2nd Hand Smoke - Page 14 - Politics and Economics

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Politics

2nd Hand Smoke

...

Page 14 of 59

First

4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 24 34

Last

Page 14 of 59

First

4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 24 34

Last

03-13-2012 , 12:22 PM

#326

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWetzel

Let's say you're in the fifth row at the boxing match. Is it OK if Mike Tyson comes out of the ring and punches you in the face? That would be a more apt comparison.

Wait so when you go to a bar you're like totally surprised when the smoke gets near you?

03-13-2012 , 12:23 PM

#327

Goodie

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 5,694

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

OK. what about bars?

Is this a serious question? Bars are public places. Wat?

03-13-2012 , 12:23 PM

#328

jjshabado

Carpal Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 22,732

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goodie

One person mentioned it and I think it's a decent analogy. Do you think that property owners should be allowed to use asbestos? The rights of them to use asbestos is being infrindged upon but it's for the greater good. I think this is a very similar argument.

Me too. But the onus is on the people that want to restrict asbestos to show that using asbestos is dangerous and outweighs the benefit of using asbestos.

03-13-2012 , 12:24 PM

#329

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goodie

Is this a serious question? Bars are public places. Wat?

wait, where do you live? Glorious Republic of Socialized Boozing?

03-13-2012 , 12:25 PM

#330

Goodie

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 5,694

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

I mean, I care personally. I don't think the purpose of "laws" is "to make my personal preferences the rules for everyone."

I agree. However, banning smoking inside public places is for the common good. There are WAY more non-smokers that are adversively affected than smokers adversively affected. It's not for my personal preference.

03-13-2012 , 12:26 PM

#331

Jake7777

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 7,466

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjshabado

Um... the same as the right to 100% control my wall colour?

I mean, shouldn't the default position be - "The person that owns the property can do what they want with it"? And if that's the case isn't it necessary to show why doing something with the property shouldn't be allowed when you want to make that activity illegal?

not when you are using that property for commerce, no it shouldn't be the default position. The idea that consumers have a meaningful choice and that that is a remedy against smoking hazards is fallacious since you are assuming that consumers are aware and totally read up on the dangers of 2nd hand smoke/asbestos/anything you want to regulate and you can use that faulty logic to excuse just about any "private" business practice.

03-13-2012 , 12:26 PM

#332

Goodie

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 5,694

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjshabado

Me too. But the onus is on the people that want to restrict asbestos to show that using asbestos is dangerous and outweighs the benefit of using asbestos.

Fair enough. However, with asbestos and smoking it's painfully obvious that the dangers outweigh the uses for both. Smoking has absolutely no use whatsoever. I'd hasten to guess that at least 80% of SMOKERS don't want to smoke.

03-13-2012 , 12:27 PM

#333

DWetzel

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 42,349

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjshabado

Ah, see I believe the onus should be on the people that are infringing on other people's rights. *

Your point is certainly valid for the smoking in public buildings argument.

Edit: * - Just to be clear the people in this debate that are being infringed upon are the propery owners. It is NOT the smokers or non-smokers.

Except that you're ignoring that the smokers ARE, in fact, infringing on other people's rights by their very actions -- unless you think it's okay to cause other people health issues by your own actions and they shouldn't have any recourse.

As I mentioned earlier, if you want to come up with a rational system that doesn't involve pvn ranting about ZOMG GUBERMINT INFRINGING ON MAH FREEDUMZ TO BLOW SMOKE IN YOUR FACE, I'm all ears.

Or, unless you think that somehow entering a private place gives some random third party consent to injure your health, I guess.

03-13-2012 , 12:27 PM

#334

Namath12

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 55,849

Speaking of "smoking in the privacy of your own home," when I was in law school I interned with a family law attorney who had managed to win custody for quite a few of his clients based on the fact that the other parent was a smoker. (He also handled my own divorce and custody fight and the fact that my ex smokes and I do not was a contributing factor to me getting full custody though the biggest factor was the complete lunacy of my ex but that's a different thread.)

So yeah, if you wanna spend time with your kid in many states you can't even smoke in the privacy of your own home.

More on that:

http://www.smartdivorce.com/articles/smoking.shtml

Quote:

Secondhand Smoke and Child Custody
Secondhand smoke, also called environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), can have an impact on child custody decisions. The possible consequences of parental smoking in a custody case can range from termination of parental rights or a change of custody and restrictions on visitation to the smoking parent receiving custody with smoking restrictions and a requirement for follow up reports to the court.

First, here are a few facts about secondhand smoke that courts have already taken judicial notice of.

Secondhand smoke consists of mainstream smoke exhaled from a smoker's lungs and sidestream smoke that comes directly from the burning tobacco.

Secondhand smoke comes from all tobacco products, including pipe tobacco and cigars.

Secondhand smoke is a Class A carcinogen. That puts it in a class with 15 other substances, including asbestos, radon and benzene, that are known to cause cancer in human beings.

Secondhand smoke contains 4,000 substances with more than 40 of them known to cause cancer and many of them known to be strong irritants to human tissues and organs. Examples of these substances are: carbon monoxide (CO), ammonia, nicotine, hydrogen cyanide, benzo[a]pyrene, dimethylnitrosamine, tar, formaldehyde, and beta-naphthylamine.

The chemicals in secondhand smoke damage cell DNA.

03-13-2012 , 12:27 PM

#335

DWetzel

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 42,349

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

Wait so when you go to a bar you're like totally surprised when the smoke gets near you?

You're missing the point.

03-13-2012 , 12:28 PM

#336

jjshabado

Carpal Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 22,732

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jake7777

Lol, read my post again.

03-13-2012 , 12:30 PM

#337

Jake7777

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 7,466

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjshabado

Lol, read my post again.

why? what did I miss? you are arguing that the default position for private property should be that the owner can do what they want with it. I don't think that's the case when it comes to private property used for commerce.
edit - I don't disagree that the onus should be on the people proposing a ban if that's what you're referring to

03-13-2012 , 12:31 PM

#338

DWetzel

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 42,349

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goodie

I'd be very careful about using the "more people are affected" argument here. I don't think it's something you want to really use, and besides it's not really necessary.

03-13-2012 , 12:31 PM

#339

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWetzel

Except that you're ignoring that the smokers ARE, in fact, infringing on other people's rights by their very actions

Are smokers coming into your house and blowing smoke in your face?

Are you compelled to visit Joe's Smoking Lounge?

03-13-2012 , 12:32 PM

#340

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWetzel

You're missing the point.

No, I get your point. You want people to do what you want whenever you're around them.

03-13-2012 , 12:32 PM

#341

DWetzel

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 42,349

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

Are smokers coming into your house and blowing smoke in your face?

Are you compelled to visit Joe's Smoking Lounge?

If I want to set up a machine gun an inch off your property line that continuously fires at random but frequent intervals, are you compelled to ever leave your house?

03-13-2012 , 12:33 PM

#342

jjshabado

Carpal Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 22,732

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWetzel

Or, unless you think that somehow entering a private place gives some random third party consent to injure your health, I guess.

We've all agreed that this is the case for private homes (at least I haven't seen anyone disagree with it). It's also true for lots of other semi-public places (if I go to a paintball place I'm consenting for a random third party to injure my health).

So I'm not sure why you treat it as a fact that it isn't ok in some cases and doesn't require a cost/benefit analysis (like any law we pass).

03-13-2012 , 12:33 PM

#343

DWetzel

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 42,349

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

No, I get your point. You want people to do what you want whenever you're around them.

nope, try again

Last edited by DWetzel; 03-13-2012 at 12:33 PM. Reason: (Hint: Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins)

03-13-2012 , 12:33 PM

#344

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWetzel

Or, unless you think that somehow entering a private place gives some random third party consent to injure your health, I guess.

Does signing up for a boxing match give some third party consent to injure you?

03-13-2012 , 12:34 PM

#345

Jake7777

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 7,466

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

Are smokers coming into your house and blowing smoke in your face?

Are you compelled to visit Joe's Smoking Lounge?

if there are no other places of businesses that are smoke free in a given area then yes you would be.

Same with discrimination, which we dealt with in Heart of Atlanta motel v. United States:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_o..._United_States

03-13-2012 , 12:34 PM

#346

NMcNasty

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 3,990

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

wait, where do you live? Glorious Republic of Socialized Boozing?

People use different definitions of the word "public".

The public has access to a McDonald's so in some sense that's a public place. Legally he's incorrect, but as has already been shown, your black and white views on property don't legally match up either.

03-13-2012 , 12:34 PM

#347

jjshabado

Carpal Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 22,732

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jake7777

So you think the Government should be able to pass any law that they want restricting activities on private property and its up to a property owner to argue that the activity doesn't hurt people? That seems pretty insane and ass-backwards to me.

I mean if a Government really liked the colour red and demanded that all bars be painted red, you wouldn't have a problem with this?

Edit: Bah, I see your edit now, so ignore this.

03-13-2012 , 12:38 PM

#348

DWetzel

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 42,349

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjshabado

Yes, but you're not also consenting to Acid Man running through the paintball arena and throwing acid in your face. Or are you?

Also, please discuss this concept of semi-public with pvn, I'm sure he'll be thrilled to hear about it.