Health Care

[jdonn]

Ken a few comments.

 

Who cares what America was at inception? It was a Native American killing, slave owning country at inception too. I don't think that makes those behaviors ok.

 

Lets poll smokers around the country and ask them if their smoking habit has made their life enjoyment go up. I'm sure we will get some yes's but I bet we get a lot more no's.

 

You did force me to do something, anytime I went anywhere in public and someone smelled like smoke. Or any time I walked by a bar and breathed second hand smoke. Or did I have a choice to plan my route to not go near bars? That isn't easy in Las Vegas I'm afraid. Yes I know, I'm the one who chose to live here.

 

Maybe I'm missing the distinction between forcing you to do something but you not forcing me to do something.

Old way: You could smoke at bars or smoke at home. I could not-smoke at home.

New way: I can not-smoke at bars or not-smoke at home. You can smoke at home.

(not smoke = shorthand for 'not be subjected to smoke')

It looks like a break even to me, as far as who can do what where.

[PassedOut]

People want to smoke because it is enjoyable.

Smoking (tobacco) is not enjoyable enough to be worth it, in my opinion, and we have all seen the films of wheezing addicts advising young people not to take it up.

 

That said, I do think it should be okay for tobacco smokers to enjoy themselves alone or in groups where other addicts congregate. But it isn't okay for tobacco addicts to poison those who do not wish it.

 

And we do need to find a better mechanism for passing on the health care costs of smoking and other sickly lifestyle choices to those who accept the risks, without burdening the more sensible citizens with the extra costs. Maybe taxing the products used by the slovenly enough to pay for the extra healthcare costs would be a practical approach, if those revenues were strictly used for Medicare, etc.

[kenrexford]

Maybe I'm missing the distinction between forcing you to do something but you not forcing me to do something.

Old way: You could smoke at bars or smoke at home. I could not-smoke at home.

New way: I can not-smoke at bars or not-smoke at home. You can smoke at home.

(not smoke = shorthand for 'not be subjected to smoke')

It looks like a break even to me, as far as who can do what where.

You are missing a third option:

 

Hand out smoking licenses, meaning zoning.

 

Suppose, for instance, that a town has decided to have 20 liquor licenses given out to bars in a town. That means 20 bars, let's assume.

 

The town could also then have only 10 smoking licenses handed out, with bidding and market forces for the same.

 

The end result would be 10 smoking bars and 10 non-smoking bars.

 

This way, no one is "forced" to do or not do anything.

 

The problem, undoubtedly, is that the 10 non-smoking bars would be unpopular and would lose business. Even though the smoking license costs more, meaning that the profiut margin would be negatively affected, the smoking bars would win in the long run, I suspect. But, maybe not.

 

The point, however, is that this solution, which is the fair solution perhaps, is not interesting to the non-smoking crew, because that's not what they want. They don't want to be free from cigarette smoke. They want to force me to not smoke, or at least make it as difficult as possible without causing too much of a stink. (Again, a pun.)

 

When you start translating this into other endeavors, you end up with Prohibition (no alcohol) in bars/restaurants. Alcohol consumption at bars leads to DUI's and loud people. If I want a nice peaceful eveing listening to arock band at the local club, why should I have to put up with loud drunk people in the bar and DUI risks going home? They can drink at home, eh?

 

Same basic principle, but perhaps moreso. So, ar you willing to see the local band play while drinking cola in a quiet room? Or, do you want the people who want a peaceful music experience to stay home and let you party like a rock star, drunk and slurring your words with the cutie who thinks you are an idiot, at least for now? Please.

 

Next comes food. I want to be able to buy good, healthy food, like tofu, but the market forces mean that McDonald's is all that there is. But, if I force fast food to be tofu and greens, I get what I want. So does everyone else -- they get healthy food on the road or can eat burgers at home. If we don't intervene, then bad food is what the market wants, which deprives me of healthy options on the road. Totally unfair.

 

How about gentlemen's clubs? I think these make sense, but the women should simply take the stage and read good poetry. Edification of the masses. You can watch a porno at home. Let the single guy have a nice night on the town with a proper lady. Market forces bring out the nekkid women, and dumb ones at that. This deprives the single guy of any meaningful exchanges. Change the rules, and you end up with what the nice guys want -- dollars stuck in the poetry books -- but the nasty guys stay home and get what they want. Very fair.

 

How far down this totalitarian road are you willing to go? Only as far as stopping the public vices you don't like? Do you think they will stop when they get to your favorite?

[jdonn]

Maybe I'm missing the distinction between forcing you to do something but you not forcing me to do something.

Old way: You could smoke at bars or smoke at home. I could not-smoke at home.

New way: I can not-smoke at bars or not-smoke at home. You can smoke at home.

(not smoke = shorthand for 'not be subjected to smoke')

It looks like a break even to me, as far as who can do what where.

You are missing a third option:

I didn't miss anything, I simply responded to the original comment you made which made no mention of a third option.

 

Obviously the comparison to alcohol prohibition is stupid, as no one is suggesting that people shouldn't be allowed to smoke in their homes.

[kenrexford]

Maybe I'm missing the distinction between forcing you to do something but you not forcing me to do something.

Old way: You could smoke at bars or smoke at home. I could not-smoke at home.

New way: I can not-smoke at bars or not-smoke at home. You can smoke at home.

(not smoke = shorthand for 'not be subjected to smoke')

It looks like a break even to me, as far as who can do what where.

You are missing a third option:

I didn't miss anything, I simply responded to the original comment you made which made no mention of a third option.

 

Obviously the comparison to alcohol prohibition is stupid, as no one is suggesting that people shouldn't be allowed to smoke in their homes.

What?!?!?

 

The alcohol comparison was a ban on alcohol in bars, not in your home. And, guess what? They are doing that already.

 

Not only has alcohol been banned in "dry" counties (and seriously limited in "moist" counties) for years, but the "dry" idea is creeping up ever-so-slowly. In Ohio, for example, I think they have been trying to get alcohol either banned altogether or limited by hour (maybe not after such-and-such date) in strip clubs. May have even accomplished this. (Anyone want to admit to knowing?) Always a start, later more. Pick the easiest target first.

[jdonn]

I guess it's my fault, as I have told you in the past I can't be bothered to read your very long posts. The word 'prohibition' jumped out at me, but I guess you weren't referring to the specific alcohol prohibition made by constitutional amendment etc.

[luke warm]

You did force me to do something, anytime I went anywhere in public and someone smelled like smoke. Or any time I walked by a bar and breathed second hand smoke. Or did I have a choice to plan my route to not go near bars? That isn't easy in Las Vegas I'm afraid. Yes I know, I'm the one who chose to live here.

i think (part of) his point was that the bar or club owner made a decision on what to allow in his or her establishment, and if enough non-smokers (or non-anything else objectionable) had demanded so, the owner would have banned smoking with no gov't intervention... i view it the same as i do for doobie usage - a "sin" tax... conversely, smokers (focusing on just them) haven't done a lot to get this changed, which one imagines they could do if they felt that strongly about it... so my thinking is that smokers aren't *that* against these regs or they'd ban together and do something about it

 

having said that, i do agree that if a town handed out smoking and non-smoking licenses for bars, the non-smoking bars would probably be pissed in the long run

[Lobowolf]

I reject the analogy between second-hand smoke at a bar/restaurant and car emissions. While bars and restaurants are, in one sense, "public," they are in another sense fundamentally private and distinct (as an obvious for instance, there's no public easement property right to a restaurant the way there is to streets and sidewalks).

 

IMO, it should work like this: If I own a restaurant, it should be at my discretion whether to permit smoking. If you don't like secondhand smoke strongly enough, don't eat or work at my restaurant. If enough people stay away from restaurants that permit smoking, then non-smoking restaurants will open voluntarily to cater to all of the people who are clamoring for restaurants to be smoke free. Then we'll have restaurants for smokers and people who are willing to tolerate secondhand smoke, and restaurants for non-smokers and people who aren't. Mixed groups will have to make a choice.

 

As a non-smoker (and someone who doesn't particularly like secondhand smoke, and someone who used to work in the restaurant industry (bartender) at a place that permitting smoking), I'm not a fan of the current framework. I was/am perfectly capable of making the decision to not dine/work at places that allowed smoking. It's a little bizarre to push for a law to keep smoking out of my eating environment when I control my eating environment. Kind of like putting my own cookies up high where I can't reach them.

 

Yeah, it's a better working environment for the food servers; but they (I, at one time) chose their working environment. It didn't help them too much when numerous restaurants went out of business shortly after the CA ban, either.

 

On the other hand, I'm strongly in favor of bans in truly public places (parks, sidewalks, etc.)

[Lobowolf]

Obviously the comparison to alcohol prohibition is stupid, as no one is suggesting that people shouldn't be allowed to smoke in their homes.

Or prescient. I strongly suspect that the suggestions aren't far off, particularly as health care costs become more and more public.

[cherdanno]

Lobowolf, I understand you are against any regulation of workplace safety?

[Lobowolf]

Lobowolf, I understand you are against any regulation of workplace safety?

No, I'm not. And I realize that black and white lines have to be drawn in relatively gray areas. My previous post was aimed more at the consumer, as I think there's an important distinction to be made between a restaurant that is open to the public, and an actual public right of way.

 

From the employee's side, I'm fine with workplace safety regulation; I just think that a 100% ban on smoking in restaurants falls on other side of the line.

[kenrexford]

Lobowolf, I understand you are against any regulation of workplace safety?

I don't think that opposition to any specific regulation can be translated as opposition to all possible regulations.

[Winstonm]

Passed Out - see my response in The Official BBO Hijacked Thread Thread.

[mikeh]

Here's my take.

 

First of all, the United States of America is a tobacco-loving country from inception.  That started with the American Indians, as I recall things.  I may be wrong, but I think we got that from the original "Big Tobacco," meaning the wildly propagandist American Indians.

 

Second, I'm not forcing anyone to go to a bar and get second-hand smoke.  Rather, market forces made all bars smoking establishments.  The fact that y'all couldn't get enough market force to have bars woithout smoke be popular used to mean that you had to choose between drinking at home or entering the smoke-filled bars.  As it is now, smokers have to make the choice between smoking at home while they drink or going to your stupid bars without smoke, with fewer and fewer patrons, and then standing outside is anything.  Y'all, then, are forcing me to do something, whereas I never forced you to do anything.

 

Third, my main point is that many of us down here don't give a crap about your health-conscious attitudes.  We want our damned cigarettes and booze and burgers and wild wo(men) and big cars and loud music and cussing and pit bulls and shotguns and everything else.  Who are you to tell us that living 5 years longer in a convent is better than five years less with all of our enjoyed vices?  Is life measured in length of days?  Not for me.

 

If we want to live this way, then we must live with the consequences, of course.  That's why we like private health insurance.  If I have to pay more because I am a smoker, then I pay more, just like I pay more for gas ($50 for the fill-up, plus $5 for the new pack of smokes, plus $2 for the biggie Coke, and maybe another buck or two for a slim jim and a doughnut).  When you force me to join in your health care plan, you then force me to live differently.  What that means is that I am no longer picking an insurance plan but rather voting on whether I get to smoke, drink, and be a good old-fashioned American asshole, like I want to be.

 

Sure, Big Tobacco (the new one) and TV advertising has an impact on me.  When I pick up a cigarette and a pop and a burger, my first thought is that I'm going to get laid by some model with legs up to her neck.  Subconsciously, sure.  So?  If I think that these actions make me cool, then I end up being cool, in my mind.  Great for me!  My life enjoyment went up.

 

But, realistically, you have to be kidding.  This is sort of like saying that kids won't know about sex unless we talk to them about it.  Everyone wants vice.  People want to smoke because it is enjoyable.  Do you think that the American Indians were enticed by corporations?  Are coco leaves chewed because of the cartels?  No.  Humans ate everything at some point.  Some humans died eating the wrong thing, and then everyone went "oops" and didn't so that again.  Sometimes, eating something gave us a jolly, so we did that a lot.  Now, corporations take advantage of our desire for that jolly and get us to do that a lot, because they make money when we do.  So?  We get the jollies.  The cost is not a mystery to anyone.  We know that. 

 

Just don't force us to live your way.  That really pisses us off.

 

Firstly, let me implore you to stop holding back with what you really feel!

 

Isn't it a hallmark of a truly civilized society that individuals should be free to do whatever they want provided that their conduct does not inflict harm on others?

 

So: get drunk....feel free...but don't get in your car and drive drunk. Does anyone disagree with that second proposition?

 

(Some may argue that the first proposition is unacceptable because your private drunkenness will ultimately impact on others, in a negative way, through liver or heart disease, and loss of productivity and so on.....personally, I think that such delayed or indirect effects ought to be left to the individual.)

 

So: feel free to smoke a toxic and life-threatening tobacco....but not where your smoke poses a real risk of horrific harm to others.

 

If we were all decent, rational people, we would all recognize and abide by this type of rule. We would not smoke in the presence of ANYONE who had a right to be nearby and who didn't want to be poisoned.

 

We wouldn't get into a car, while drunk, and head off down the highway.

 

But we are not rational, and many of us are ill-educated, and many of us are stupid and/or mentally ill. And many, many of us frankly don't give a damn about anybody but ourselves...so the collective we that is government puts into place rules that 'force' us to minimize the harm we do others.

 

Any rule change will engender opposition. That's just the way we are as people. Most of the arguments turn out to be false.

 

I live in a part of the world that must be amongst the most aggressive, anywhere, when it comes to banning smoking. 23 years ago, I had an ashtray on my desk, even tho I have never smoked. The local area government banned smoking in offices...I had to take my ashtray away.

 

Great were the complaints....for a year or two.

 

Later, the same government body banned smoking in restaurants and bars.

 

Much of the hospitality industry protested: we're going to lose business, we're going to face disaster!

 

Guess what?

 

They were wrong.....absolutely and demonstrably proven wrong by actual experience, and we hear NOTHING from the hospitality industry nowadays on that subject...I know several restaurant and bar owners, and none of them in the least want smoking back.

 

And..guess what? Dining out is far more pleasurable for the non-smokers than it used to be.

 

And another beneficial side-effect (altho I admit I cannot say that there is cause and effect here) is that far fewer people, in this town, smoke. To the point that my guess is that if we introduced, for example, a law requiring that every bar and restaurant be a smoking facility, the industry would protest....advancing the same arguments they made 20 years ago against a smoking ban!

 

Ken, the only reasons you smoke, or want your unhealthy lifestyle, are that you have been conditioned since early childhood to think of these deleterious habits as 'cool' or 'good'. Conditioning applied in school is called education. Conditioning applied through regulation is called government. Conditioning applied through dishonest, misleading, profit-driven advertising is called good business.

 

Conditioning applied by parents is called child-rearing.

 

The point is that it is stupid to rail against conditioning based solely on the source. Conditioning (or education) should be judged on its purpose and its effect.

 

On that basis, surely conditioning for the purpose of preventing or minimizing horrific diseases should meet with more approval than conditioning, the object of which is to cause a physical addiction to a known toxic substance for the purpose of generating profit to the liars who peddle this deadly substance?

 

I gather that you disagree with this notion, which is, I think, a reflection of the conditioning you have internalized.

 

Of course, in saying this, I do not assert that I am free from the conditioning to which I have been exposed.

[kenrexford]

Mike,

 

I cannot decide whether you don't get it or whether you refuse to get it. But, I'll try again.

 

When the government passes laws banning smoking in a bar, the law is banning freedom. Your premise that the non-smoker is infringed upon is errant. Here's why.

 

What if Johnny and Billy decide to smoke a cigarette in their own home? Can I decide to stop them because I don't want to experience their second-hand smoke? Of course not. I'm not even there.

 

So, what if Johnny and Billy invite me over to their house. What now?

 

Same thing. If I object, I leave.

 

Well, what if Johnny and Billy have a private club where they smoke?

 

Now, this is banned. Even though it is a private club, they cannot have their own rules because it is a club.

 

Take this all the way to a local bar. Johnny wants to open a bar called the "Smoke and Drink Bar." The services offered are beer for sale and a cigar room. Not allowed.

 

Why? The place would be opened solely for the purpose of people who want to drink a beer and smoke a cigar at the same time. So, why would any non-smoker go?

 

The reason why this is banned is because non-smokers believe (maybe correctly) that this type of business would run bars out of business, because everyone would go to the Smoke and Drink Bar rather than to Tom's Drink in Clean Air Bar.

 

The end result, then, is not remotely that I, as an intended patron of the hypothetical Smoke and Drink Bar, smoke without concern for others. Others don't go to the Smoke and Drink Bar.

 

The end result is that the "others" force me, Johnny, and Billy to not have a place to go where we all drink and smoke together. The others force their will on us, because of a fear of market forces making their desires not viable.

 

One would think that you would recognize that a "free society" means that others don't force me to live their way simply because their lifestyle would be too unpopular for practical businesses to support.

[cherdanno]

Lobowolf, I understand you are against any regulation of workplace safety?

I don't think that opposition to any specific regulation can be translated as opposition to all possible regulations.

But Lobowolf's logic

If I own a restaurant, it should be at my discretion whether to permit smoking. If you don't like secondhand smoke strongly enough, don't eat or work at my restaurant.

would apply to any other workplace health or safety regulation. (If you can't handle asthma when you are 55, don't work in my chemical plant.)

[jdonn]

The reason why this is banned is because non-smokers believe (maybe correctly) that this type of business would run bars out of business, because everyone would go to the Smoke and Drink Bar rather than to Tom's Drink in Clean Air Bar.

I disagree. Btw I think you tell other people they don't get it too often simply because they disagree with you.

[mike777]

Maybe I'm missing the distinction between forcing you to do something but you not forcing me to do something.

Old way: You could smoke at bars or smoke at home. I could not-smoke at home.

New way: I can not-smoke at bars or not-smoke at home. You can smoke at home.

(not smoke = shorthand for 'not be subjected to smoke')

It looks like a break even to me, as far as who can do what where.

You are missing a third option:

I didn't miss anything, I simply responded to the original comment you made which made no mention of a third option.

 

Obviously the comparison to alcohol prohibition is stupid, as no one is suggesting that people shouldn't be allowed to smoke in their homes.

At some point they might.

 

In fact they do make it difficult in many condos and apartments where the smoke/smell can drift.

 

 

Next up will be homes with children at risk and in danger from second hand smoke. Secondhand smoke kills!

[kenberg]

I think I might be willing to own up to wanting to put the cigarette companies out of business. I started smoking when I was 14. Later in life I had an auto-immune disease that may well have been triggered by smoking. My father had a stroke when I was 13, cigarette smoking was a suggested culprit. He quit smoking and lived another 25 years. He died of an operation to deal with an aneurysm, the surgeon could tell from the damaged arteries that he had once been a heavy smoker. My mother died an agonizing death from cancer when I was a young adult. Among other things, they cut out her tongue in an attempt to save her life.

 

Of course I cannot prove that smoking was the culprit in any of these events, but you will not have much luck convincing me that it was not. I regard it as a good bet that it had a strong role to play in all of them.

 

Tobacco companies have made a lot of money killing people. Smokers, when the habit was riding high, were absolutely unbending. They would smoke when and where they wished, and if you didn't like it then ***** you. So, now, ***** them. Times have changed. They can smoke in their own house or they can blow their brains out in their own house. I promise to make no effort to stop them from either of these plans.

[Lobowolf]

The reason why this is banned is because non-smokers believe (maybe correctly) that this type of business would run bars out of business, because everyone would go to the Smoke and Drink Bar rather than to Tom's Drink in Clean Air Bar.

I disagree. Btw I think you tell other people they don't get it too often simply because they disagree with you.

While it may not be universal, I think Ken's point is largely true. There's a reason that the market didn't create a bunch of completely non-smoking restaurants. Maybe things would be different now, if the ban were lifted, but I don't know that the social climate has changed all that much (in CA, where the ban is just over 15 years old, as I recall).

 

When MikeH writes that none of the restaurant and bar owners he knows want smoking back, there are two possibilities - they don't want it back at their restaurants, or they don't want it back in general (i.e., in contrast to option one, at other restaurants). But they don't need a law to not have smoking at their own restaurants, and they didn't need a law to get rid of it at their restaurants in the first place, so that's a bit of a non-starter.

 

What they really mean is they don't want OTHER restaurants to have smoking while there's does not. Which, maybe, is a good argument for the ban. You had a bit of a prisoner's dilemma. Owners would, perhaps, want no smoking as long as they don't have to compete against smoking, but as long as some restaurants permit smoking, they want to have it, also.

 

But the free market already pitted smoking restaurants against (voluntary) non-smoking restaurants, and the non-smoking ones were the big losers; that's why the legislature stepped in.

 

BTW, Mike's post notwithstanding, many restaurants and bars took a big hit in southern CA when the ban was enacted.

[kenrexford]

The reason why this is banned is because non-smokers believe (maybe correctly) that this type of business would run bars out of business, because everyone would go to the Smoke and Drink Bar rather than to Tom's Drink in Clean Air Bar.

I disagree. Btw I think you tell other people they don't get it too often simply because they disagree with you.

There is a wild difference between disagreeing with the conclusions and finding the analysis absurd.

 

For instance, a reasoned argument for banning smoking in public places could be easily made. You could speak of the practicality of market force errors and the reasonable intrusion on privacy as a counter to this market force. You could accept the paternalistic aspect of the choice and even embrace it.

 

But, when you support your arguments with a nonsense claim that essentially boils down to smoking as an invasion of one's right to choose how he wants to experience a bar, contrary to how another person or the owner wants to experience the bar, it ends up being a B.S. argument. I simply don't have a right to a nice smoke-free bar.

 

When I, therefore, slaim that the other person doesn't get it, I am directly challenging not their conclusions but rather their insistence on ridiculous arguments in support of their conclusions. An intelligent person like Mike, reaching these conclusions, does not reach them for the reasons stated by Mike unless they are not thinking through the logic correctly because of internal biases.

 

Again, I can accept disagreement as to end conclusions, so long as the basis is honestly admitted.

[jdonn]

If I may counter with a kenrexford impression that would also apply here, I also disagree with pretending I disagreed with something I never disagreed with and then disagreeing with that.

[mikeh]

Ken (Rexford, not berg): I do 'get it'...but I am not sure that you do, because of the arguments you raise seem illogical on a deep level.

 

However, maybe you are one of those people who are thoroughly consistent rather than, as I assume, somewhat naive to your own motivations. Let's see.

 

 

Johnny and Billy make crystal meth. They only sell it to people who agree to use it while on the premises of their private club, and they require that users remain on the premises while under the acute intoxicating effects of the drug.

 

Do you support their right to do so? If not, why not?

 

Do you support their right to advertise their product and service?

 

If not, why not?

 

(clue: 'it's against the law' is not a justification....after all, maybe smoking is against the law)

 

Johnny is terminally ill and wants to kill himself. He is handicapped, so he needs help...should the law allow someone to help him? If not, why not? Surely the ultimate measure of freedom must be the right to decide whether we continue living?

 

Johnny loves to torture small animals. He does so only in his back yard....his neighbours are free not to watch or listen...heck, they can choose not to live next door...or maybe they can join in the fun. Should this be against the law? Why?

 

Johnny wants to sell tainted meat. He wants to advertise it as tasty and cheap. We have a choice of government food inspection or allowing the tort system to eventually catch up with him....too bad he took his profits out of state...or spent them all so that his victims are without recourse (plus, if they have no health care, they are bankrupt even if they survive). Should this be against the law, or should we rely upon the market?

 

Now, if you answer that the government has no role in regulating ANY of the aforementioned activities or even no role other than in the tainted meat department, I will revise my view of your position. I will revise it from naive to right wing wingnut, but I will review it and I will respect your integrity even as I deplore your approach to the world....as you no doubt deplore my left wing wingnut status B)

 

However, if you answer that government CAN legitimately stop any of these activities (possibly beyond the tainted meat one), you have betrayed your (innocent) intellectual dishonesty...you have betrayed that what offends you is NOT deprivation of freedom but deprivation of freedom to do what you, as a selfish individual rather than you as a representative individual, want to do. It won't be a principled objection, only a selfish one.

 

Just so we are clear: I support the right to end one's life and to help others to do so.....subject to ensuring that the decision is not a momentary impulse and that there are objectively verifiable reasons for concluding that the causal factors cannot be ameliorated. I support the notion that one should be free to smoke at home, but not in the presence of individuals incapable of informed consent to exposure to second hand smoke. However, I oppose the right of cigarette manufacturers to advertise their product....or, indeed, to sell it...tobacco should be available only to those who grow it or members of clubs or collectives...in other words, not for profit.

 

I support the right to use soft drugs, but not drugs that demonstrably create significant risk that the individual cannot function in society...tho if one is rich enough that one can afford the habit, anything goes that does not harm others...including crystal meth and heroin. So I am a mix of libertarian and left wing wingnut, I suppose :rolleyes:

 

To me the litmus test is: if an activity hurts others, in a reasonably direct way, it can and probably should be regulated by government up to and sometimes including prohibition. But if it hurts noone who has not given informed consent, and has no significant societal costs arising from the effects of the activity on those involved, then....enjoy!

 

So (almost all) forms of sexual activity between consenting adults, all forms of (non-permanently disabling) recreational intoxicants or mood altering substances, consumed in private....enjoy!

 

Smoking tobacco in public places does not meet these tests. Oh, it would in a perfect world, but the reality is that most people who work in low-end bars and restuarants don't make much money, and don't have much job mobility. To argue that no-one forces them to work there is facile, and reflective of a very cruel view of the world, imo. Give someone the choice of starving or going homeless now or risking an excruciating but not inevitable death 20 years from now, and most would opt for the paycheque.....

 

As for the economic impact on businesses of a smoking ban, I have no trouble with the notion that a ban would have a short term impact....but I dispute that it would have a long term impact. People adjust, and once it is 'normal' not to smoke....why, people (including smokers) start going back. Anyway, the cost to the industry of a smoking ban would almost certainly be more than offset by the gain to society as a whole from an overall reduction in smoking related diseases.

[Winstonm]

Smoking cigarettes is an addiction to nicotine. It is not pleasurable (other than the first one or two cigarettes in your life that get you high) in itself but only relieves the non-pleasure of being low on blood nicotine levels.

 

Because it is an addiction, addicts will go to any lengths to convince themselves of the rightness of their cause - including making inane arguments about why smoking should be allowed.

 

Look at the antics of any junkie as far as justifying his continued drug use and you find the same mental gymnastics as used by smokers. It is the most difficult problem to overcome in order to quit smoking - the self delusions you embrace that keeps you lighting up one after another.

[Lobowolf]

I support the notion that one should be free to smoke at home, but not in the presence of individuals incapable of informed consent to exposure to second hand smoke.

So, no smoking in homes with children?