No more smoking in France

[Cruentus]

I agree with Kacey in that smoking around children and pregnant women smoking is harmful, and that the answer is education rather then legislation.

I don't believe that it is the Second Hand Smoke that is harmful to the health of children because of the lack of strong evidence to support this idea. I do believe that the greater risk is that children who grow up with smokers are more inclined to become a smoker themselves.

Regardless, "public smoking bans" backfire, as these laws often do. Because instead of parents being able to smoke outside of their home, they are forced to smoke inside of the home or in their own cars where their children are more likely to be present. So because a few people "poo-poo" at the cigarette smell of maybe 20% of public places, children of smoker parents will now suffer more. So.... nice job with that.

I simply cannot see the benefit of this sort of thing. It seems so obvious to me (as Kacey stated well) that education, and I would add freedom of choice, are the real answers here, not legislation...

 

[Makalakumu]

I am saying that the risks of SHS are negligable.

If you really believe this, then I want to see you riding down the street with your kids strapped in the backseat and you puffing away on your cigar. If they are so negligible, I'd like to see you do it day in and day out. If SHS is harmless, this shouldn't be a problem right?

 

[BlackCatBonz]

these sort of discussions always crack me up.......ninja please!

But really......when i smoked, i went through a period (when I was a punk kid, mind you) that I didnt give a rat's behind who had to deal with it.....then i grew up. As far as the ban goes in Ontario.....no one is saying you can't smoke in your backyard, or when you're walking down the street......it's public establishments and the workplace.

Smoking serves no purpose.....it's one of those ridiculous habits that once you start, you may never quit; hell, I may even start again....who knows. I quit once before for 3 years and started again.
Let's legalize all of the other illicit drugs out there too......I'm all for people killing themselves, it's not like people aren't shooting up or snorting in restrooms everywhere.......but i shouldn't be forced to participate by proximity.

 

[Cruentus]

If you really believe this, then I want to see you riding down the street with your kids strapped in the backseat and you puffing away on your cigar. If they are so negligible, I'd like to see you do it day in and day out. If SHS is harmless, this shouldn't be a problem right?

I don't smoke cigars daily, 1st off.

That said, I'd say that would be a problem, but not for the reasons you propose. I think that the bigger issue with smoking in the home and in vehicles with children is that you create an environment where smoking is the standard, making them more likely to become smokers themselves. Unlike SHS, we KNOW that being a smoker is a health risk.

But like I said before, congratulations everyone: by supporting public smoking bans you create more situations where children will be exposed to smoking. Instead of a parent going somewhere else to smoke a cigarette where other adults exhibit similar behavior (like in break rooms and taverns or even outside) they now are more inclined to have to smoke in the home or in the vehicles around the children. So, once again, over regulation backfires. As I said before, this isn't for the children, and this isn't for public health. It is for a whiney, selfish few who want to use a collective ideal to throw their weight around...

 

[Makalakumu]

I don't smoke cigars daily, 1st off.

That's cool. My father smokes a cigar occasionally and I have no problem with that. He understands that many people don't like the smell, so he does it in places where the impact is minimized. It's pretty sad when you have legislate respectful behavior, IMHO. It'd be nice if people just better manners.

That said, I'd say that would be a problem, but not for the reasons you propose. I think that the bigger issue with smoking in the home and in vehicles with children is that you create an environment where smoking is the standard, making them more likely to become smokers themselves. Unlike SHS, we KNOW that being a smoker is a health risk.

I don't know man, check out these studies...

SHS causes Heart Disease
SHS causes Lung Cancer
SHS causes SIDS

You can call this junk science if you want, but I would encourage you to check out the studies that they cite before doing so. IMO, the evidence is conclusive. SHS is harmful to your health.

But like I said before, congratulations everyone: by supporting public smoking bans you create more situations where children will be exposed to smoking. Instead of a parent going somewhere else to smoke a cigarette where other adults exhibit similar behavior (like in break rooms and taverns or even outside) they now are more inclined to have to smoke in the home or in the vehicles around the children. So, once again, over regulation backfires. As I said before, this isn't for the children, and this isn't for public health. It is for a whiney, selfish few who want to use a collective ideal to throw their weight around...

Perhaps it will be offset by the following...

Smoke–Free Policies Reduce Smoking
Smoke-Free Policies Also Reduce the Number of Kids who Smoke.

 

[shesulsa]

Dry eye syndrome is caused by many things, and one of them is exposure to SHS. Glaucoma has been partially attributed to types of dry eye syndrome. My mother has glaucoma and was married to a smoker for over 25 years.

At 17 I was diagnosed with reduced lung capacity from SHS. My husband has COPD and pulmonary sarcoidosis - spent much time around aunts, uncles and grandparents who smoked.

Our MEDICAL DIAGNOSES are these problems AS A DIRECT RESULT OF EXTENDED EXPOSURE TO SECOND HAND SMOKE.

So I guess the walking, talking, gasping and wheezing proof in my life is junk science.

Here's the deal:

We can be free to do whatever we want as long as long it's not illegal and/or as other people don't get hurt.

Face it.

People get hurt from SHS. They do. They're all around you. And most of them probably won't know just how much until later in life.

And no, I'm not going to post a link to science because I've seen enough proof ... I live with it every day.

 

[Cruentus]

A link to a good book on the myths regarding SHS if anyone is interested. Some good explinations provided as well:

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=386

There is no conclusive or substantial evidence to link SHS to significant health risk. Once again, correlation does not equal causation. So your family smoked and you have dry eye syndrome. There are a lot of people with Dry Eye Syndrome who lived in smoke free environments. With the studies where peoples bodies were monitored during and after SHS exposure, no significant effects could be found. So I am sorry we will have to agree to disagree on this (I will be willing to jump ship as soon as I see some convincing evidence otherwise, believe me).

But, for the sake of argument, let's pretend that SHS is found to be a health risk.

Even if this is true, I fail to see how a public smoking ban is the best answer to the problem. There are so many places that one can go where one is not exposed to SHS. Many workplaces nowadays don't even allow smoking in their buildings. Yet, now adults have no place to go besides their homes and vehicles to smoke. This means more children of smokers exposed more often.

I fail to see how regulation of behavior is the answer to any of these problems. It never is. All you do is create more opportunities for people get fines and jail time, while complicating problems and solving nothing. Prohibition did not work, the "drug war" has failed to be effective, and a public smoking ban will not help anythig either. It will only set a dangerous precidence on what we allow governments to regulate.

So, those in support of this have failed to demonstrate how SHS is a health risk through evidence. But lets forget about that and give it the benefit of doubt. What argument can any of you present that says that regulation like this is a good thing, as compared to freedom and education?

:idunno:

 

[shesulsa]

From the American Lung Association

 

[Kacey]

So, those in support of this have failed to demonstrate how SHS is a health risk through evidence. But lets forget about that and give it the benefit of doubt. What argument can any of you present that says that regulation like this is a good thing, as compared to freedom and education?

Do I think that more regulation is a long-term answer? No, I don't. But I do know that the regulations limiting or banning smoking in public places is the only thing that gets some peoples' attention. Long before smoking became a public health issue, my father used to smoke a pipe. He didn't smoke in his car because to properly fill and light a pipe took both hands, and to smoke one took one hand - and his car had a stick shift, which left him shy a hand, since he always kept one hand on the wheel. My mother wouldn't let him smoke in the house, because she didn't like the smell of his pipe tobacco (an interesting concept, as I always thought it smelled much better than her cigarettes - not to mention that she smoked 2 packs a day and he smoked perhaps 3 pipes a week); he couldn't smoke at work long before most people because he was a librarian, and smoking materials of any type were banned for fire safety reasons. That left smoking while walking the dog, and as the dog got older, he was less willing (and able) to wait while my father loaded and lit his pipe - so my father quit smoking entirely, because there was no time or place he could do so. This was in the mid-70s. I know plenty of other people who quit for the very same reason - there is nowhere left that they can smoke - thus they don't do so anymore. By the way... my mother finally quit when her mother (a smoker for 50+ years) died a slow, painful death from emphysema.

There is also an ad campaign for Nicorette currently being aired on Denver TV, that features a woman who quit smoking because the lady at the cosmetics counter suggested a cream to remove "lines around the lips" - want to bet more women quit smoking because of wrinkles and other unattractive and visible signs of smoking than because of the health issues?

 

[Cruentus]

Do I think that more regulation is a long-term answer? No, I don't. But I do know that the regulations limiting or banning smoking in public places is the only thing that gets some peoples' attention.

Sure. And I am all for that when it is individual companies and property owners who decide that they want to limit or ban smoking on their property. The case with your father is a common one that did not require legislation.

My problem is when it is mandated by the government. I don't see why it is useful to go after the few places deligated for adults to smoke when there are so more non-smoking places and areas then not to begin with.

 

[Kacey]

My problem is when it is mandated by the government. I don't see why it is useful to go after the few places deligated for adults to smoke when there are so more non-smoking places and areas then not to begin with.

And yet, those places only began to appear when mandated by the government. When I was a kid and a teen, smoking was legal - and present - everywhere: in schools, at gas stations (a definite safety hazard), in restaurants (non-smoking sections were unheard of when I was young), in many stores... I remember my mother complaining when the bank she worked for banned smoking in certain parts of the building because the smoke was bad for the newly installed computers (not the people). Walking past the teachers' lounge at my elementary and middle schools caused choking fits... eating in restaurants was unpleasant because the ambient smoke killed the taste and aroma of the food... non-smoking rooms in hotels were unheard of... and many other examples I don't have the time to list - and none of this changed until the government stuck its nose in and forced the change to occur.

I have no problem with the legal action that caused those changes - I lived with a smoker (my mother) until I left for college, and had no choice in the matter; then I got to college (where the dorm gave you a 3 page questionnaire about your prospective roommate - and, based on several lawsuits - actually paid attention to your smoking or non-smoking preferences)... after a few short weeks living in a non-smoking environment, going near cigarette smoke caused nausea, and still does today.

You don't like government regulation into issues that affect personal freedoms - that's your choice. That doesn't mean that all government regulation is bad.

 

[Cruentus]

And yet, those places only began to appear when mandated by the government.

I disagree. I think that you will find that these changes occured when education programs, public service announcements, and so forth became more readily accessable and began to set in. When public education and programs really started getting the information out there on the health risks of smoking, that was when smoking became gradually less and less socially acceptable, causing more and more places to ban smoking on their grounds. There are plenty of states that still have little to no laws regulating public smoking, yet have much less places allocated for smoking then in the 70's.

Again, I'd say it is education and freedom that works, not regulation.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Wearing seatbelts, helmets, use of child car seats, and more.
All "common sense"
All required by law in most places.
Why?
Because people often need to be told to do what is best for them.
Annoying? Yes, very.
But little things like "common sense" and "common courtesy" are anything but, and are often lacking in todays American society.
So, I've got no problem with laws limiting where someone with a desire to inhale toxic stink can do so, as I value my right to taste my food, and smell the flowers higher than their right to make my eyes burn and my clothes stink because they need their "fix".

 

[Makalakumu]

Sure. And I am all for that when it is individual companies and property owners who decide that they want to limit or ban smoking on their property. The case with your father is a common one that did not require legislation.

My problem is when it is mandated by the government. I don't see why it is useful to go after the few places deligated for adults to smoke when there are so more non-smoking places and areas then not to begin with.

I consider myself to be fairly libertarian in many of my views. Especially when it comes to the government controlling peoples's behavior. I make exceptions, and so do many other libertarian minded people when it comes to pollution. If one of the jobs of government is to protect people and one believes that there is conclusive evidence that SHS is dangerous, then wouldn't regulating it like any other pollutant make sense?

One of the problems with this type of pollution is that there are alot of people who do it. It's not like walking into a power plant and having them install scrubbers on their stacks. There are many sources and it is hard to control. Therefore, controlling this pollutant is going to take more government action...a greater sweep of government power. Will it be worth it in the long run? If it protects people from SHS and encourages more people to stop smoking, I think so.

 

[Cruentus]

I consider myself to be fairly libertarian in many of my views. Especially when it comes to the government controlling peoples's behavior. I make exceptions, and so do many other libertarian minded people when it comes to pollution. If one of the jobs of government is to protect people and one believes that there is conclusive evidence that SHS is dangerous, then wouldn't regulating it like any other pollutant make sense?

Sure... and I agree. I am not a classic libertarian in that I don't think that businesses should be regulated. In the interest of consumer and worker rights and the environment particularly, I am often all for regulation if done properly. My view is that government has 2 jobs and only 2 jobs; to keep us safe and keep us free. Anything beyond that is overstepping bounds, in my opinion.

Sometimes, there are conflicts. When the conflict is between safety of consumers/workers and freedom of corporations, with reasonableness I err on the side of consumer/workers. The reason is because I don't believe that corporations should be considered individuals, as our laws currently see it, despite what post civil war case law says. I believe that corporations are entities as defined by paperwork with many people behind it. To always rule in favor of corporations because we don't want to impede their "individual" rights is erronious in my opinion. They are not individuals, but a collection of paper and people, and to allow them freedoms at the expense of the freedom and safety of individual consumers and neighbors is allowing a "collective entity" (a grouping of people with money and power) to hinder the individual. This is something that our consitution and government is supposed to protect us from.

So, I am not against "regulation" per say.

And often, safety and freedom conflict as well, as can be argued with this case...

I just realized what time it is. I have to go teach some army folks how to shoot a pistol. I will expand on this later this afternoon. Sorry... , but I will tie these thoughts in to why I am so staunchly against a public smoking ban when I return...

 

[SFC JeffJ]

It can't be said enough that if you don't want to be around smokers and smoking, don't go where the owner alows it. There are plenty of family resturaunts and the like that without government interference don't allow smoking in their establishments. It's that easy.

Jeff

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Mod. Note.

Attention all users

Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-Brian R. VanCise
-MT Moderator-

 

[Makalakumu]

It can't be said enough that if you don't want to be around smokers and smoking, don't go where the owner alows it. There are plenty of family resturaunts and the like that without government interference don't allow smoking in their establishments. It's that easy.

Jeff

Actually, its not. The people who go establishments that allow smoking are putting themselves at risk from pollution. The people who work in those establishments are really putting themselves at risk from pollution.
In other areas of our lives, we, as a society, have decided that "any" exposure to the pollutants that are found in SHS is unacceptable. It doesn't matter if you choose to be in that environment or not. The risks that many of the chemicals bring are too high. Sure, we can debate whether SHS is really dangerous or not, but IMHO the case really is a slam dunk. The body of studies out there is vast beyond most people's comprehension...unless you had to do a lit review on this stuff like I did.

Also, if anyone has ever seen the movie, "Thank you for smoking" that pretty much sums up the few studies that are claiming SHS isn't dangerous.

Anyway, back to a person's choice to remain in a polluted environment or not. Sure, we can debate whether or not some people have the choice to work in polluted environments. IMHO, the only thing that prevents someone from seeing a situation where the choice would be hard is a lack of imagination (I personally know three people who are in this situation right now) Also, you know what, if it came down to it and I had to make the choice between my health and putting food on the table, I'd go on welfare. The point is, why should anyone have to make this decision in the first place. SHS is pollution and no one should be exposed to it.

I liken this situation to a situation faced by many migrant workers in this country. In all sorts of industries, undocumented workers are hired by companies to do all of the jobs that anyone who grew up on our society would never do. Many (most) times, these people are given no safety equipment (which includes equipment to deal with toxic chemicals), no training on how to deal with toxic chemicals, and are totally unprotected if they are injured. These people take those jobs, knowing in advance the conditions they will face and they all hope that they'll be the lucky ones (this is how companies and migrant workers subvert OSHA and worker's comp regulations. If "guest workers" are allowed in this country, both of the above will become meaningless).

The bottom line is this. Why should anyone have to make those decisions? Why can't we as a society just step up to the plate and say that this is unacceptable? A person's right to smoke around others is not worth the health risks associated with it and I think that it would be immoral to continue to allow it. Just as it IS immoral to let PEOPLE take jobs in the situation I described above.

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Isn't living in a free society all about making decisions for yourself? Like where to go, what job to take. Trust me, in the food service industry, a waiter/dishwasher/busboy/cook would have no problem finding a similar job in a non-smoking establishment.

Jeff

 

[Cruentus]

In my opinion, it is immoral to not allow people to make their own choices. It is also very selfish and unaccepting of other peoples values. When we ever learn that it isn't right to impose our values on other people, whether it be health, religion, choice of job, or what have you?

To add to what I was speaking about before, there often is conflict between personal freedom and safety when it comes to regulation. With this, we need to ALWAYS err on the side of freedom unless other people are put in danger involuntarily.

Example, seat belt laws. If I want to drive around without a seatbelt, then I am an idiot. But, it is my perogative to do so and be an idiot (I don't do this, btw; just using this as an example). Seat belt laws, I am afraid, are wasteful and useless. We waste valuable LE dollars and time trying to "set up stings" and bust people for not wearing seat belts (at least here in Michigan). Now, if you want to drive around with a baby in the car without a seatbelt and proper car seat, THAT is when we should have a problem. NOW police should be able to enforce laws and serious penalties, because a child (3rd party) is involunarily being put at risk.

It is immoral to not let people make their own choices, even if they decide to choose poorly. It is only moral to step in when 3rd parties are involuntarily and significantly at risk, because now it infringes both on safety and freedom (freedom for others to be safe).

This is the way WE HAVE to operate if we want a free society. Nothing comes "for free," including freedom. If we want to live in a free society, we have to pay the price of allowing people to be the victim of their own choices. If we try to save everyone from their own choices, then we create a police state, and an orwellian and totalitarian and intolerant environment. Because what we are saying when we try to save everyone from their own choices is, "we don't respect what you value as an individual, so you must obey our values as to what is proper, safe, and right, otherwise you will find yourself fined or serving time in jail." When we decide to pass laws for the sole purpose of saving people from their own choices, we are deciding to be bullies, intolerant of other peoples values, and we are deciding to move closer to a police state.

So, whenever you make these decisions as to where you stand on this law or that law, you must always ask yourself, "at what cost" and "at what gain." Often, the costs don't justify the gains.

Also, people who always think "regulation" are the ones being unimaginative. Most of the time the problems can be solved without having to infringe on peoples freedoms. For example, what if insurance companies could decide to not cover you for personal injury if you got into an accident without your seatbelt, and what if this were clear to consumers? This, plus PSA's and education would do enough to convince most people to wear seatbelts most of the time. People who still decide to not wear the belts are most likely the same people who would make the same choice if facing a $50 or $80 ticket on top of it. So, the seat belt issue can be solved without having to regulate and pay tax dollars to police it.

Same with the SHS issue. This issue can, and is being solved without laws. Since the introduction of PSA's, smoking has cut almost in half since the 60's/70's: http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/P/htmlP/publicservic/publicservic.htm

Education, not regulation, has made smoking less prevalent and less socially acceptable in our society. What we could do if we were interested in freedom would be to allow individual locals to pass their own laws to deem all public areas non-smoking unless otherwise posted. This way, individual cities and twps can decide how they want to run their commuities. And this way, individual business owners can decide if they want their establishment to be smoking or not through posting a sign in a designated area that says "smoking permited."

I am certain that with the exception of a few taverns and smoke shops, most places would remain non-smoking establishments. This would solve any problem of people being exposed to SHS who don't want it, as it pretty much is today. This way, you allow communities and individuals to decide what they want in their environment.

For the sake of clarity, here are the points of disagreement that I have from others who support a public smoking ban:

1. People who want the ban believe that SHS is gravely harmful to the health of others. I disagree because when peoples bodies are actually monitored when exposed to SHS, there are no measureable effects (unlike the effects seen from smokers themselves). Once again, I challange anyone here to post up some evidence linking SHS to disease or death. A website that simply says its true without any discussion as to how that data was gathered is only an illogical "appeal to authority" rather then evidence.

2. I believe that in just about every case, adults have the choice now a days to be around SHS or not. People don't have to go to places where there is SHS. People don't have to sit in smoking sections. Most public places now a days are non-smoking establishments. People who work in smoking establishments have the choice to work elseware or to compromise with employers on the issue, despite all the sob stories of pregnant bartenders forced to work in taverns because there is no other comparible employment. This is nonsense. I challange you to think of regular circumstances and occurances where people couldn't simply choose to not frequent places that allowed smoking, and go ahead and name them. Most of what I will get are crybaby stories where people could, of course, choose to not be around SHS but decide to anyway.

3. There is no evidence that SHS is a pollutant that is on par with any of our other current polluting behaviors. We can't link SHS to global warming or carbon dioxide levels or what have you. The issue of SHS as a pollutant is negligable as compared to our reliance on fossil fuels. I challange you to provide evidence that proves that stopping smoking would lower the worlds pollution levels significantly as compared to other pollutants, and I will be willing to entertain this idea.

4. I believe that the real problem with smoking around others is not SHS, but exposing the behavior to children, particularly within the homes of smokers. This because children are more likely to become accustomed to smoking and grow up smokers. I believe that by banning smoking in public places, instead of allowing the few places left for adults to smoke, you create an environment where now parents of smokers have to smoke around children because they can only do it in homes and vehicles. With this in mind, I challange you to prove to me that a public smoking ban would help solve this issue rather then complicate it.

5. Mass regulation of behavior and "victimless" crime never really works better then other means of solving problems, like education and freedom of choice. We ultimatily end up wasting money and valuable Law Enforcement resources on policing and regulation. This is money that we could be using to fund education, to clean the environment, to cure disease and solve our health care crisis, and so forth. mass regulation didn't work with prohibition. It has yet to work with the drug war. Hell it didn't even really work with seatbelts, as it is arguable that the PSA's and education are the real hero's behind increased seat belt use rather then fines and policing. And, this won't work for public smoking either. In general, regulation of bad choices and victimless crimes only accomplish more people getting put jail and more fines and more money spent on enforcing individual behavior. Our jails are crowded with people involved in victimless crimes, and are getting more crowded every year; all tax dollars and resources utterly wasted. I challange you to ask yourselves how increased enforcement and regulation of victimless crimes makes society better rather then worse.

5. We ultimatily have to decide what type of society we would like to live in, and what we decide will always come with a price. The price of freedom is choice, and allowing people to be a victim of their own choices. The price of saving people from their own choices is to create a system based off regulation and punishment where choices are made for the people. One is a free republic or democracy that protects civil liberties, the other is a totalitarian police state based on controlling others for some sort of "greater good." You need to decide what kind of society you would like to live in. I am deciding that I don't want to live somewhere that isn't free due to someone elses idea of what is safe and good. Others have decided that they are willing to pay the price of freedom for the illusion of security. I see dangerous precidence and slippery slopes created with things like "statewide/nationwide public smoking bans." How far will we allow these things to go? It all seems OK until over-regulation begins to effect you. Sure, it may seem OK when we are talking about "common sense" stuff like helmet laws and seat belt tickets. But now Ontario and Bejing won't allow entire dog breeds, and has been mass Euthanizing them. France won't allow smoking, sure. Rights to weapons and self-defense means are almost completely lost in the first world nowadays. So how far are you willing to go for the sake of illusionary security and safety? How about cameras on every road that automatically sends you tickets in the mail? Since Obesity is fast becoming more of a problem now then smoking, how about ID cards that ration your food purchases if you exceed the height/weight chart? How about wiretaps without warrents? How about microchips to regulate healthcare and insurance coverage and monitor "pre-existing conditions" These aren't apocalyptic fantasies folks, these are things that we have the capabilities to do right now, and that are happenening or can fast become the norm (next 20-50 years). So, we need to decide right now how we want to live, and keep the trend towards freedom. Because once the trend gets too far in the other direction, we will find ourselves in an orwellian society with no means of changing it.

That is what I believe anyway, and I am willing to fight to protect freedom, and I am willing to make the choice for freedom at the expense of consequence for my choices, and not being told what to do. It is too bad that more and more people now a days would rather someone else makes decisions for them rather then having the freedom to make their own choices.

I challange you, most of all, to really take a hard look at what kind of society you would like to live in, and that you would like your children to live in.

And these are my points of contention with other people in this thread and elseware who support statewide smoking bans. I don't have much else to say, unless someone provides compelling evidence or argument contrary to these points that would cause me to rethink my position. Otherwise, I will have to simply and respectfully agree to disagree with the other positions here. Saying more, unless new contrarian opinions and evidence arise, will only amount to me repeating myself ad nauseum, and beating a dead horse.

So, I have said my piece. You will either agree or you won't, but my position is illustrated in many different ways for anyone to read.

Thanks for the discussion...

:asian: