where this huge population of people who can’t tolerate smoke without massive ill effects came from.

I think that sounds angry, but it’s not meant to be; it’s just perplexing. I guess I think of people like my mother who never smoked but my father did. And everyone else in my family, on both sides, did. And, as I said, everywhere you went, everyone smoked. And not once, not once when I was kid did I hear my mother complain and fuss about it. Nowadays? Oh well, she can’t breathe around it. She pretends to choke, she claims she gets sore throats from it. My mother’s a drama queen, so it’s difficult to tell, maybe she does. Who knows? But for all of those other years, how come it wasn’t an issue at all? She didn’t move away if someone next to her lit up a cigarette, she even occasionally took a drag off of my father’s cigarette. She’d go to friend’s homes for coffee in the afternoon, and the friend could sit and chain-smoke and my mother never got runny eyes or a sore throat from it. But these days? My heavens. If she walks past someone who recently had a cigarette she starts to perform. Maybe she’s the yardstick I’m using.

Like zooby pointed out, it’s fashionable and acceptable to demonise smokers these days, and I really and honestly think that an awful lot (not all) of people are over-dramatising their issue with it. I really do. If I’m around people who smoke, I put my clothes in the laundry when I get home. I have a shower and wash my hair, and I’m all fine. Someone having a cigarette outside doesn’t bother me any more than that gravel truck spewing exhaust that just passed by me.

My whole point, in all of this, laws banning outdoor smoking, I think, are taking matters a little too far.

 

[Moonbear]

Georgina, about all the sensitive people, while your mother may be more dramatic about it, I think there are plenty of us who have always been sensitive to smoke, but years ago, nobody really cared that we were, or we just didn't put 2 and 2 together and realize it was the smoke that was the problem. I have a cousin who is asthmatic. My uncle is a smoker (my aunt used to be, and quit sometime around when she got pregnant or soon after). My cousin used to have horrible asthma attacks as a kid, was in the hospital for a lot of them, and they were always getting rid of something else in the house, blaming that for the latest attack...no pets, no plants, pull up the carpet, get a humidifier, no get a dehumidifier, close up the windows and keep the kid indoors protected from all the allergens outside...and then, one day, someone finally realized it was his father's smoking. For a while, my uncle moved his smoking to the basement, and that wasn't enough...the smoke still wafted up to the main floor, so then he was banished to the garage to smoke. Only then did my cousin's asthma ease up and stop causing him such problems.

For me, whenever I'd go to family parties, everyone was smoking, and I always had the sore throat and headache by the end. I just never realized it was from the cigarette smoke when I was that age, I just thought it was from being tired or talking too much, or that I caught something from one of the other kids there. My father was always sensitive to the smoke then too; he came home with the same headaches, but since smoking was the "fashionable" thing at the time, you just didn't ask people to stop smoking to accommodate you, so you didn't say anything. My father would make excuses to not attend the parties or to leave early. Now, I can only speak from personal experience there, but if others were all the same way, there were always people sensitive to smoke, we just didn't feel it was okay to say so years ago, or hadn't really nailed down that that's what was causing the headaches or sore throats. The watering eyes and sore throat are pretty much the same response as when you're grilling on a charcoal barbecue, and the wind shifts the smoke into your face. For me, anyway, it's not specific to cigarette smoke, it's just smoke of any kind. The headaches come more with the prolonged exposure. I don't suddenly get a headache if I walk through the smoke cloud of someone smoking out on the street, though it does temporarily irritate my nose and throat.

As for comparing it to bus fumes, well, I'd like to reduce those too. I just look at it as trying to reduce any form of pollutants. Some we can reduce more easily than others.

Zooby, as for the comparison between alcohol and smoking, while both are unhealthy to the person choosing to indulge in either, only smoking is forced upon those around you as well. If I'm sitting next to someone having a beer, my liver isn't affected by their choice. We already do have laws against and/or frown very heavily on those whose alcohol consumption is affecting others, such as prohibiting drinking and driving or making it very socially unacceptable for a woman who is pregnant to drink (have you ever noticed the glares a pregnant woman gets if someone even thinks she's having a drink, even if she isn't? If you haven't noticed, try going out somewhere with a pregnant woman and have her get some apple juice in a wine glass...just watch the reactions of others around her). So, I think for the most part, we are tolerant of people choosing to make bad health decisions for themselves, but are not tolerant when their bad decisions are forced on others around them who may have chosen to avoid those health risks. I can choose to be a couch potato too, but as long as I'm not tying all the fitness nuts to a chair and making them watch Oprah, that's fine.

Now, there are issues in terms of things like increasing healthcare costs and such, where it doesn't make sense to single out smoking any more than drinking or couch-potatoing , but I think that's a separate issue from the reasons for making some things unacceptable in public places when others are not.

As I said before though, I don't think an entire outdoor ban is required, but a ban of smoking from say 10 feet or so from building entrances, so people who need to enter those buildings aren't forced to walk into a cloud of smoke. The thing is, in a city, that would almost effectively be a ban of smoking from all public sidewalks anyway, because building entrances are so close together. But, if you want to go sit in a park, that's fine. I think in an open space like a park, I'm capable of finding enough room to stay away from any smokers if it bothers me.

 

[GeorginaS]

Okay, Moonbear, I'll go with that. Maybe no one made the connection years ago between being exposed to smoking and feeling ill effects. That makes some sense. We did know a whole lot less about smoking, that's for certain.

I hope you realize I wasn't trying to target anyone, (and my mother is a special case in any conversation) but it's never bothered me and it continues not to. Bus fumes will choke me. And I'm not saying that other air pollutants are okay, I was talking about proportionately speaking. I swear, when I see those huge trucks with the tall pipes and the flap at the top of the pipe opens, and black smoke spews out, I'll bet that's worse than 50 smokers all exhaling at the same time.

Indoors, yes, no smoking. Outdoors? Again. I've never seen a cloud of cigarette smoke near an entranceway where people smoke. I've smelled it on my way by, but I've never had to walk through a cloud.

 

[Moonbear]

Again you are missing the point. You went out last night and got too drunk to drive home. At the same time you are that impaired you judge yourself sober enough to monitor a friend who is supposed to drive you home. Foolish. The designated driver doesn't drink, and certainly shouldn't be monitored by those who are too drunk to drive. But there's no outcry against your story, or nearly any such story.

And isn't your post just such an outcry?

G, after responding to your earlier post, I've been mulling that issue of sensitivity to cigarette smoke. I think it would be pretty obvious that those who start smoking are able to tolerate being around it, or they would never even consider it. But, then of the non-smokers, wouldn't it be so easy if we could say, "AHA! It's the people who are sensitive to the ill-effects of second-hand smoke who don't become smokers." But, that's not the case. And it is something to wonder about, why are some people so sensitive to it, and others who are not smokers are not really bothered at all, other than because they choose not to expose themselves to the health risks (i.e., if they didn't know about the health risks, it wouldn't matter at all to them to be around cigarette smoke). When I was a kid and figured out eventually it was the smoke that made me feel ill, I really thought I was just strange, because nobody else complained about it, and I just assumed it meant something was wrong with me that I couldn't tolerate it when everyone else had no problem at all. Of course, now I've learned I'm hardly without company on that. What's even more interesting is the case of one of my best friends from childhood. Her mom was/still is a chain smoker. There was just never a time you could go to her house, or get a ride from her mom where she didn't have a cigarette lit. You'd think that because my friend had always been exposed to this her entire life, that she'd be used to it, probably already addicted and likely to end up being a smoker herself. But, that wasn't the case. She HATED it, used to try to be outside as much as possible, sit near an open window in the car, go to friends' houses instead of inviting friends to her house, and just couldn't stand being around her mom when the cigarettes were lit, which was most of the day. Isn't that an interesting situation? I mean, it makes complete sense to me that someone who has never been exposed to something while growing up, or only on rare occassions, would be sensitive to it or find it bothersome when exposed to it as something more novel, as it was for me, and it makes sense to me that someone who has grown up around smokers, except for someone like my cousin who is asthmatic, would have grown acclimated to it and not really be bothered much, somewhat like your experiences, but how does it happen that someone growing up with a smoker should be so sensitive to it all her life?

It has me wondering, maybe it's not just something where you either have gotten used to it or not, but maybe it's something where there's a real biological difference that makes some people sensitive to cigarette smoke, and others insensitive to it (or tolerant of it)? Now, someone tolerant of cigarette smoke may still wind up being a non-smoker because they made a choice for health reasons to avoid it, but I wonder if that's the reason why we have these debates where the non-smokers just sit here puzzled at why someone would start smoking in the first place when cigarette smoke is such a disgusting thing...maybe it just doesn't seem as disgusting to someone predisposed to that addiction. Is there anyone who was sensitive to cigarette smoke when younger who actually took up smoking anyway and somehow overcame that to the point of becoming a lifelong, addicted smoker?

I know this is off the topic of the outdoor ban, but the discussion just seemed to lead to this thought, and now I can't shake the idea that maybe this is why smokers and non-smokers just can't "get" the other's view on the issue, because it's two groups of people who really experience smoke exposure in very different ways, biologically speaking.

 

[zoobyshoe]

And isn't your post just such an outcry?

No, because the only reason I pointed it out was to show the difference in attitude. Risky drinking behavior: no one blinks. Smoker:EVIL.

Smoking is the featured vice-of-the-day.

 

[tribdog]

just because my posts are short they shouldn't be ignored

 

[scott1]

"poll" on there website

How much did California taxpayers spend on smoking-related health costs in 1999?

I wonder if there just trying to find a way to reduce taxes

 

[russ_watters]

No, because the only reason I pointed it out was to show the difference in attitude. Risky drinking behavior: no one blinks. Smoker:EVIL.

Smoking is the featured vice-of-the-day.

I don't consider smokers evil. Some of my best friends smoke. Most non-smokers do not seek to ban smoking entirely, just remove it from places where it affects them.

Also, there is a biological difference between their effects on the body. While I understand that many people drink to get drunk, having one or two drinks a night will not adversely affect your liver. Your liver is designed to remove such toxins - that's its reason for existing. It is only if you overload it that it gets damaged. Not so with smoking: your lungs are not designed for smoke removal.

In addition, Not even the heavy social drinker who is doing damage to his/her liver will typically end up with liver cancer. Why? It is a phase most people go through and get over before they hit 40 and after that, the 1 or 2 drinks a night most people have are not harmful. Smoking is a lifetime destructive habit because it is addictive and because of that, it kills an extrordinary number of people.

[edit]And compare habits:

Typical drinker: 5-10 drinks, twice a week.
Typical smoker: 5-10 cigs, every day.

It should be clear which person is doing more harm to his/her body.

 

[Evo]

I don't consider smokers evil. Some of my best friends smoke. Most non-smokers do not seek to ban smoking entirely, just remove it from places where it affects them.

I agree. My favorite co-worker smokes, he is extremely considerate about his smoking. At our building, smokers can only smoke outside the back door and not within about 8 feet of the door. There is a sign outside saying "no smoking beyond this point". This prevents the smokers from hanging around the doorway and getting smoke inside the building when the door opens. I don't care if someone smokes as long as it is not around me.

 

[Jelfish]

In Calabas can you get arrested for smoking in your car while you are driving down the road?

My guess is that it's ok if you keep the windows up until you get into your garage. Otherwise, it would sort of be the same as smoking on the sidewalk.

 

[Bystander]

From the OP: "Business owners will be responsible for ensuring that all employees and patrons comply with the new law."

This is the part that gets every case in Boulder thrown out of court.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't consider smokers evil. Some of my best friends smoke. Most non-smokers do not seek to ban smoking entirely, just remove it from places where it affects them.

I tried to point out in an earlier post that there are two anti-smoking factions: a moderate, level headed one, and a second one that pretty much just sees smokers as an easy target to vent on simply because they are famously unpopular. Georgina's first post explained the dynamic perfectly. People, like her mother, have been slowly taught over the past three decades to be actively and openly bothered by smokers to the degree where they'll throw a fit over it, while not throwing a fit over any similar thing like automobile exhaust, the fumes from a charcoal grill at a cookout, someone burning incense, candle smoke (which, for some reason, I'm strangely sensitive to, despite being a smoker), or the smoke from a wood fire in a fireplace.

I know a woman here who lectures me gently about my smoking and tells me the story of how she quit over and over, to try and plant the idea that I could do it too if I wanted. However, she burns a few sticks of incense every day in her place, just cause she likes the scent, and actually has a smokers hack from it.(That's some powerful smoke, incense.)People who would never let someone smoke in their house are completely, strangely, oblivious to any irritation from candle smoke, or smoke from a fireplace, (which gets me a little headachy after a while) and put up with it the same way everyone used to ignore any irritation from cigarettes. The same person who doesn't want people smoking at a restaurant where they're eating will be completely oblivious to the candles in jars burning at all the tables.

It's because people have been trained to be psychologically ultra-sensitive to cigarette smoke over all other similar irritants. During prohibition people were trained to be ultra-sensitive to the many downsides of alcohol. If things were in balance here, a couple/three people at least should have piped in about what a crap/sh*t thing it was that Moonbear had to make sure to sit next to her alcoholic father when he drove the family around to be ready to grab the wheel. Instead, everyone's posting how alcohol isn't bad for the people around the drinkers.

 

[loseyourname]

I know a woman here who lectures me gently about my smoking and tells me the story of how she quit over and over, to try and plant the idea that I could do it too if I wanted. However, she burns a few sticks of incense every day in her place, just cause she likes the scent, and actually has a smokers hack from it.(That's some powerful smoke, incense.)People who would never let someone smoke in their house are completely, strangely, oblivious to any irritation from candle smoke, or smoke from a fireplace, (which gets me a little headachy after a while) and put up with it the same way everyone used to ignore any irritation from cigarettes. The same person who doesn't want people smoking at a restaurant where they're eating will be completely oblivious to the candles in jars burning at all the tables.

Can't you just respond to the people in here, though, instead of deflecting to criticize the most extreme incarnation of the opposing faction? That's a borderline straw-man argument (not truly a strawman because that faction does exist). Hell, I won't speak for everyone in here, but at least I'm consistent in decrying what irritates my allergies. I crucify my girlfriend if she tries to burn incense or candles, or even just to wear perfume.

I don't exactly like that all this stuff gives me fits, and sure, I can take medication to stop it, but the medication is so strong that it gives me the world's most unpleasant high and kills my senses. My little sister's medication made her stop growing while she was on it.

 

[JasonRox]

The purpose of smoking is... ?

You don't get high. You don't get drunk. You basically get nothing out of it.

It does not relieve stress like smokers say. The stress cigarettes relieve is the stress that was created by the chemicals of the cigarettes themselves.

Seriously, try quitting.

Can you discriminate against smokers when it comes to hiring? Curious.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Can't you just respond to the people in here, though, instead of deflecting to criticize the most extreme incarnation of the opposing faction? That's a borderline straw-man argument (not truly a strawman because that faction does exist). Hell, I won't speak for everyone in here, but at least I'm consistent in decrying what irritates my allergies. I crucify my girlfriend if she tries to burn incense or candles, or even just to wear perfume.

As far as I can tell, you're completely consistant. You're also in a different category than either faction of the anti-smokers because of your allergies. My initial response to you was prompted by your statement that anything that is done to make it harder for smokers is OK with you. It has, to my ears, the ring of revenge to it. That's just elicits a counter-productive reaction.

I think I am addressing all the people in this thread in all my remarks. Everyone is at least a little brainwashed these days about it being OK to jump on smokers while not getting the least bit upset about other equally harmful things. There have been a couple instances of the extreme faction in this thread: Matt and Evo. Some other people are bothering me a bit by continually misunderstanding or ignoring my point about it being the fad thing. It's not sinking in that their attitude was primarily shaped by propaganda.(Not you: you allowed that it probably was the current politically incorrect vice. ) If tomorrow the propaganda breeze turns against drinking, they'll all blow with it or stand against it. Except Georgina, who strikes me as someone who owns her own opinions.

 

[russ_watters]

It's because people have been trained to be psychologically ultra-sensitive to cigarette smoke over all other similar irritants. During prohibition people were trained to be ultra-sensitive to the many downsides of alcohol. If things were in balance here, a couple/three people at least should have piped in about what a crap/sh*t thing it was that Moonbear had to make sure to sit next to her alcoholic father when he drove the family around to be ready to grab the wheel. Instead, everyone's posting how alcohol isn't bad for the people around the drinkers. [emphasis added]

But it is true that alcohol in normal use isn't bad for people around the drinkers. In fact, in moderation it isn't even bad for the drinker! That's a pretty significant difference between smoking and drinking. To be a constant alcohol abuser is a disease as you noted in your post. If you want to keep the parallel between alcohol and tobacco, you'll need to start considering tobacco use itself to be a disease like alcoholism.

And drinking and driving laws - heck, they parallel just fine with anti-smoking laws, don't they...? Both drinking where it is harmful to others (drunk driving) and drinking where it is really annoying to others (disorderly conduct, public drunkenness) is already illegal - so that means to make the parallel correct, smoking must be outlawed in the same context.

Sorry, zooby - you're trying to set up a double standard that simply doesn't exist because you aren't making the comparison correctly. You seem to be saying that anyone who doesn't draw the comparison like you do is an extremist or is brainwashed, but you are missing some key points in the comparison yourself.

It is even unreasonable to say someone who wants smoking banned altogether but doesn't want drinking banned altogether is an extremist. Why? Because drinking, if done responsibly, isn't a danger to anyone (drinker or people around them), whereas smoking is unhealthy at any dose.

 

[Astronuc]

I think everyone would agree that excessive consumption of alcohol and smoking anything is harmful to one's health.

The question then becomes one of how to regulate an individual's behavior in order to mitigate the harmful or potentially harmful effects that might be imposed on others.

Regulation of the smoking of tobacco is clear cut because cigarette smoke does not limit itself to the person smoking, and in fact, second hand smoke can be harmful, particularly infants, young children and those with respiratory problems. Limiting smoking indoors in public places, and even outdoors where the public gathers, makes sense. Limiting it outdoors completely seems to be unreasonable, especially when a community does not seek to limit more harmful emissions.

When I smoked as a teenager, I smoked with other smokers and away from non-smokers. Simple matter of consideration for those who do not smoke, and I didn't feel it right to impose my smoke on others.

Similarly, there are limitations on the consumption of alcohol. I doubt that consumption of alcohol is tolerated in the work place. Rather consumption of alcohol is regulated by place (a place must have a license) and age (age limits on who can drink). There are also ordinances/laws against driving while intoxicated, as well as laws against public intoxication.

I used to go to pubs or bars while at university, and usually with friends, in order to drink beer. After a few years of university, I stopped going to bars except for some special occasion such as a birthday or other celebration. Now, I rarely go to bars. If I drink at home, I usually drink only one or two beers, a glass of wine, or perhaps a small volume (2-3 oz (60-90 ml)) some other stronger drink like whisky or rakiya/tsuica. If I go out, I usually drink beer, wine or whisky in conjuction with a meal.

I have friends who smoke, and I can choose to visit them or not. If I visit their house, I can expect that they will smoke inside, but it is still my choice to visit or not. If my smoking friends visit me, I expect them to go outside if they wish to smoke.

My wife used to smoke and she quit after we got married. I certainly did not criticize her for smoking. For one thing, we discussed it before we got married, and she had decided that she wanted to quit, particluarly if she planned to have children.

I also must say that I don't see Matt's or Evo's positions as being examples of an extreme faction.