Smoking is a right

MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Smoking is a right

The idea that smoking is a right is irrational, especially since it harms everyone around you. Even if you deny the right of people to eat where they want, what about the workers - waiters, waitresses are among the lowest level of worker and really can't get another job. And the idea that smoking isn't harmful is extremely irrational.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
I'd compare the right to

I'd compare the right to smoke to the right to masturbate.
You've the right to do it so long as you're not stepping on anyone.
Just like it's not pleasant to have someone gism over you, it's not nice to have smoke breathed into your airspace. So tell them they have the right to smoke in your face if you have the right to cum in theirs! Eye-wink


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I just had this discussion

I just had this discussion earlier with a friend. He told me that there was a city (can't remember the name) that you'll get a ticket if you are caught smoking in your own yard or anywhere else outside. I don't smoke, he does. My first reaction, though, was horror. I remember the days where smoking was not only not a crime but when it was "good" for you. Everybody did it. There were cigarette butts everywhere. Grocery stores, the movies, hospitals, schools. In fact, it was more like you had to fight for the right not to smoke. Ahh, the good ole days.

Just kiddin about the good ole days. While I am happy that this has changed in our society, should it be ticket-worthy? This reaction upsets me when it wasn't people's fault to become addicted in the first place. There should be some sort of rehab for smokers in all cities that want to enforce this law. My husband is a smoker. He has tried to quit many times. I can't imagine what it would be like for him if he was by law forced to not smoke. I don't know-kinda police-stateish.


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
I think getting a ticket for

I think getting a ticket for smoking your yard is going too far.
I mean, it's your personal space... why should smoking in it be illeagal?


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:The idea

MattShizzle wrote:
The idea that smoking is a right is irrational, especially since it harms everyone around you. Even if you deny the right of people to eat where they want, what about the workers - waiters, waitresses are among the lowest level of worker and really can't get another job. And the idea that smoking isn't harmful is extremely irrational.

Every establishment should have the authority to determine what happens within that establishment. If there were a call for non-smoking bars and clubs, there would be non-smoking bars - with or without needless legislation to that effect. And what do you know, there already were such places before people decided to get their panties in a bunch.

The people who work in these bars and other places could get similar employment at other non-smoking establishments if they are concerned about breathing second hand smoke.

It should be the business owner's decision, and NOBODY else's.

As a smoker (at least when I drink), I certainly agree that smoking isn't the most rational decision one could make, but it is MY decision to make, not yours, and certainly not the government's. As the owner of an establishment, similarly, it should be my decision on what I allow people to do within it.

Certain jobs have occupational hazards, it comes with the territory. I work with hazardous chemicals daily - it's part of the job and the risk is understood by all parties.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Razorcade
ModeratorRRS Core Member
Razorcade's picture
Posts: 79
Joined: 2006-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Smoke 'em if you got 'em

I for one tend to agree with Yellow #5 on every point he made.

And who ever claimed that smoking was rational? I mean, at this stage in history, I think smokers realize what they are doing to their bodies. If you ever smoked, you might realize that rationality has nothing to do with why you continue to smoke.

As for serious health risks to others, I think the jury is still out. You might want to site the 1992/93 EPA report, but that has been debated since it was published, and a judge has ruled that the facts were manipulated in favor of the ban.

What would you do in this case?
I have a friend who lives in Long Island. He works in New York City, which means he usually takes the Long Island Expressway into work. Now, if you have ever been on the L.I.E during rush hour, its a living hell. There are wall to wall cars, so close that you can almost read the newspaper that the guy next to you is reading. You basically sit in your car for most of the trip, without moving.
Just a guess here, but I would think that so many cars, spewing toxic fumes in one place, would present a certain risk for people who do this every day for a number of years.
Just wondering why the EPA and non-smoking advocacy groups have not gotten behind this serious risk to all the innocent drivers. (not to mention, the toll takers)
I am suprised that they don't introduce legislation to shut down, or at least prohibit the amount of cars that have access to this highway. But of course, it would be irrational to limit access to a highway just because a few innocent victims come down with a cough. There are alternatives, however, they can drive on a 'different' highway.


GlamourKat
GlamourKat's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
Allow smoking

I don't smoke, but a lot of my friends do. I like to go with friends to the "smoke room" in bars so I'm not sitting alone waiting for them while they chat with everyone.
And I don't exactly want to go with them when there IS no smoke room and you have to outside. The last place I had to stand outside was a total dive, and all the busboys and bartenders smoke anyway. But because of the bylaws in my city, we had to stand outside in the cold rain. That's Vancouver weather for ya. Laughing out loud

Sure, smoking is terrible for you. But so is fat, and I don't see them taking burgers off the menu. I can kind of see why you'd not want smokers in a restaurant. Spoiling the food and whatnot. At least have a patio where people can smoke! A lot of places here don't have that either. But at most bars I've been to, almost everyone is already a smoker anyway. It's hilarious when a practically a whole bar including staff members goes for a big smoke break..... cause they aren't legally allowed to inside.

Workers at a bar?
So the risk of lung cancer goes up when you're exposed to smoke?
Well, the risk of getting stabbed when you're a bartender/busboy/waitress goes up when you're surrounded by drunk people late at night. Let's ban alchohol at bars and restaurants after 5pm 'cause it's dangerous to the workers. Hell, let's make a glass window like jail that you order food through to prevent robberies and germ transmission on money.
Okay, I went a little far there... Laughing out loud
But, hell, I'm a freakin' NON-smoker. And these bylaws piss ME off.


ImmaculateDeception
ImmaculateDeception's picture
Posts: 280
Joined: 2006-11-08
User is offlineOffline
After quitting for several

After quitting for several months, I started again recently (still kicking myself over that). I have to say that I understand the general idea of the smoking by-laws, in fact I'm so used to smoking outside that I do so when I'm at home, even though I live alone. Now I understand the idea of smoking bylaws as it pertains to restaurants, theaters, shops and malls etc. and even bars to a certain degree. But restricting smoking outdoors? Ridiculous.

However, I'll gladly go along with a ban on outdoor smoking on a few conditions. A ban on cologne, cheap perfume, annoying pop music ringtones, screaming children and wearing a trucker hat as an ironic statement must follow. Then, we'll have a deal

Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
FIrst, I'm a smoker. I am a

FIrst, I'm a smoker. I am a considerate smoker. I do not light up in other people's houses without permission. I do not light up in other people's cars without permission. I do not light up while someone is eating. (However, if you want to go to dinner with me, you will be sitting in the smoking section.) I will not blow smoke in anyone's direction.

Second, I have no desire to quit. The only reason I might consider it at some point will be cost.

Third, if I can't smoke because it's unhealthy for others, please ban flowers (I'm allergic to pollen) and perfume (heavy perfume gives me an instant and very nasty headache).

Fourth, believe it or not, there are actually health benefits to smoking. Granted, none of these would be a reason to begin smoking and there is certainly a risk of cardiovascular disease.

Nicotine increases alertness. This may enhance concentration, thinking and learning.

Nicotine can help relaxation, and it can also reduce negative feelings such as anxiety, tension and anger. So smoking may help people deal with stressful situations.

Nicotine might have an antidepressant effect. Nicotine stimulates dopamine production in part of the brain.

Impact of Smoking on Clinical and Angiographic Restenosis After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention – This large study shows yet another benefit of smoking. This time the benefit concerns restenosis, that is, the occlusion of coronary arteries. Smokers have much better chances to survive, heal and do well.

Severe Gum Recession, Less Of A Risk For Smokers - In the strange world that anti-tobacco has wrought, any research that deviates from the tobacco-is-the-root-of-all-evil template is noteworthy. Here is a study that shows that smokers are actually at lower risk from gum disease.

Smokers have reduced risks of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease - Of the 19 studies, 15 found a reduced risk in smokers, and none found an increased risk. And smoking is clearly associated with a reduced risk of Parkinson's disease, another disease in which nicotine receptors are reduced. The fact that acute administration of nicotine improves attention and information processing in AD patients adds further plausibility to the hypothesis.

Does tobacco smoke prevent atopic disorders? A study of two generations of Swedish residents - "In a multivariate analysis, children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7). Children of fathers who had smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day had a similar tendency (ORs 0.7-0.9)."

Smoking Reduces The Risk Of Breast Cancer - A new study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (May 20, 1998) reports that carriers of a particular gene mutation (which predisposes the carrier to breast cancer) who smoked cigarettes for more than 4 pack years (i.e., number of packs per day multiplied by the number of years of smoking) were found to have a statistically significant 54 percent decrease in breast cancer incidence when compared with carriers who never smoked. One strength of the study is that the reduction in incidence exceeds the 50 percent threshold. However, we think it important to point out that this was a small, case control study (only 300 cases) based on self-reported data.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: Second, I have

Susan wrote:

Second, I have no desire to quit. The only reason I might consider it at some point will be cost.

And that will be because it is taxed to the point where it is cheaper to smoke crack. Oh, wait, it ALREADY IS cheaper to smoke crack.

You go on to defend smoking. The thing is, you don't HAVE to defend it dear. It's your body, do as you please. This is the ONLY fair way to do things.

As far as the details:

1) NOBODY is forced to work 2) NOBODY is forced to work in certain environments and most jobs can be done in a multitude of environments 3) Some jobs have risks, so long as you are aware of these risks when you agree to do the job, you are making personal and econmonic decision to do said job - deal with it or find a different job - you aren't entitled to work here. 4) What anyone puts in their body is their business, not your's, and not the government's. 5) What goes on in your own private establishment is YOUR business and NOBODY else's. If you CHOOSE to let people smoke, they should be allowed to smoke. Same goes for shooting heroine and having gay polygomous sex while on LSD, IMO. I honestly don't see a difference between the two from a civil liberities POV.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Negative right to smoke -

Negative right to smoke - Not irrational
Positive right to smoke - Irrational

But this is true of all negative and positive rights.


Razorcade
ModeratorRRS Core Member
Razorcade's picture
Posts: 79
Joined: 2006-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Ralph 'I'm a smoker, deal with it' Nader

This should be posted on every bar and restaurant throughout the land:

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
1) NOBODY is forced to work 2) NOBODY is forced to work in certain environments and most jobs can be done in a multitude of environments 3) Some jobs have risks, so long as you are aware of these risks when you agree to do the job, you are making personal and econmonic decision to do said job - deal with it or find a different job - you aren't entitled to work here. 4) What anyone puts in their body is their business, not your's, and not the government's. 5) What goes on in your own private establishment is YOUR business and NOBODY else's. If you CHOOSE to let people smoke, they should be allowed to smoke. Same goes for shooting heroine and having gay polygomous sex while on LSD, IMO. I honestly don't see a difference between the two from a civil liberities POV.


Christen
Christen's picture
Posts: 75
Joined: 2006-02-15
User is offlineOffline
An ordinance was just passed

An ordinance was just passed here in Houston making it illegal to smoke anywhere in public, which also means no smoking in bars. I can't drink and not smoke, it's just impossible. It looks like I'll partying at the crib more often now. It's cheaper anyway. I also agree with Yellow #5. The decision should be left up to the business owner.

One judge has even banned a couple from smoking in their own home: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/10336501/detail.html


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Good old-fashioned left-wing

Good old-fashioned left-wing hypocrisy..."Legalize pot! Ban cigarettes!"


DrFear
Posts: 248
Joined: 2006-07-09
User is offlineOffline
we are so law-happy anymore.

we are so law-happy anymore. the solution to every little public nuisance is legislation. and people really seem to get off on the vindication of having their cause championed by some new restriction.
i will say this to the world: i will always want to kill you, and as long as you can be killed, i will have the ability to do so.
die by my cigarette, or die by my hand. Cool Doob

Fear is the mindkiller.


ImmaculateDeception
ImmaculateDeception's picture
Posts: 280
Joined: 2006-11-08
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote:Good

Zhwazi wrote:
Good old-fashioned left-wing hypocrisy..."Legalize pot! Ban cigarettes!"

I don't know about the states, but here in Canada there's just as much of a conservative knee-jerk to instigate these smoking bans as there is a liberal one. The whole thing doesn't really belong to any particular political leaning here.

Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine


Insidium Profundis
Posts: 295
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
I recently voted "no" on the

I recently voted "no" on the proposed cigarette tax here in California. I do not recall if it passed.

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
hmmm..do I sense

hmmm..do I sense libertarians in here? hahahaha.. Eye-wink

I think that private establishments should choose to do what they wish. However, government and public buildings should be strictly non-smoking (which they are) because these places, people do not have a choice to attend (ie court, city hall etc...) and since smoking affects people around you, I do not think it is fair to the non-smokers to have to inhale second hand smoke. I would also include airports, train stations etc..to places where non-smoking should be a rule. Areas where people congregate not because they want to but because they have to. Bars is a different story. An english pub bartender here in Richmond told me.... Having a non-smoking bar is like having a bathroom with no toilet. Smiling

I have smoked for 10 years and quit 3 years ago, cold turkey. One thing I do hate is establishments that allow cigarette smoking but ban cigars. I enjoy a cigare here and there, and I'm always limited to the bars I can go to because most bars ban cigars, due to the fact that it bothers the customers. Well, cigarette smoke bothers me, but I have never seen a bartender ask someone to put their cigarette out at a bar. But I have been asked, on multiple occasions to put out my 8 dollar Perdomo.

and Susan, even though there are health benefits to nicotine, I think that the negative impact of smoking outdoes the positive. And if we do want to use nicotine for theraputic purposes we can isolate the domains of nicotine that are beficial and use them as a patch or pill. Nicotine, btw, is a very toxic chemical in pure form. But...having said that, you do have a choice to smoke, and that choice is strictly yours. I too was a considerate smoker when I did smoke.

In conclusion I will leave you all with this quote.

A smoking section at a bar, is like peeing section in a swimming pool. Use this quote as you will.
Cheers

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
LeftofLarry wrote:hmmm..do I

LeftofLarry wrote:
hmmm..do I sense libertarians in here? hahahaha.. Eye-wink

On this site, everyone is either liberal or classical liberal. Libertarians are everywhere.

Quote:
I think that private establishments should choose to do what they wish. However, government and public buildings should be strictly non-smoking (which they are) because these places, people do not have a choice to attend (ie court, city hall etc...) and since smoking affects people around you, I do not think it is fair to the non-smokers to have to inhale second hand smoke. I would also include airports, train stations etc..to places where non-smoking should be a rule. Areas where people congregate not because they want to but because they have to. Bars is a different story. An english pub bartender here in Richmond told me.... Having a non-smoking bar is like having a bathroom with no toilet. Smiling

Sure, just as long as you can find a way to not tax people to support nonsmoking buildings when they don't want to.

Secondhand smoke is another one of those 20,000 foot molehills. It's a nonissue that people make an issue about. It smells bad, I'll give you that. But by that logic we should outlaw body odor as well. Secondhand smoke is so diluted by the time it reaches you that it's effect is negligible. You can smell it, but other than that, it won't have any significant lasting effect. And if the smell bothers you, hey, factor that into account when you choose where to go.

Private airports? Private train stations? Do they HAVE to ban smoking too? Secondhand smoke should be one more of the cost/benefit factors to be looked at when choosing transportation like cost, speed, reliability, safety, secondhand smoke, possiblity of losing baggage, etc. You don't ban high cost or low speed transportation, why ban transportation with secondhand smoke? It's really pretty absurd.

Quote:
I have smoked for 10 years and quit 3 years ago, cold turkey.

Congradulations. My mom has been trying to quit for years.

Quote:
A smoking section at a bar, is like peeing section in a swimming pool.

Nice analogy.


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:On this site, everyone

Quote:
On this site, everyone is either liberal or classical liberal. Libertarians are everywhere.

I don't think that is true.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
I haven't seen any

I haven't seen any conservatives. I mean, I've only been here a couple months and I mostly post in the politics section, and I haven't seen any conservatives. Of course it's probably not literally everyone that falls into those two but it sure seems like it.

And as long as there are two libertarians on here, and they post in all the forums, or at least most of them, the "Libertarians are everywhere" point is perfectly valid.

I mean, I came here to play with leftists. I've found no shortage of them whatsoever.

And I never implied that they exist in equal or even comparable proportions.

I stand by my statement as long as it's not taken as an absolute literal belief.


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I don't lean either way too

I don't lean either way too heavily. I am somewhere in the middle myself. While I adore some traditions, I am ready to move on from others.


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
I would say that smoking is

I would say that smoking is a right just as taking acetaminophen for pain is a right. I wouldn't say that people should be involuntarily subjected to that smoke, though. If I want to open a smoking venue such as a bar I should be able to do that without fear of the state. Fortunately I live in Idaho, so I can. If it's bad for business that's my problem, but to say that I can't because people are offended by it is to also say that people have a right to never be offended in their life.

In which case this site has to go, because it certainly is offensive to some people some of the time.