For or against the smoking ban?

[typerlowly]

i've noticed the people that are for the ban lost what little credibility they possessed with their suggestion that the smell of smoke is a deciding factor. It's annoying but not something you ban rights for. we all have our poison, whether it be prescribed by a physician or a pack of cigs. Here's the bottom line: Both sides of the argument make good points. One offers a mutual compromise and the other offers none. Easy decision if you ask me. Casual reasoning will tell you that revoking the basic civil liberty of people and a total ban for smoking isn't a solution. The government has proven to be falliable with their studies - and while i agree children should not be exposed to the smoke in cars, i don't believe the amount of second hand smoke needed to cause damage that the government would lead you to believe. If it's in a designated room, to each their own. Alcoholism is a disease, the use, misuse, heavy use, abuse, addiction, and dependence of alcohol is just as real. There's a reason prohibition didn't last.

 

[Xorkoth]

^Yes, let's ban everything we don't like.

Liking is one thing. Damaging health is quite another. We ban drunk driving because it infringes upon the safety of others. Although it's not exactly the same thing, the same applies to smoking around others. Perhaps secondhand smoke is not as damaging as claimed, but I think it would be pretty silly to believe that it causes no damage to others at all. And why should people be allowed to do something in public places that damages others, regardless of how much damage is done? If it's any, it's too much.

For the record, I'm not trying to suggest that people shouldn't be allowed to smoke anywhere. Just that they shouldn't be allowed to smoke in places that someone will be forced to be in it who doesn't want to be exposed to the smoke. In private places I think it would be ludicrous to try to ban smoking... that would indeed be a violation of rights. It's not just an issue of the smell and discomfort, but of health.

Although, speaking of things people don't like, think about if someone one day decided that they wanted to carry around a machine that produced the very strong smell of rotten eggs. Would you say that they should be able to carry that around in public places, because it's their consitutional right to do whatever they want, even though everyone around would be offended and have to endure a terrible cloud of odor?

 

[pennywise]

Some damage is still tooo much. Should people be allowed to go around punching each other in the face? sure, it doesn't kill them, but it does *some* damage, and perhaps a very small percentage will die too.

If even some damage is too much, then we would have to outlaw cars too. Have you ever seen the smog that forms over some cities? It's at least as damaging as secondhand smoke, perhaps more.

 

[typerlowly]

^
exactly

 

[toa$t]

If even some damage is too much, then we would have to outlaw cars too. Have you ever seen the smog that forms over some cities? It's at least as damaging as secondhand smoke, perhaps more.

is that such a terrible idea though? rather than outlawing cars, why not outlaw them from the downtown areas of major cities which have smog problems. This is actually slowly starting to happen in a number of major cities. this analogy does at least as much to support the smoking ban.

 

[Xorkoth]

The thing is, the way our society is currently set up, driving is necessary to live your life, at least for some people (those living where the nearest things are miles away for example). Smoking is not necessary for anyone to live their life. It's a personal choice which is not necessary that affects other people.

 

[bromance]

^Yes, let's ban everything we don't like.



If there was such a big market for non-smoking bars there would be non-smoking bars. Pretty simple really.

Yes, lets jump to absolutes. 8)


I don't have a problem with people smoking, do whatever you want. I just don't think it should be allowed in certain areas. If I'm sitting at a restaurant eating, the last thing I want to smell is someone smoking near me. It makes my food taste like shit.

If I'm outdoors and someone lights up next to me, I can walk away. That's fine, I don't care.

 

[Missykins]

Personally I think smokers are getting treated like second class citizens and the government is helping condemn them because they smoke. Its still a "free" country right? I agree it should be up to the bar owner if they want to allow smoking or not.

Yeah, I am free not to get cancer. Stay home and smoke yourself into a tomb, but don't take me with you (the you is a rhetorical you, of course).

 

[Missykins]

i've noticed the people that are for the ban lost what little credibility they possessed with their suggestion that the smell of smoke is a deciding factor. It's annoying but not something you ban rights for. we all have our poison, whether it be prescribed by a physician or a pack of cigs. Here's the bottom line: Both sides of the argument make good points. One offers a mutual compromise and the other offers none. Easy decision if you ask me. Casual reasoning will tell you that revoking the basic civil liberty of people and a total ban for smoking isn't a solution. The government has proven to be falliable with their studies - and while i agree children should not be exposed to the smoke in cars, i don't believe the amount of second hand smoke needed to cause damage that the government would lead you to believe. If it's in a designated room, to each their own. Alcoholism is a disease, the use, misuse, heavy use, abuse, addiction, and dependence of alcohol is just as real. There's a reason prohibition didn't last.

What's with the vague references to "the government?" In the States, Big Tobacco is the second largest lobbyist group (the pharmaceutical industry is first), so to suggest that the government is the foe of Big Tobacco is wrong. There is no conspiracy.

It took DECADES for the medical community to even suggest that second-hand smoke causes cancer. It does.

Once again, don't force your carcinogen upon me. And, the alcohol analogy does not hold.

 

[Missykins]

^Smoking in one's proximity can hardly be compared to plowing into someone while driving in a drunken stupor.

The end result is the same, only the length of time to the end result is different.

There are PLENTY of places for smokers to smoke.

 

[typerlowly]

Actually, my analogy of alcohol is relevant, however, to suggest that an alcoholic is less likely to be an endangerment to society borders on retardation, as does your assertion that "the government" is that benign. We're talking probabilities and the financial consequences associated with making a bad choice on a total ban, and regardless of how you want to frame the argument, it's just not a smart choice. You make my point for me when you sight your anectodal evidence of "decades to suggest it causes cancer"— the medical community back in the day were a majority of smokers. and i somehow doubt that doctors were just oblivious to the harm of breathing smoke. No doubt they had to have been as clueless as you. Then again, perhaps I'm giving you too much credit given the lack of logic present in your posts. Where your argument really goes off the deep end is when you state "don't force your carcinogens upon me". Unless were blowing it directly at your face, for a significant amount of time, i highly doubt it causes cancer. Go back to school and enroll in a base level philosophy course where you'll get introduced to a couple of concepts obviously foreign to you— deductive reasoning and logic. Happy learning!

 

[Xorkoth]

Then again, perhaps I'm giving you too much credit given the lack of logic present in your posts. Where your argument really goes off the deep end is when you state "don't force your carcinogens upon me". Unless were blowing it directly at your face, for a significant amount of time, i highly doubt it causes cancer.

I found this a very ironic statement... how is saying "unless I was blowing it directly in your face, I doubt it causes cancer" any more logical or factual than what Missykins has said? Well, I think it borders on retardation to think that secondhand smoke does not cause any damage. And no one ever said that an alcoholic is less likely to be a danger to society, just that the alcohol analogy does not hold.

And really, there was no need to be an asshole about it anyway. Are you so defensive about this topic that you can't have a civil conversation?

 

[toa$t]

dear typerlowly,

1. cite, not sight
2. inductive reasoning is the one with which we are concerned here.

perhaps you ought to brush up on your intro philosophy yourself. Happy learning!

on to your arguments themselves:

To suggest that smoking causes cancer but being in a room full of second hand smoke doesn't is simply retarded. It's not like sucking the smoke through a filter magically instills it with mysterious carcinogenic powers. That being said, I think the idea of separate smoking rooms would probably be sufficient IF it didn't simply degenerate into everyone sitting in the smoking room. Perhaps this could be avoided by restricting alcohol in the smoking room (hmm, could be on to something here).

Second, while i see the appeal of the alcohol analogy, I don't think it carries as much weight as you suggest. Alcohol abuse has far less of an impact on innocent bystanders than does smoking. The cases where this is not true (e.g. domestic violence, drunk driving) do involve a breach of the law. The smoking ban is not designed as a paternalistic effort to protect smokers from themselves, but to protect the rights of non-smokers. Similar initiatives with the same objectives against alcohol abuse are already in place. Now, if you REALLY don't believe that second hand smoking causes cancer, we are simply at an impasse. I 100% agree with you that if smoking doesn't affect the health of non-smokers, we would have no reason to ban it. But this is a completely different argument.

 

[typerlowly]

It has nothing to do with being defensive. It has everything to do with demolishing your ridiculous arguments. You must be projecting here as it's you who seems intent on getting in the last word despite your previous statement declaring that I can't have a conversation. Funny. Go back and read your response to me in which you tell me that "you're an asshole for having your own opinion" Ironic indeed. Actually, it was that sort of personal, unwarranted and condescending, smart-ass remark that motivated me to shoot you and your weak argument down.

"you can't have a civil conversation"

The value of a "civil conversation" just dropped immensely if someone as ill equipped as yourself is moderating anything, particularly debate. But I'm thrilled you've taken me up on having a conversation. And I wasn't joking about the Philosophy class. A little instruction on logic and deductive reasoning would really help you.

"there was no need to be an asshole about it "

Needless to say, I prefer a more visceral conversation. I'd challenge you to find one statement in my posts that qualifies as "asshole" I would suggest that your substitution of name calling for a civil conversation is the very definition of asshole. I'm sure your preference to name call and point fingers at rather than in an open discussion has more to do with the lessensed embarrassment afforded to you by the anonymity of the internet than anything else.

I currently own all the statements I mentioned, and unlike yourself, i don't deny the points you made. I can accept that your opinion differs from mine. I don't need to act juvenile and name call. Furthermore, your description "it borders on retardation to think that secondhand smoke does not cause any damage" only serves to further expose your lack of knowldedge about me. Regardless of pro or against loyalties, any civil person would appreciate the value of a open debate of views. It's too bad you're so blinded by your snobbish allegiance to your beliefs that you can't appreciate others as well. As if "moderating" somehow affords you that warped perspective. Truly pathetic.

I thought this was a neutral and open environment. Apparently, it's not open to discussion if our opinions differ. You were "done here" the second you decided to childishly insult another reader, leaving yourself exposed to ridicule and intellectual dismemberment by someone with far more intellectual firepower than yourself. As for your example of my delusion, you cite my statement that I'm "not aware that second hand smoke does cause any damage" Uh, they are. For you to suggest otherwise only adds to your list of delusional statements. I can provide you with thousands of links that support my statements, but I'm sure you know how to Google yourself. Maybe next time you'll think a bit more before you open your mouth and insult someone needlessly. There. Now you're definitely "done". Actually, burned would be a more apt description. Peace out.

 

[syymphonatic]

my stance is and always will be the same, even if i do quit.
i think it should be like a liquor license - you can't sell it or offer that service without paying a little extra and being state approved and regulated. it works fairly well for bars and the patrons of the bars, and i see no difference. if you are an alcoholic and you can't be around drinks, you don't go somewhere that serves. it's well suited for smoking, too.
i have smoked for years now. i don't like smoking in restaurants and i have no wish to light up in my classroom or anything, but some places just cater more to the smoking crowds than others. but, in public places, i step aside when i smoke. i don't smoke around kids. if it's crowded, i don't. i don't litter. i understand other people have limits, and i do my best to respect those, but i think the blanket ban is ridiculous and overbearing, especially for places that thrive off of grittier patrons and the smoking culture (which isn't a culture so much as a common mentality - "i like to smoke when i drink," for example).

 

[typerlowly]

"unless I was blowing it directly in your face, I doubt it causes cancer"
"I found this a very ironic statement"

That's not what I said. Perhaps it's you that should "read more carefully".Instead of citing deductive reasoning and logic, you so eloquently put it, "Don't force your carcinogens upon me". Nobody is forcing anything on you. You have the ability to remove yourself from the vicinity. Deductive reasoning consists of studies of people who were exposed to lots of smoke, often shut in with chain smokers for years in claustrophobic situations like homes and cars. Even then, some of the studies found no effect. Nevertheless it's been enough to launch a movement to ban smoking most everywhere. Moreover, the whole notion of second hand smoke being listed as an indoor air pollutant started in the mid-1980's, as tenants in overpriced windowless high-rise office buildings sought creative means of breaking their leases. No doubt, workers could be irritated by second hand smoke, but then, they could also be irritated by perfume. Excessive perfume is considered an indoor air pollutant in some places, along with cooking odors.

Michael Siegel, a leading advocate of bans on smoking in the workplace because of the harm from daily exposure to secondhand smoke,the 20 or 30 minute claims are ridiculous. "If someone is just exposed for 30 minutes, it's completely reversible, and it's not gonna cause hardening of the arteries," Siegel said

[via New York Times]

Furthermore, 85% of lung cancer victims are current and former smokers. Science, at its best, should never have an agenda, and should aid the quest for truth. In the days before big media and big research grants, junk science could be subjected to the harsh light of objective science. Nowadays, though, it is sometimes the alleged "science" that promotes the junk science.

So, how dangerous IS secondhand smoke? The most reliable data would indicate that it is nowhere near as serious a threat as elements of the media (and their supporters within academia) would have us believe.In fact, secondhand smoke is, at its most extreme, far less dangerous than numerous other indoor air pollutants such as carbon monoxide, toxic mold, and radon.

The biggest study on this topic, covering 40 years, and involving 118,094 adults, with particular focus on 35,561 who never smoked, and had a spouse in the study with known smoking habits, came to this conclusion:

"The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."

[via CNN]

The response to the article detailing the study generated a good deal of hate e-mail on the journal's website. Not unlike the responses received on this thread.

Several other studies support these results, including one from the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, published back in 1975, when smoking was rampant in bars and other public places. The paper concluded that the concentration of ETS contaminants in these smoky confines was equal to the effects of smoking 0.004 cigarettes per hour. In other words, you would have to hang out for 250 hours to match the effects of smoking one cigarette.

The anti-smoking movement has focused, so far, on raising cigarette prices, curtailing cigarette advertising, running public health messages on the radio and televisions, limiting access of cigarettes to minors, and drilling anti-tabacco messages into schoolchildren, and in the period that this broad, seemingly comprehensive, ambitious campaign has been waged, teenage smoking has skyrocketed on a mass scale. The question really is, should we try to make smoking less contagious, to stop Big Tobacco who spread the smoking addiction? Or are we better off trying to make it less addictive, to look for ways to prevent all smokers becoming heavily into more dependent smoking.

And to those of you who think smoking is merely a choice, it has been found that there is a correlation between smoking and depression. In a study by Columbia University psychologist Alexander Glassman discovered that 60% of the heavy smokers he was studying had a history of major depression.About 80% of Alcoholics smoke. Close to 90% of schizophrenics smoke. Drugs like Zoloft and Prozac work because they prompt the brain to produce more serotonin, compensate for the deficit of serotonin in depressed people. Nicotine appears to do exactly the same with the other two neurotransmitters - dopamine and norepinephrine. Smokers, in short, are esentially using tobacco as a cheap way of treating their own depression, by boosting the level of brain chemicals they need to function normally. It's so strong in fact that when smokers with a history of psychiatric problems give up cigarettes, they run the sizable risk of relapsing into depression.

Great guerilla marketing, by the way. Why not put your money where your mouth is and do some actual research before you quote propaganda.

 

[euphoria]

I don't smoke cigs anymore... so I'd hve to say i'm all for the smoking ban. i can breathe inside again!!

 

[toa$t]

hey, look at that! typerlowly offers an argument!

Let's just make sure we're all beating the same dead horse. typerlowly, since you seem so obsessed with deductive reasoning, let's try some on for size:

I think we can sum up your argument as follows:

1. If second hand smoke does not cause lung cancer, then smoking in bars should not be banned.
2. Second hand smoke does not cause cancer

Conclusion
Smoking should not be banned in bars.

Hmm, wait a second. Seems like there's something missing from your argument! Denying the antecedent of a conditional statement DOES NOT TELL YOU ANYTHING (intro philosophy buddy! we having fun yet?). So for now, your argument against the smoking ban lacks any sort of deductive strength. So apart from buttressing your conspiracy-theory of a premise 2 (for which, I admit, you offer some interesting arguments which lend INDUCTIVE strength to your claim), you still need to offer reasons why we ought not ban smoking. Are there such reasons? Sure. Infringements on the rights of smokers etc. Do these reasons outweigh the discomfort caused by non-smokers who have to sit there and simply smell your smoke? Maybe, maybe not. Again, this is now a different argument.

Do I believe in your premise 2? Not really. Am I a doctor? admittedly not. But for every study which you show me that says second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer, I bet I can find 10 that say it does. Is this a huge conspiracy theory put together by evil non-smokers who just don't want to have to breath smoke which eating even though it isn't bad for them? again, possibly. but these aren't questions which are going to be solved by a geek on a messageboard quoting obscure studies which I am sure aren't going to convince anyone to switch sides.

The anti-smoking movement has focused, so far, on raising cigarette prices, curtailing cigarette advertising, running public health messages on the radio and televisions, limiting access of cigarettes to minors, and drilling anti-tabacco messages into schoolchildren, and in the period that this broad, seemingly comprehensive, ambitious campaign has been waged, teenage smoking has skyrocketed on a mass scale. The question really is, should we try to make smoking less contagious, to stop Big Tobacco who spread the smoking addiction? Or are we better off trying to make it less addictive, to look for ways to prevent all smokers becoming heavily into more dependent smoking.

I think both of these initiatives have points in their favour, and I see no reason not to pursue both of them. I am not sure how we would spend out money on making smoking less addictive though. Are you proposing somehow changing the structure of nicotine in such a way as to remove the addiction? IMHO as an ex-smoker, the addiction is part of the appeal of smoking. Scratching and itch feels good, but if you don't have the itch, you're not gonna scratch. I also know that the smoking ban made it a helluva lot easier for me to quit smoking, since it meant that I could go to a bar and not have 10 packs of cigarettes and ashtrays littered on the table in front of me, making quitting easier and thereby preventing smokers from becoming more heavily dependent on smoking. Again, this lends INDUCTIVE support to the ban.

 

[typerlowly]

toast:

deductive reasoning
1. noun: Deductive reasoning is reasoning whose conclusions are intended to necessarily follow from its premises. It is more commonly understood as the type of reasoning that proceeds from general principles or premises to derive particulars[1], although this is a less precise understanding. Deductive reasoning "merely" reveals the implications of propositions, laws, or general principles, so that, like some philosophers claim, it does not add to truth. Deductive reasoning is dependent on its premises. That is, a false premise can possibly lead to a false result, and inconclusive premises will also yield an inconclusive conclusion.[3]

But there I go again citing "deductive reasoning"—a concept foreign to you. Even someone of below average intelligence should be able to see that deductive reasoning is the bases of this entire discussion concening whether or not there should be a ban to smoke a cigarette or be ignorant with a potentially false validation.

Of course there's no conspiracy-theory! What the hell does that have to do with the discussion at hand (ban vs. not ban)? Just another case of toast bringing up an irrelevent assumption with absolutely no bearing on the discussion (a la geek on a messageboard and switching sides)? For you to subsitute assumptions for reasoning in your argument, which is EXACTLY what you've succeeded in doing is patently absurd. You're attempting to build a straw man argument based on a false set of assumptions no one ever considered but you in your feeble logic-starved mind.

 

[toa$t]

dude, I can't tell if you actually believe in what you have just written or if you are just trolling. either way, take a xanax. I love how you lambast Xorkoth for resorting to name calling rather than attacking your arguments, but then you resort to precisely the same strategy. it's unbelievable really.

I'm not sure why you think my assumptions about your points are out of line. I think if you carefully re-read your above posts, you will see that they point to the position which I summed up above; a position which I admittedly think holds some water. Second hand smoke causing health problems is probably the strongest argument in favour of the smoking ban, and it is the one you attacked most vehemently. But without concrete evidence for or against second hand smoke causing health problems, we are stuck in the land of the inductive. Perhaps you might like to re-read the definitions of deductive and inductive reasoning before commenting. Regardless, these definitions are not essential to the argument at hand. they are just (ordinarily) useful tools in these sorts of situations.

I thought the way I summed up your argument was quite accurate, but if I have misunderstood you somehow, it might be easier for me next time if you could just spell out your point using one-syllable words and short sentences. Maybe some colour and interesting fonts might be nice too. I realize that you did not rest your entire case on the fallacy I outlined above, but I just wanted to point out that even if second hand smoke doesn't cause health problems, there still may be other reasons to endorse a ban. I'm sorry that I seem to have gone under your head with that one. It must be lonely at the top.

Anyway, I'm really not sure why you felt the need to be so aggressive with me. Do you have a small penis? I thought I offered a fairly positively framed, well articulated argument against yours. Even so, I can see how accusing me of being feeble-minded is a more effective technique than actually responding to the arguments I offered. I hope you enjoy your "superior intellectual firepower" while you die alone. I'm certainly finished with you.