I don't smoke. The crusade against smoking irritates me though in many respects. One cited justification for the crusade is the danger of second hand smoke. Here is a new study from the British Medical Journal:

Objective To measure the relation between environmental tobacco smoke, as estimated by smoking in spouses, and long term mortality from tobacco related disease.

Design Prospective cohort study covering 39 years.

Setting Adult population of California, United States.

Participants 118 094 adults enrolled in late 1959 in the American Cancer Society cancer prevention study (CPS I), who were followed until 1998. Particular focus is on the 35 561 never smokers who had a spouse in the study with known smoking habits.

Main outcome measures Relative risks and 95% confidence intervals for deaths from coronary heart disease, lung cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease related to smoking in spouses and active cigarette smoking.

Results For participants followed from 1960 until 1998 the age adjusted relative risk (95% confidence interval) for never smokers married to ever smokers compared with never smokers married to never smokers was 0.94 (0.85 to 1.05) for coronary heart disease, 0.75 (0.42 to 1.35) for lung cancer, and 1.27 (0.78 to 2.08) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among 9619 men, and 1.01 (0.94 to 1.08), 0.99 (0.72 to 1.37), and 1.13 (0.80 to 1.58), respectively, among 25 942 women. No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.

Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.

...

Most epidemiological studies have found that environmental tobacco smoke has a positive but not statistically significant relation to coronary heart disease and lung cancer. Meta-analyses have combined these inconclusive results to produce statistically significant summary relative risks.4–8 However, there are problems inherent in using meta-analysis to establish a causal relation.9–14 The epidemiological data are subject to the limitations described above. They have not been collected in a standardised way, and some relative risks have been inappropriately combined. Because it is more likely that positive associations get published, unpublished negative results could reduce the summary relative risks. Also, the meta-analyses of coronary heart disease omitted the published negative results from the large American Cancer Society cancer prevention study (CPS I). 10 11 We have extended the follow up for the California participants in this cohort, analysed the relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related diseases, and addressed concerns about this study.

...

What this study adds

In a large study of Californians followed for 40 years, environmental tobacco smoke was not associated with coronary heart disease or lung cancer mortality at any level of exposure

These findings suggest that the effects of environmental tobacco smoke, particularly for coronary heart disease, are considerably smaller than generally believed

Active cigarette smoking was confirmed as a strong, dose related risk factor for coronary heart disease, lung cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057

Ok... how about "Smoking is addictive, bad for your health, causes cancer, supports smugling, heavily annoys a LOT of people and promotes slave-like labor in these countries where they grow tobaco?" Good enough reasons to dissallow it IMHO.

Health is only part of it. When I go to a restaurant, I want to taste my food, not someone else's smoke. If I go to a club, I don't want to come home with my hair and clothes reeking of that stench. I'm sick of seeing cigarette butts all over the sidewalks - when were they declared to not be litter?

No one smokes in my house, and my standing rule is that if I ever find a single butt flicked into my garden they won't be allowed to smoke in the yard, either.

A smoker can't help but impose his/her habit on everyone in the area. Why should the non-smoking majority (at least in the US) put up with it? Cigarettes are just plain filthy and have no redeeming qualities. Maybe the real question is why they should be legal in the first place.

Note: My last sentence is NOT an invitation to lecture me on the economic, historic, and traditional aspects of tobacco. I've heard 'em all, and I'm not convinced.

Here is the thing. I understand if you're talking about a public place: subways, airports, etc.

However, the crusaders have gone well beyond public places. They've decided that Joe the private owner of the corner bar may not allow his customers to smoke.

You don't like smoke? Fine, don't go eat at restaraunts that allow smoking. They're privately owned and people don't put a gun to your head to go eat there. You act as if people are imposing something on you and in fact if you go to a privately owned, for example, bar and they allow smoking you're imposing it on yourself.

The fact is the public doesn't care enough to demand non-smoking bars or the economic incentive for them would produce them (they've been attempted and failed in NY as well as LA.) Same with eating out. The difference is there are non-smoking restaraunts because there is a demand for them.

That's why second hand smoking IS the key argument for crusaders. You're talking about more than convenience, you're talking about health. Problem is, the study above seems to deny the evidence of a causal link between health and second hand smoke.

So, it comes down to a matter of personal taste.

The key issue to me is: who the hell are you to tell a private owner of a private business that he may not allow customers who choose to go there and are in no way shape or form forced to go there that they may not smoke cigarettes particularly when you aren't forced to be around them if you don't want to be?

You don't like smoke? Fine, don't go eat at restaraunts that allow smoking.That's exactly what I do. :) An impact of that choice is that clubbing isn't an option for my social life. Fortunately, there are plenty of others.

...when you aren't forced to be around them if you don't want to be? A smoking ban was also implemented (or attempted, at any rate) in Portland, OR. The argument used at the time wasn't about the health and convenience of the non-smoking patrons (who, you correctly point out, have chosen to be where smoking is allowed) but about the employees who are being "forced" to work in a potentially unsafe environment.

I think smoking bans are reasonable even if the health issue proves to be a non-issue. You cannot
bring a dog into a restaurant, and really, if the dog stays down there isn't a health risk. It's a matter of consideration for your fellow customers. The odor may not be appropriate for any place where people gather, and that refers to dogs, smokes, etc.

I just don't buy the evidence that says 2nd hand smoke isn't a health hazard. It stings the eyes and burns the throat. If I choose to undergo that, good for me, but otherwise, I should have the choice to be in public without dealing with it.

Laches, I'm not entirely certain, but I believe that study has been widely criticized due to the researchers being supported by the tobacco industry...

Widely criticized? Not sure about that, but it has been criticized by the American Cancer Society and the U.S. Surgeon General. The "being funded by Tobacco" isn't the nuts and bolts of the criticisms but the study was partially funded by the Center for Indoor Air Research since 1997 which the ACS alleges is a wing of Philip Morris (I haven't seen evidence of this but it may be true, shrug.) This of course is an ad hominem which is a logical fallacy.

The real objections are not logical fallacies and go to the heart of the matter:
http://content.health.msn.com/content/article/64/72529.htm

That said, a guy I know replied better than I could so I'll quote him, he's something of a stats guru:



Response re: believing the study or not.

Any second-hand smoke study I've seen that claims a link has been piss-poor. The latest one (which spawned a thread about a month ago) was blared all over the media - doubling of heart attack risk for non-smokers! When you read the fine print, though, it was for a small town in Montana where the heart attacks went from 6 to 3. Hardly something to hang your hat on, statistically, but that wasn't mentioned in how it was played. The study I spent the longest time dissecting before that found relative risks in the range of about 1.15 to 1 for heart attack and lung cancer for non-smokers married to smokers, and the risk ratios weren't statisticaly significant. Once again, that wasn't part of the press. Small increased risk, but not statistically significant, is what I've come to expect from such studies - that there's an increased risk, but it's negligible.

Anything which questions the accepted status quo (which we all know, after all) is blithely dismissed. It's more about spin, press and headlines than science. That "second-hand smoke kills" is politically important, because it allows people "the rhetoric of the environment, toxic chemicals, and public health rather than the rhetoric of saving smokers from themselves," as one anti-smoking activist noted in 1986. It's as much a part of an agenda as research funded by tobacco companies.

We should be very skeptical of any agenda which is behind a study funded by tobacco companies, but that doesn't mean to ignore the data out of hand and dismiss it completely - that's completely ad hominem. Flaws or not, this is the only long-term cohort study of which I'm aware. The listed flaws are going to be endemic to any study, and have affected my own, amateur analysis as well. To wit, the specific problems are: 1) You can't keep the smoking patterns constant. Someone quits halfway through you don't know what bucket to throw him in. As a result you end up throwing out a big chunk of the results. 2) Tracing overall patterns in smoking's effects on health is difficult. Less people smoke now, but the illness could be related to smoking rates years ago. 3) The rate of lung cancer, for instance, in non-smokers is so small as to make taking any ratios extremely difficult. You divide by a small number, any small changes you make in the denominator, due to sample error, for instance, have huge swings on the risk ratio.

Tobacco has become so demonized in our society that it's completely impossible to make a statement or do a study without embroiling oneself in the agendas involved. In order for me, personally, to be convinced that second-hand smoke causes a measurable, meaningful impact on health, I want to see long-term, controlled studies with statistically significant results. So far, I ain't seen any of that, at all.

........

Taking the previous numbers from a year ago that I came up with for risk of lung cancer to non-smokers, and loading up the risk by 25% per the highest estimate of the Surgeon General -

(repeat all the caveats about consistency of risk, cumulative health effect, etc, plus a caveat in the other direction that these non-smoking lung cancer levels include those exposed to second-hand smoke, raising the risk expressed here)

Base-line cumulative chance of non-smoker getting lung cancer:

Within 5 years - 0.05%
Within 10 years - 0.09%
Within 20 years - 0.19%
Within 30 years - 0.28%
Within 40 years - 0.38%
Within 50 years - 0.47%

Increased 25%:

Within 5 years - 0.06%
Within 10 years - 0.12%
Within 20 years - 0.24%
Within 30 years - 0.36%
Within 40 years - 0.47%
Within 50 years - 0.59%
EDIT - double quoted

In the great country of New Zealand there are laws inplace which prohibits stupid people (well all people but IMO any one who chooses to smoke must be stupit) smoking at all in public places with the exception of bars. Although at present the government are debating about weather or not to implace a law to prehibit smoking in bars.

In the great country of New Zealand there are laws inplace which prohibits stupid people (well all people but IMO any one who chooses to smoke must be stupit) smoking at all in public places with the exception of bars. Although at present the government are debating about weather or not to implace a law to prehibit smoking in bars. This is pretty much what was mentioned above: the demonization of smokers.

And, I wanted to be nice, but please oh PLEASE tell me I'm not the only one who notices the irony of the quoted post about "stupit" smokers and about "weather" or not a law should "prehibit" smoking in bars.

RotKU, please go read the sticky on top of the AoDA thread listing. Such generalizations as you made are not allowed in this forum.

Heh heh, Laches, you found some good irony there, no question!

On smoking, though, I just feel it's really inconsiderate for smokers to subject others to the fumes. I mean, the stuff stinks! I like it when restaurants have it banned, as I should be able to take my family out to dinner without smelling that stuff. I'd say, though, that extending it to bars and clubs is a little on the extreme side.

I've used this example before, and I realize it's extreme, but there would surely be a hue and cry if I brought a skunk into a restaurant where other people were trying to eat! Maybe no long term health effects go along with skunk smell, but it would sure put people off their feed.

I'm sorry about my previous post. I shouldn't of generalised by calling all smokers stupid. And i know I'm not good at spelling but someone has now pointed out to me the link to spellcheck.net so hopefully that should improve.

Let me rephrase what i said above.

In New Zealand there are laws inplace which prohibit people smoking in public places (excluding bars). This is great for non smokers like me. I personally hate the smell of smoke and can't stand to be near anyone who does smoke.

As said in the openning statement The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed. If this study is correct doesn't this mean that there is still a health danger to non-smokers? I think that is as good reason as any for smoking to be band in public places.

@Rallymama
slightly :yot:
Maybe the real question is why they should be legal in the first place. Yes, I do agree with this but someone pointed out a very good arguement to this, to me once. In New Zealand at least, I'm not to sure about any other
country, but smoking of several other substances are illigal...but these laws are not often enforced. Making cigaret smoking illigal might stop a few people smoking but not very many. The laws just wouldn't be enforced by anyone with real power to do so.

1)Depaara and others think smoking is rude in certain contexts. In certain contexts I would agree. However, saying it is rude is different from saying it should be illegal in private venues.

2) If this study is correct doesn't this mean that there is still a health danger to non-smokers? I think that is as good reason as any for smoking to be band in public places.
a) Look at it in a different way. If your odds of winning the lotto are 1 in a billion with one ticket they are 2 in a billion if you buy two tickets. That's a 100% increase right? That's how the increased risk due to second hand smoke works in studies that purport to demonstrate a causal connection. The Surgeon General estimates for example an increased risk of at max 25%. So, to use the lottery example, instead of your odds being 1 in a billion of winning congratulations your odds are now 1.25 in a billion. The difference in odds are statistically meaningless because non-important influences could drastically effect the result simply by happenstance.

b) again, I'm not concerned about smoking in a public place.

Maybe the real question is why they should be legal in the first place This is just me, but I like to believe in freedom. I believe someone ought to be able to put into their own body what they'd like so long as they don't do direct harm to another in the process.

To say the real question is why it should be legal is scary to me. I think we should always begin with the belief that someone should have to show why it should be illegl not vice versa -- but maybe that's just me, shrug.

So, to me, if someone owns a private business and wants to let her patrons smoke - that's their business. No one is forced to go there. If you don't like the smoke - leave. I don't think you have a right though to force your personal dislike onto someone else though who owns a business because you want to eat there and force him to not allow his customers to do what he'd like.

I'm with Laches on the freedom issue. While I believe the presently prohibited drugs do pose a safety risk to society, outlawing something completely should be done very carefully -- if too many health nuts get political power, we could find meat, chocolate and cookies outlawed! They are totally right that these things probably do more bad than good, but I'd sooner live in a world without love than a world without steak (with all due respect to woever wrote the song). :evil:

Rightly or wrongly, I'm feeling a little defensive here. Go back and read my posts and you'll see that my passion is stirred by public smoking. I happen to agree with Laches' approach regarding private enterprise. The only element of that discussion I added was to mention the argument made by the pro-ban side in Oregon.
To say the real question is why it should be legal is scary to me. I think we should always begin with the belief that someone should have to show why it should be illegl not vice versa -- but maybe that's just me, shrug.No, Laches, that's not just you. But why is it that pot is illegal and tobacco and alcohol aren't? My theory comes down to one word: TRADITION. Smoking and alcohol were well-established by the time pot became popular, and they mobilized their lobbies to prevent this newcomer from taking a chunk of the profits. To paraphrase something I said in the "Battle for Sorcerer's Place," the last thing big business ever wants is a level playing ground.

All Hail Rallymama :D

i myself was a smoker at one point and guess what happened? yup, you guessed it, cancer. i'm not sure exactly how it makes you feel because the treatments i recieve are much more painful than the symptoms ever were. i always smoked outside, away from my wife and kids, but to think i could've done this to one of them.....i shudder.

btw...@ Rallymama, guess what plant makes it possible for me to eat, sleep and not convulse violently every ten minutes?

@Greenlion: First, many good wishes for a speedy and thorough recovery!

And regarding marijuana, I pointed out in a different thread that *it* - unlike tobacco - at least has some beneficial medical applications...

I agree with Rallymama on tobacco. My own two cents consists of adding that it's strange to even consider allowing people to make use of their rights in a way that harms other people. My own view is irrelevant, but most people don't care if someone is addicted and can't wait till he gets home or not.

Unless it's labelled 'smoking allowed' place, of course, indoor smoking in public should be banned.

What I hate more than smoke in a closed space is people not washing themselves and walking all over and around. And the worst is that they can't legally be forced to start washing.

Chevy's got the right of it -- indoors, even at restaurants, if one person decides to smoke, he has made the decision for everyone. I have no problem with people smoking 19 packs a day as long as they do it in their own house. I have the right to choose not to smoke. I don't care how good the ventilation is indoors, it's still not enough. It comes down to basic consideration for my fellow man.

@ Laches
I believe someone ought to be able to put into their own body what they'd like so long as they don't do direct harm to another in the process. What about suicide? Should that be made legal? And anyway as I said before the studies above show second-hand smoking does cause harm to others . Even though this harm might be minor, so might punching someone in the face. You might only break their nose, but hay what does it matter, it will get better within a month or so.
Don't think so. Second hand smoke is just as bad as any other thing which causes harm in any way to others, wether (sp?) it be muder, man slaughter or asult (spelling again?). They are all the same in the end.

I think we should always begin with the belief that someone should have to show why it should be illegl not vice versa Can you tell me why shooting some one in the head with a gun is illigal? Or flying and airoplane into a skyscraper is illigal?

@ Depaara
I have no problem with people smoking 19 packs a day as long as they do it in their own house. My self, I don't even think this should be allowed. I hate walking through the streets and been able to smell smoke on people before I can see them. It's horrible (IMHO).

What about suicide? Should that be made legal?What's the LEGAL (not moral, ethical, religious, psychological, etc.) basis for suicide being illegal, anyway? Seriously - I've wondered this for most of my life and no one has ever been able to give me a concrete answer.

I am a smoker on aregular basis although i don't smoke more than 10 to 12 cigarretes per day.
I do believe that the anti-smoking campaign has a well intentioned basis since i can't and must not put others who don't want to smoke into this. But i think the whole thing is getting a little bit hysterical. I mean smokers are people too why some people tend to forget that and treat them like nazis did the Jews i understand the need for self protection but i never light a cigarrete without asking if someone is against and that should be enough if he/she says no it is a no. :cool:

RotKu, thank you for proving part of my point. You compare smoking with punching someone in the nose, murder, and the terrorist attacks on the world trade center -- the demonization of smoking. The comparisons are so ridiculous that I'm repeatedly kicking myself for wasting my time to point that out.

If you can't see the difference between me walking up to someone on the street and punching them in the nose without warning and me walking into a private bar, asking the owner of that private bar if it would be ok for me to smoke, the owner giving me permission to smoke, and then me lighting up -- you have a serious problem. One case involves permission, the other doesn't. A more closely analagous example would be boxing, where two people agree to allow someone to hit them -- that is not illegal is it? With second hand smoke, if you don't want to be exposed, you don't have to. Remember, this isn't about smoking in public places, this is about smoking in private places. You walk into a bar, there is smoking, NO ONE FORCES YOU TO STAY, so if you stay YOU are exposing yourself to second hand smoke.

The analogy breaks down however because in boxing someone is sure to get hurt. With second hand smoking, it isn't sure that ANY harm is caused. EVEN the studies which purport to demonstrate a causal link study the SPOUSES of smokers for YEARS. Then, they ignore NUMEROUS DEFICIENCIES and claim a MINISCULE increase in the risk -- with boxing there is a certain injury, with second hand smoke there is a MINISCULE increase in your RISK of injury. Again, like shown above, an increase of 25% to a miniscule number is still a miniscule number. AND AGAIN, the other comprehensive study rejects ANY evidence of an increased risk.

And I can't emphasize this enough, who the hell are you to tell someone that he is not allowed to let his patrons smoke in his privately owned bar which he paid for, opened, and works at? You aren't forced to go there if you don't want to and if you don't like smoke LEAVE.

You don't like the smell of smoke on people? This is a different issue than second hand smoke. This isn't second hand smoke at all. This is smell. If you support smoking bans because you don't like the smell of people who smoke then you should be willing to make it illegal for people to not bathe regularly and use deoderant.

You not liking the smell of someone who smokes is a perfectly legitimate reason to not date someone. It is a perfectly legitimate reason for you to not like smoking. For you to want to make it illegal for someone to do something in his private business because you dislike the way it may smell is, imo, the height of arrogance.

Rallymama, as far a suicide being illegal, I'll wing a possible legal justification here: while suicide is illegal, I am unaware of anyone ever being charged with suicide as a crime (for obvious reasons) or attempted suicide. (EDIT - limiting this to a reasonable time frame) It is a federal crime to make fun of a post office mailman but it isn't a burning issue because it isn't as if the guys on Cheers were arrested - it is a law on the books but it is moot because it is never applied.

So, I'm unaware of the suicide law ever being applied to anyone who attempts it on her own behalf. The reason they may wish to keep it though is that it will allow them to charge someone as an accomplice. I take it that there are a number of different reasons why the law might want to not allow people to assist in suicide and by retaining the law this permits them to deter the practice of assisting others to commit suicide. One reason is becaue once someone is dead it is rather difficult to determine whether their consent to the assisted suicide was genuine. There might be a signed paper or video but all that could be made or performed under duress, instability, etc. On the other hand, if someone commits suicide alone these concerns are not present, we can be more certain there wasn't undue coercion involved.

There are other legal justifications available of course, but that's just one.

For the record, I think physician assisted suicide should be decriminalized (but probably only physician assisted suicide because only in a case this formal would we be able to assure ourselves that it actually is the patient's will being done) as well as euthenasia and would legalize all sorts of other things as well -- but it's drifting off topic.

EDIT --



I've used this example before, and I realize it's extreme, but there would surely be a hue and cry if I brought a skunk into a restaurant where other people were trying to eat! Maybe no long term health effects go along with skunk smell, but it would sure put people off their feed. Looking back over the thread, I wante to tie this quote in. I just wanted to point out that I'm not saying that you should put up with smoking in a restaurant if you don't like it. You should speak to the management if you want. Then, if you don't like it, you should leave. Kick and scream all you want - you can even be one of those people who walks up and says "what a disgusting habit." But if the owner of the restaurant wants to allow her patrons to smoke, he should have that legal right since you aren't forced to go there. If the owner of the restaurant wants to allow a skunk in the place, you aren't forced to eat there either. Health code violations for animals are justified on reasons other than they don't smell nice.

[ May 30, 2003, 17:42: Message edited by: Laches ]

You have some good points, Laches. I guess that it has to be admitted that even in a bar that a restaurant owner has opened with his own resources, he still has to follow certain rules regarding places where people are likely to gather, like liquor laws, capacity requirements, etc. He also needs to have his right to forbid certain actions (like smoking, for example) entrenched by law. In Edmonton, my former hometown, they came up with a sort of compromise -- a restaurant owner could opt to allow smoking, but then he had to ban kids -- family places HAD to be smoke free. This addresses the issue, but not all that well, IMHO.

I see it as an effort to protect the rights of non smokers -- rights that many (not all) smokers have shown little regard for over the past several decades. It may inconvenience the smokers, but I don't see it as an infringement on their rights -- they are still free to smoke in a lot of places, like their homes, cars, parks, streets, etc.

See, I perceive it primarily not as an infringement on the right of the smokers but as an infringement on any citizen to run her private business.

I've got to chime in: Rights of non-smokers to do what? As Laches has emphasized over and over, we are discussing private places. A non-smoker has the right to avoid places that allow smoking. He shouldn't have the right to dictate to people what they can and cannot do in private places. Put simply, don't go to private places where there's smoking if you don't want second hand smoke. And remember, we're talking about privately owed establishments, not the post office or a train station.

As I mentioned earlier, even if a restaurant is privately owned, it is still subject to certain laws regarding a place that people gather. You can't have strippers at a McDonalds, and that's not just McDonald's policy. McDonald's also does not serve alcohol. In some areas, the McDonald's is indepecantly owned and operated, but the owner still can't just serve liquor there. No one complains about these issues or regulations. What I'm saying is that the majority of people support the alcohol, sanitary and capacity regulations, and they also seem to support the smoking regulations. They think it's reasonable to ask people not to blow smoke into air everyone shares.

McDonald's can't serve liquor because it is part of the contract between the individual franchise owner and the McDonald's corporation - not because there is a law which says McDonalds is not allowed to serve alcoholic beverages. The owner of the establishment approached the corporation (or his predecessor in interest) and he made a deal - if McDonald's would allow him to open a franchise he would do certain things, not serving alcohol is one of them. Ditto with strippers though perhaps zoning restrictions would apply but the primary thing preventing the individual owner from opting for them is she has already agreed not to have them.

Sanitary regulations are there for health reasons - the beginning of this thread was about showing that there is no evidence of a compelling health reason to ban second hand smoking in private areas and even the studies that purport to demonstrate second hand smoke does cause health problems are 1) of highly suspect validity and 2) even if we assume they are valid the increased risk is negligible. So, all that is left is that people don't like the smell. Ditto regulations governing capacity.

Also, suppose I grant you that there are other regulations that do restrict an individual owner's right to run her business as she would like - as is obviously the case. From that it does not follow that the imposition by the government of its own moral prefernces in the instance of second hand smoke is acceptable does it - particularly given there isn't adequate evidence of a health hazard?

I am very allergic to soybeans. This is one of the most common allergies in North America- almost as common as peanut allergies.

I have a right to eat in Chinese restaurants. It's a free country. It's not my fault people like foods to have soy sauce and tofu in them. All soybean products should be banned from all restaurants to protect people like me. If people need to eat soy so badly, they can do it at home, rather than endanger my health by doing it in a restaurant. But really, the government should ban soybeans outright. I mean, all kinds of health risks have been associated with soybeans (http://www.mercola.com/article/soy/avoid_soy.htm). Eating a food that's clearly bad for your health is a disgusting, dirty habit. Stop allowing citizens to endanger their health and that of others!

Besides, what if the only restaurant in town is a Chinese restaurant, and my only qualifications are to work as a waitress? The restaurant's refusal to stop serving soybean products is preventing me from having a safe job! And if the restaurant goes out of business because no one wants to eat Chinese food that doesn't have soy sauce in it, that's not my problem, is it?

I've no problem with private establishments being able to allow addicts to congregate and partake of their drug of choice.

What I'd like to see are laws enacted and enforced that prevent these addicts from stinking up public places. I hate having to wade through a cloud of fumes around entrances to buildings that are smoke-free. I hate driving down the road on a beautiful spring day after a rain when the world should smell all fresh and new and finding myself behind a rude individual with a stench-stick hanging out the window. I hate watching as that same person flicks the lit remains into the street, or upon lighting up with the last of a pack, tossing the empty pack out the window.

The last time I checked, the streets were a public place. Why are they allowed to treat the rest of us so rudely?

Also, suppose I grant you that there are other regulations that do restrict an individual owner's right to run her business as she would like - as is obviously the case. From that it does not follow that the imposition by the government of its own moral prefernces in the instance of second hand smoke is acceptable does it - particularly given there isn't adequate evidence of a health hazard?
Because the citizens have given the government that right. In some countries, if you don't like the moral preferences that the government is imposing on you/others, you can make an effort to change the government. Out with the old, in with the new. If it's a big enough issue, the people responsible can be voted out of office and replaced with people more sympathetic to your views.

What BigStick mentioned is true -- for years people have put up with the smoke wafting over to their tables from the smoker's area. Enough people are tired of it and have put the pressure on the government to make the change. It's an issue where one side or the other is going to be inconvenienced in some way, and now it's the smoker's turn.

As for zoning laws, that's exactly why certain establishments can't do certain things -- they don't have the licence or permission to do those things -- government regulation of the workplace. Often these regs don't have to do with physical health but for the convenience of the society at large (for instance, city council will not approve a strip club next door to an elementary school)

I just plain don't like to have smoke blown in my face. Those who do so are ignorant and rude, showing very little respect for my rights (see my comment on the skunk above. I fail to see why they cannot control themselves for an hour in order to be somewhat considerate of others.

Smoking on passenger airlines has been band (sp?) is it not? There use to be a smoking / non-smoking section on most airliners but not any more. Why can this also be done to bars and restraunts, considering airliners are quiet often publicly owned?
I just plain don't like to have smoke blown in my face. Those who do so are ignorant and rude, showing very little respect for my rights Those who do most of the time can't smell the smell because they've lived with it for such a long time.
If you can't see the difference between me walking up to someone on the street and punching them in the nose without warning and me walking into a private bar, asking the owner of that private bar if it would be ok for me to smoke, the owner giving me permission to smoke, and then me lighting up -- you have a serious problem. It would probably be better to say "me walking up to someone and punching them in the nose with warning " because not once in my previous post did i say that it was without warning. I said that it is exactly (sp?) the same. This is perfectly true, they both cause harm to others. Although one might be less harm than the other they are both a health risk.

So yes i guess I must have a serious problem. But you must also have a serious problem if you can not see the simularity between the two.

Airline = public.

Restaurant, bar, club = private.

Get it? Got it? Good.

Also, I foolishly characterized smoking bans as a government enforced moral ban. That's silly of me. Given the justification is second hand smoke, and there isn't evidence of a health risk posed by it (and even the purported evidence demonstrates less of a risk to those living with smokers their entire life than breathing the air throughout the US) it becomes purely a matter of taste.

This thread seems set in its ways, so I'm just going to requote this and sit back and watch I guess:

Anything which questions the accepted status quo (which we all know, after all) is blithely dismissed. It's more about spin, press and headlines than science. That "second-hand smoke kills" is politically important, because it allows people "the rhetoric of the environment, toxic chemicals, and public health rather than the rhetoric of saving smokers from themselves," as one anti-smoking activist noted in 1986. It's as much a part of an agenda as research funded by tobacco companies.

No, Laches, some airlines are privatly owned and they still aren't allowed a non-smoking / smoking section. A Public owned thing is something which is owned by the government. In most cases (that I know of) airlines as well as railways and a lot of other forms of transport (such as buses and taxis) are NOT publicly owned.

[ June 01, 2003, 04:49: Message edited by: RotKU ]

In your first post on airlines you note the fact that they're public and now you're arguing they're private -- I think you're confused.

Setting that aside, are you really trying to compare the airline industry to restaurants by saying that since these sometimes privately owned massive industries that serve the public with the aid of massive government support aren't allowed to let people smoke then the mom and pop restaurant and bar with hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands... of alternative should be treated the same? I'm sorry, but that's silliness.

Consider:

Government officials have a $7 billion expansion and renovation plan for Hartsfield slated to be completed by 2010. The plan calls for the addition of an international terminal, a consolidated rental car facility, the construction of a south domestic terminal, expansion of the existing terminal, and other airfield improvements and support facilities.

The highlight of the plan is the construction of a fifth runway that will cost $1.5 billion and extend over the southern portion of Interstate 285. City officials say that a fifth runway is imperative to keep the world's busiest and fastest-growing airport competitive and operating efficiently in the future.

About 200,000 passengers pass through Hartsfield daily, or 78 million per year. That annual total is expected to mushroom to 121 million people by 2005, while takeoffs and landings are expected to jump to 2,700 per day from 2,500, according to airport officials.

Since city officials have started the eminent domain process, the airport, which pumps about $9 billion into the local economy, can seize land that might be in the way of expansion.
How many restaurants get $7 Billion in public funds pumped into them and benefit from the grant of eminent domain? Eminent domain is a power unique to the government or those it grants the power to because they serve the public sector. The airlines get their airports through public funding, they get billions in public emergency funds, they receive the benefit of eminent domain and other powers and so they are heavily regulated because of their function of serving millions and the public benefits they receive. There are relatively few alternatives.

Restaurants and bars on the other hand are numerous with many to choose from on the same block, don't receive billions upon billions from the government, and they don't receive the benefit of eminent domain and other special favors generally reserved for the state.

Really, the airline industry is totally unrelated to a discussion of whether we should allow individual owners of small restaurants and bars to allow their patrons to smoke if they so choose - yet you are trying to draw a non-existent comparison.

Sorry about that first post on airlines I meant private not public, my mistake.

Airliners (to my knowledge) do not get $7 million government grants. In the example about you are talking about an airport. Airports are usually owned by the central or local government not by the private airlines. The airlines pay a fee to use the airports they do not own them.

IMO airlines and small public bars and restruants are not completly unrelated. What I was saying before is that if a government can put bans on smoking on airoplanes then why can't they also do this to small bars and restruants

Airlines pay a small pittance to "rent" their space -- the benefit of the quote flows to them.
Also:

The bailout plan adopted by Congress provides for $5 billion in direct grants to airlines, plus an additional $10 billion in loan guarantees. The specific subsidies are to be worked out by a new federal board consisting of the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, the secretaries of transportation and treasury, and the comptroller general.
Again, restaurants and bars do not receive billions upon billions of public funds nor do they serve a crucial public function nor are there a limited number to choose from.

It's a poor comparison imo.

Governments still give restruants grants. It's just as you said there are more to choose from so there fore one particular restruant/bar/cafe/what-ever-else-we're-talking-about doesn't receive the millions. Instead it is spread around the different restruants.
IMO it is a perfectly good comparison. As I have said before, they are both (usually) privatly owned industries (is this the right word?). In one there is a smoking ban and in one you are saying that by putting in a smokeing ban it will be a breach of your "freedom".

Laches, I'm curious because in other respects I think we're 100% in agreement on this issue. Why do you think that a government should prevent me from spending my own money starting a hypothetical company called Cigar Airways, a luxury airline service that serves liquor and cigars while flying tourists from one Caribbean island to another? An airport is owned by the public more or less, so I'm fine with a no-smoking ban there, but if I own a tiny independent airline myself I think the government should keep its dirty nose out. Just the same as if I used my private yacht for paid cruises and let my paying guests smoke.

Incidentally, airlines try to present their no smoking policy as a safety issue, but the real motivation initially was to reduce the costs of cleaning the cabins. They could use a smaller cleaning staff if they didn't have to empty ashtrays and scrub off nicotine stains between flights, so ending smoking in-flight allowed them to make some cost-saving layoffs while making them look like safety-conscious heroes. I did a really interesting case study on this in business school; it was eye-opening to read the history of this business decision.