I'm an ex-smoker. I hate the smell of smoke, and hate being around it. I believe second hand smoke IS dangerous. I believe cigarettes are addictive, and the companies that make them rely on that fact for sales. They have no intention of making cigarettes less addictive.

That being said, I also think everyone above the age of 8 knows cigarettes will kill you eventually. People still, for whatever reason, choose to smoke. It's their right to smoke. It's the rights of businesses to decide if they want to allow smoking. It's your right to decide if you want to work at or patronize businesses that allow smoking. It's not the government's. Unless, of course, it's a public building.

The government has no business telling someone where they can or can't smoke in regards to private property.

Assualting somebody is also dangerous. Given your reasoning above should we belive "the government has no business telling someone where they can or can't" assuault another person "in regards to private property"?

But there's workplace safety at question here. If second-hand smoke is really so dangerous (which hasn't been properly documented) how can a bar owner, for instance, be allowed to subject their workers to it? "The workers can choose not to work there" is the argument against this, as far as I can tell. My answer is: why should the workers have to choose not to work there? The employees should have legal justification to demand "stop subjecting me to smoke, but I still want a paycheque."

John: Assault removes someone's free will and choice from the equation. The two aren't comparable.

dowingba: You're argument is based on the assumption that it's ok for the government to regulate free will. Find a job that doesn't allow smoking.

Then they should eliminate minimum wage while they're at it. Oh and every worker-safety law in existence. Karl Marx was right: capitalism does just fling around workers like currency.

I'd fly with dumping minimum wage. Worker safety is another issue, though. As I said before, it's about choice. Often, public safety issues aren't overt, thus choice is removed.

Low-level jobs get filled because low-income people have no choice but to take them. If you eliminate minimum wage, suddenly you'll have a country full of sweat shops. The great class-divide will widen to unprecedented levels as it is split between absolutely high-level positions and absolutely low-level sweatshop conditions.

I'll say it again: people have to work in low-level positions. Not everyone has the luxury of saying "this job is unsafe/unhealthy, I'm going to get another job." What if there was no such thing as a business that disallowed smoking? It would certainly become quite rare, especially in the food-industry, as allowing smoking would certainly increase profits. The absence of government-regulation basically ensures that people will be forced to breathe toxic fumes until their deathbed, just because they are in a lower economic class than someone else.

That's one way of thinning the welfare class. It works for me.

Yeah and without a lower class the upper-class will sure be able to survive. Yep.

We'll just put to work all the mexican's that the liberals are giving licenses to.

Geoffrey,

How is my example incongruent? If a smoker in proximity to a non-smoker "lights up" you might argue the non-smoker has the choice to leave, however why should they have to? The smoker is undertaking an action that is dangerous to both parties. The non-smoker is doing nothing to harm the smoker, yet they are forced to leave if they desire safety. All your argument says is a person's choice to indulge in a personal luxury supersedes a person's choice to safety. In effect, the non-smoker's choice to stay has been alleviated, thus giving them no choice at all.

My example is an accurate comparison. Oliver Wendell Holmes once said about individual rights " The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." In this case, the right to smoke ends where the other man's nose begins.

Smokers should have no right to smoke around any party who desires otherwise, as the only utility to be derived from the situation is what the smoker gains from the experience, which is also at the expense of those desiring to maintain their health if such action is performed around non-smokers.

I can sum the entire situation up in a few words: Smoking is stupid and you have no right to do so around me.

It actually has nothing to do with the smoker. It has to do with the business owner. He should have the freedom to run the type of establishment he chooses.

If I'm allergic to cologne, should it be illegal because it harms me?

If I can't swim, should water be drained from pools so I can go?

If you don't like smoke, don't go to places that allow smoking.

If I'm outside, where let's face it: second-hand smoke is a non-issue, I use common courtesy to not smoke near somebody else. For instance if I'm in a crowd waiting for the walk signal to come on at an intersection, I'm not gonna light up right there and then.

But outside, second-hand smoke is not an issue. It simply isn't. If I'm sitting at a picnic table and one of the self-righteous anti-smokers Dean is talking about walks by and says something to me...boy will I give them a piece of my mind.

If alcoholism is a disease, so is smoking. Anyone who has smoked for any length of time and (at least tried to) quit knows it's alot easier for someone to walk away from dreaded second-hand smoke than it is for the evil smoker to simply not smoke.

If someone with a cold walks near me I'm not gonna start screaming at them, so why should smoking be different?

Geoffrey: a workplace can't have toxic waste dripping from the walls, so why do you think they should be able to have toxic waste flying through the air? Humans need to breathe in order to live, in case you haven't noticed. A workplace isn't allowed to force me to cut off my hand, and yet you say they should be able to force me to cut up my lungs? There are certain rules that are accepted because they make perfect sense. A business isn't the same as a person's house. It is, in the eyes of the law, a different type of property. By regulating smoking-priveleges in places of business, they are not infringing on anyone's rights. They are infringing on the business's rights in order to secure people's rights. What is more valuable? Money or human life?

A person's right to chose.

By your logic, they should ban smoking everywhere. It should be illegal to smoke around your spouse. It should be illegal to smoke in your house unless you live alone. It should be illegal to smoke at a picnic table outside. It should be illegal to smoke anytime you are not alone.

John:

Geof's point was in regard to private property.
Are you suggesting that the goverment has a right to tell people what they can do within their private property?

Law is always an exercize in balancing individual and societal rights. Even though it infringes on my individual freedom, I am not allowed to murder someone, even in my own home, because otherwise greater society's right to live would be negated.

You're making unbelievable stretches to maintain your balance on a point you're finding difficult to defend.

Democracy is about majority rule and minority rights. Consequently, individuals are not allowed complete freedom. Democracy only allows the individual to be as free as they might be without compromising the rights of the majority.

In this case, the smoke generated from cigarettes compromises the health of all people. Ironically, even the smoker's health is compromised in this case. All people clearly meets the definition of majority.

Smokers choose to smoke. People with colds do no choose to be sick. People who are allergic to cologne are not the majority. Swimming pools are not mobile, meaning a swimming pool can not infringe upon your personal rights by forcing you to take a swim. A non-swimmer could sit next to a swimming pool without suffering harm. A non-smoker in many cases can not sit next to a person smoking without suffering harm. Even outside, I find smoke objectionable within a certain proximity.

Certainly, if an establishment was founded and clearly defined as a sanctuary for smokers, they might all go there without compromising the rigths of other patrons. All parties entering would clearly understand they are about to compromise their health. While I conjecture this is stupid, it would certainly be more acceptable than allowing smoking in a restaurant, where both non-smokers and smokers might like to visit, as it is a place to eat, not smoke.

Unbelievable stretches? See the swimming pool entry supra.

If an establishment was founded and clearly defined as a sanctuary for non-smokers, they might all go there without compromising the rights of smoking patrons. All parties entering would clearly understand they are about to give up their right to smoke.

Should we found restaurants for non-assaulting patrons as well? See majority rule supra. Smokers are not the majority, therefore your individual freedom does not supersede my health.

Again, who is stretching now?

assault is against the law. Again, it is you that is stretching.

Rosemary,

No, I am only speaking of situations where a smoker and non-smoker are juxtapositioned such that the non-smoker might inahale second hand smoke against their wishes.

In this case, the smoke generated from cigarettes compromises the health of all people. Ironically, even the smoker's health is compromised in this case. All people clearly meets the definition of majority.

This is a completely unproven statement. Furthermore, it CAN'T be proven.

"Even the infamous EPA Report of 1993 testified more to the safety of secondary smoke than to its danger. According to the EPA figures themselves, a nonsmoker living with a smoker for 30 to 40 years would have better than a 99.9% chance of not getting lung cancer from such long-term and constant exposure (based upon the claimed 19% increase over the base rate of .4%)."

No, I am only speaking of situations where a smoker and non-smoker are juxtapositioned such that the non-smoker might inahale second hand smoke against their wishes.

I find it impossible to imagine that a non-smoker would be put in that situation.
With all the laws as they are now. I see no need for any other governmental interference.

Assault is against the law.

Is it not against the law to let people smoke in restaurants where you live? Or in workplaces, as a whole?

Is it not against the law to let people smoke in restaurants where you live? Or in workplaces, as a whole?

No, it's not.
Some workplaces - not all of them though. Not mine.

If you want to compare the act, compare the act. Again, using your logic, smoking anywhere should be against the law.

Perhaps you missed the point of my original argument which compared smoking to assault. Subsequently, I argued for that point. Now, you are overlooking all of the support I offered and simply saying I am stretching by my presentation of the same argument.

In the case of debate, one weakens an argument by either presenting facts to the contrary of the opponents supporting facts or by presenting some argument that weakens the others argument. Simply calling the very argument itsself weak does nothing to support your argument.

I am arguing that smoking around non-smokers and assault are similar if not the same, while you simply say they are not the same because they are not.

I am saying that using your argument, smoking should be outlawed everywhere. After all, assault is.

I am arguing that smoking around non-smokers and assault are similar if not the same, while you simply say they are not the same because they are not.

They are not the same.

If I punch you in the face you will bleed and bruise.

If I smoke in your face - you might gag but you aren't guaranteed to get CANCER from it.

Assault WILL cause pain - always. Second hand smoke might on the rare occasion cause illness. Not always. Not definite. Not the same.

Geoffrey, yes, smoking should be outlawed anywhere the majority or even individual does not wish to suffer the inherent risks of second hand smoke.

Rosemary, does your inclincation to smoke give you the right to make the majority of people gag? Do you have the right to guess about my health, as you just stated the situation "might cause illness." Who are you to choose an addiction or indulgence over my personal choice to safety?

And with regards to the statistics presented, if breathing in the smoke directly causes cancer, one does not need spend much time reasoning that breathing the same smoke indirectly will not result in similar consequences over time. Considering your words, why do you think the body might choose a gag reaction? You don't have the right to spray toxic chemicals in my face, which is exactly what you would be doing.

You're talking about your rights, but what about the rights of the business owner? Your wishes are more important than his rights? Who decides that?

does your inclincation to smoke give you the right to make the majority of people gag?

I don't make the majority of people gag. If I choose to smoke - I will. I do not choose to disgust others so I will not smoke if it will offend anyone around me. Anymore than I would fart in fron't of others - I have manners.

Do you have the right to guess about my health, as you just stated the situation "might cause illness."
I was merely pointing out that it isn't a definite that you would be sick from second hand smoke. It is a definite that you would become instantly harmed if I assaulted you. I was explaining why your example was faulty - as you well know. That is why you have changed tactics.

Who are you to choose an addiction or indulgence over my personal choice to safety?

I am a free, contributing member of society that pays taxes. I have voting rights and free will. I am your equal in society.

And with regards to the statistics presented, if breathing in the smoke directly causes cancer, one does not need spend much time reasoning that breathing the same smoke indirectly will not result in similar consequences over time.

You see, breathing in smoke doesn't always cause cancer. Your analogy is flawed. Science doesn't even agree with you.

Considering your words, why do you think the body might choose a gag reaction?

I don't. I was considering your words and figured you would have an exaggerated reaction to prove your point.

You don't have the right to spray toxic chemicals in my face, which is exactly what you would be doing.

Again, I have the exact same rights that you have. I wouldn't spray toxic chemicals in your face. If my smoke bothered you I would put it out - EVEN if it was within my right to keep it lit. So would most smokers because we are pretty laid back people.

BTW - I am a non-smoker these days.

Rosemary,

While we might disagree with the consequences and characteristics of second hand smoke, you have said that you personally would put out a cigarette if it were causing discomfort to another, which in my eyes is exactly what should be done. If you or another chose to smoke at home or alone I would not be harmed, nor would I be offended.

Yes, you have the same rights as I, which is exactly my point. That in itsself is what should prevent smoking in public, as I see second hand smoke as taking away another person's right to safety.

If smokers really believe in these statistics, I wonder how many of you would smoke around an infant or child?

Geoffrey,

The majority decides. That is why businesses have health codes they must comply with. A restaurant can't put poison in the food, so why should they be allowed to overlook poison in the air?

Perhaps they should make smoking around children illegal too?

Gas fumes give you cancer. No gas stations should be in my city.

The same goes for that paper mill. They should close all those down. The pollutants and the smell is a horrible violation of my rights.

If smokers really believe in these statistics, I wonder how many of you would smoke around an infant or child?

I'm not sure I believe them or not.I prefer to err on the side of caution. An infant can't speak up for himself so I would not smoke in front of one anymore than I would abort one. Same with a child.

But I am getting sick and tired of the government limiting my freedom and raping my paycheck.

Be careful what you wish for you might get it and it could get worse.

Geoffrey,

Absolutely smoking around children should be illegal.

As for the gas station and paper mill, I was waiting for that argument. Some degree of utility is derived from those entities, and even then they should be as controlled as possible to prevent harm to humans and the environment around you. This is why we have standards for those entities. Additionally, they are accepted by the majority as necessary parts of our daily progression. As time passes, the standards required of those types of entities are becoming increasingly stringent. In line with that logic should be increasingly stringent control of smoking in public.

Smoking is an easy target for stringent regulation, as nobody derives utility from the act except the smoker. Furthermore, smoking is an addiction and changes the smoker's state of mind, which some people might argue is detrimental to society. The money you spend feeding your addiction might be better spent helping a homeless person or some other contribution to society. Yes, it is your money and you may have the freedom to indulge, but smoking harms you, the people around you and economically offers utility gain to the very organizations (read tobacco companies) that exacerbate the problem.

Now you only are trying to suggest one bad situation justifies another.

John:

Democracy is about majority rule and minority rights. Consequently, individuals are not allowed complete freedom. Democracy only allows the individual to be as free as they might be without compromising the rights of the majority.

You said that earlier and I meant to comment. We are a Republic. We are not a strict democracy.This is a nation of individuals, not groups, not special interests.

You sir are advocating fascism. I thought you might want to know that.

John, you said, "Democracy is about majority rule and minority rights. Consequently, individuals are not allowed complete freedom. Democracy only allows the individual to be as free as they might be without compromising the rights of the majority."

Democracy isn't anything of the sort. Pure democracy is mob rule and tyranny of the majority over the minority. The US government is not a democracy, but a republic. The guiding principles are based on the rule of law which defends (or is supposed to defend) rights of individuals and private property rights from the tyranny of the majority. I assume it's to the rule of law to which you alluded when you mentioned minority rights, for there is no such thing under democratic principles.

As far as other arguments here, likening exposure to environmental tobacco smoke to assault is ludicrous. OSHA has scientifically determined permissible exposure limits for many of the chemicals in environmental tobacco smoke. They have observed that individual PEL are very rarely ever exceeded even in the smokiest of barrooms. Also, if you would liken smoking to assault, then so to is you driving around vehicles powered by internal combustion engine consuming fossil fuels. Like Geoffrey explained, smoking is an overt act. You, as a patron, have freedom of choice whether or not to patronize any establishment in which the owner allows smoking. Employees can work somewhere else or in another profession, or heaven forbid they open up a shop on their own where they can make their own rules. Owning a bar is not a cost prohibitive venture, but it does entail risk.

As far as workers' rights, does a coal miner have the right to force a mining company to not allow any of the miners assume the obvious risks associated with working in the mines? Of course not, that would be ludicrous. The state attorney's offices in at least two counties in Florida have publicly declared they discriminate against hiring smokers. If that is legal, then there should be absolutely no reason why tavern owners shouldn't be able to practice the same discrimination against non-smokers in their hiring practices.

Post a sign at the door, "Warning - smoking allowed on premises. Enter on your own risk". Problem solved. Legislated bans are an affront to private property rights.

Your are correct if you subscribe to the idea that democracy is only defined by direct democracy and excludes the idea the indirect form of democracy - representative democracy.

You appear to be making a semantic argument. You can call our government a representative democracy or a republic depending on how you define the terms, but either way we have government by popular consent. We elect representatives to exercise political power on our behalf.

I think you might want to refer back to some textbooks before you desribe my comments about majority rule as fascists. I don't see anything I have written as advocating a dictatorial or autocratic system of government.

My goodness, what will you say next?

Lockjaw,

Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address in 1863 defines democracy as "government of the people, by the people, for the people."

For the sake of clarification, please see my post detailing the relevant definitions of democracy and republic. When reading all of my arguments, please insert in place of the term democracy the words "representative democracy" or "republic" depending on the definition you subscribe to.

As for the coal workers, they should be allowed the best safety standards available. They have the right to require their employers to mitigate health risks as much as possible. Unions were formed for this reason, and the law applies safety standards. I'm sure if you ask any miner, they would certainly be an advocate of the best safety standards possible. I see us moving far away from smoking at this point, as my case for the utility of smoking versus other actions or positions seems to be overlooked.

Fascism:A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Suggesting that smokers are second class citizens with less rights than non-smokers. Suggesting that the Goverment make all the rules without thought of the individual and I have no rights because a tyrannical majority says so.

You are suggesting that and it smacks of fascism.

Where did I suggest any of that?

People often entertain the term fascism when they don't have anything else to say.

Could be. It's late and I'm tired. The effects of quitting smoking are making me a raging B*****

So, let me just say that you obviously hate Bush.
;-)

John, I already conceded that I assumed you knew better than to say that democracy protected minority rights, but didn't exercise the appropriate care in choosing your words.

You have to put Abraham Lincoln's speech into context of the audience and the times, which was delivered to elicit emotion and support for his actions from the audience. To say he defined democracy in that statement is to say that Clinton defined sex in his speech to the nation.

The framers of the Constitution created the United States Senate to protect the rights of individual states and safeguard minority opinion in a system of government designed to give greater power to the national government. James Madison, paraphrasing Edmund Randolph, explained in his notes that the Senate's role was "first to protect the people against their rulers [and] secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led."

You are being led into transient impressions from the great well-funded anti-smoking machine. They have used the words profusely in public and on their private message lists (yes, I've seen a few that have been forwarded haphazardly by the "do-gooders") statements that their mission is to tax, restrict, humiliate, denormalize, dehumanize, and even demonize smokers. You have charitable organizations lobbying for behavior control legislation. The Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) which didn't hurt big tobacco for they were allowed to pass on all costs to their consumers while the states' attorneys general agreed to inhibit competition by smaller companies with no liability as big T had. Funds from the MSA go to those orgs trying to denormalize and demonize us smokers.

As for you wanting to discuss utility, non-smokers enjoy a tremendous amount of utility from the over-zealous and excessive taxation of tobacco products. The Congressional Research Service reported to Congress (CRS 97-1053) prior to the MSA that smokers more than paid their share of health-care costs of between 33-43¢ a pack compared to the then average tax rates of around 50¢ per pack. Indeed, the Revolutionary War was a tobacco war which was also funded in part by the tobacco trade. You non-smokers get plenty of utility out of the trade, contrary to what anti-smoking orgs would have you believe.

I'm stopping there only in interest of brevity, for what I've so far identified is only the tip of the iceberg on how professional anti-smoking activists have been lying to you to achieve their goals.

Let's boil this down- I don't feel mislead by the anti-smoking organizations, as I believe breathing in smoke is bad. Anytime I've breathed smoke from cigarettes I didn't feel good. Marketing that might incentivize children, teenagers or anybody to breathe in smoke is also bad. Anti-smoking organizations are against smoking and this advertising, which is good. Consequently, I applaud the anti-smoking organizations.

With regards to health care costs, I believe you are trying to point out that incremental earnings from what you call excessive taxation might yield some benefit to the general populace. Perhaps this is the case, depending on where the incremental revenue is utilized. Maybe the balance of the funds is used to cleanup all the cigarette butts I see on the sidewalks and along public roads. Because these butts contain fiberglass, they do not biodegradable, but that's another debate.

I would argue smokers' health care costs are higher than that of non-smokers, which still means money is being spent on both the cigarettes (goods portion) and the tax portion to care for smoking related health problems that are really unnecessary. All of this money could go elsewhere, hypothetically. This is partly why I conjecture smoking is stupid.

Above "they do not biodegradable" should have read "are not biodegradable."

They should pay waitresses/waiters hazard pay then, like firefighters, cops, and soldiers, coal miners, too. But they don't. In fact, most waiters/waitresses don't even make minimum wage.

In fact, most waiters/waitresses don't even make minimum wage.

Nope, they make a fuck of a lot more. I know a girl that makes $50-60K a year waitressing. Don't cry for her.

Rosemary,

I forgot to address your thoughts on my political alignment. I don't hate Bush. I disagree with some of his actions and/or policies and agree with others. I often look to this blog to see one side of the ongoing debate regarding Bush.

I'm a little surprised that nobody has mentioned that tobacco is psychoactive as well as addictive and might legitimately be put on one of the Fed's cute little prohibited drug schedules. I'm sure John would approve.
I'm now about 5 years an ex-smoker, but I find all the anti-smoking laws an abomination and a total affront to the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution.
Its all just more bullshit from the virtue creeps and the pc nazis - now having wrapped myself in the flag and bringing Nazis into the discussion I will retire with a nice cup of Kava tea.

John:

I hope you realize I was kidding.

Just because you don't feel mislead, doesn't mean you aren't. We are bombarded by little subliminal messages daily. Joe Bob Briggs wrote a pretty insightful article about that earlier this year.

http://www.joebobbriggs.com/jbamerica/2003/jba20030307.html

Anti-smokers have published press releases that make front page nation-wide news without the corresponding peer-reviewed studies being accomplished. Glantz with the Helena Heart Miracle claiming that during the six months of the ban local admissions to the hospital for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) decreased by 60%. That study is still going through the review process, but they don't care and use it everywhere they can to push for bans. In their over-zealousness, they had posted a link to the original study, but pulled it within 5 hours of me posting it on debunkers.org. Now when asked for a copy, the authors claim "it's not available". They also claim it would be harder to find similar results in larger populations like NYC. I contend that if AMI's decreased to that degree that fast in Helena, then it should be very easy to see such sudden drops in admissions in California or NY.

http://www.debunkers.org/ubb/Forum3/HTML/000323.html

The World Health Organization tried to hide their infamous study years back, but the Telegraph in the UK found out about it and they were forced to reveal it. That study had only one significant finding, that children exposed to environmental tobacco smoke in their youth had LESS risk of contracting lung cancer. Last year WHO announced they re-analyzed monographs to conclude that ETS caused lung cancer. Last I heard, the world is still waiting for them to publish the final analysis. It doesn't matter to them though, for the sheep have heard the pronouncement. They have short term memories and never follow up.

The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) estimates that the non-smoking public is exposed to much less ETS today than just ten years ago through an observed 75% reduction in serum cotinine (a metabolyte of nicotine) measurements. Yet rates of some of the illnesses attributed to being exacerbated by ETS, like asthma, continue to climb.

Annie E Casey Foundation reports that though smoking rates in expectant mothers dropped precipitously over the last ten years along with several other negative birthing conditions, such as lack of timely prenatal care and multiple births to teen mothers, low birth weight and premature births continue to rise. Obviously something else has a greater effect on those birthing effects than just smoking or exposure to ETS.

You continue the claim that smoking has unnecessary costs. If tobacco use were eradicated, what of the savings? I used to tell an anti-smoker thanks for her concerns over my health and my checkbook. If I were ever forced to quit by the anti-smoking crusades victory, she could be assured I would spend the money I saved to purchase and ride a dirt-bike around her house just so she wouldn't lose the pleasure of having something to bitch about. So where will the "savings" be spent? More SUVs to burn more fossil fuels? More outings to our nature preserves to throw around empty Walmart bags and fast food containers? Beware the laws of unintended consequences.

You can conjecture that smoking is stupid all you want, but it's not the government's job to protect us from ourselves.

I find it funny how bent out of shape people are getting over secondhand smoke, when there's far more dangerous substances out there in common use.

Secondhand smoke, when it does anything at all, causes minor health problems for people exposed over a long period of time, with a slight increase in the risk for major problems.

By contrast, one common habit of most Americans will cause a small proportion of Americans to suffer immediate and catastrophic disability of life-preserving organs, with a high risk of death within hours. Indirect exposure is all that's needed, in far smaller quantities than usually cause non-smokers problems with smoke, and this sensitivity afflicts children disproportionally. The habit has few health benefits that can't be had other ways, and in excess it causes health problems every bit as real as smoking (even discounting its effects on the high-risk crowd). And yet, the habit continues to be celebrated, even encouraged, by our national media, advertising, and even some supposed health experts.

Scandalized? Then I'm sure you'll all be out there, calling for the FDA to regulate the use of peanuts and peanut-based products, and lawsuits to punish Planters and Jif for their unethical promotion of their products.

Remember: Reece's lied, people died.

You present a lot of studies and facts Lockjaw, but I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Are you arguing that smoking is not bad for people? Are you arguing it is actually good for them? Would you smoke around an infant or a teenager?

As far as my being mislead, many studies have found that cigarette smoke is bad for a person's health and doctors agree. I will not even enter that argument as it is silly.

Next, you try to argue smoking is on the decline but birth defects are still on the rise. Your logic is lacking, as you suppose only one cause and exclude the rise of other factors. I don't recall saying smoking is the root of all health problems.

Above I stated "it is your money and you may have the freedom to indulge" meaning that I only suggest the availability of the option to spend the money on a good cause , but I acknowledged you are are perfectly entitled to spend your money on whatever you like.

Your final paragraph argues that a ban on smoking would lead to more pollution from SUVs and Wal-Mart bags? Perhaps it will lead to earthquakes too? Your leap in logic is flawed, and you are bringing external ideas into an argument about smoking. I only argued that if people didn't smoke they would free up existing capital for better uses.

I find it sad that you would buy a dirtbike only to annoy your neighbor. That sentiment speaks poorly of your character and respect for others.

I have certainly learned quite abit about the art of debate in this thread. Kudos to all for
your unswerving defence of your side of the issue. All through the comments, I notice that the ill effects of breathing in second hand smoke
seemed to focus on only the dread "cancer" threat to to the non-smoker from second-hand smoke. Quite a number of people have proven to
suffer exacerbation of other ailments such as asthma and emphysema from second-hand smoke and BTW emphysema is quite often caused by allergies
rather than smoking. I know individuals who upon breathing second-hand smoke often suffer an asthma attack with a resulting trip to the ER.
Parents who persist in smoking around an asthmatic child can be charged with child endangerment in my state.

I realize the subject under debate in this thread is legality or illegality of smoking in public buildings. I am a former smoker who believes in live and let live. My husband continues to smoke in our home and I breath the second hand smoke daily. I do not object to others smoking in my presence. If I did, I would only frequent restaurants and bars with a no smoking rule. If smoking made me feel ill, I would ask that others not smoke in my presence.

I don't think tobacco use in public should be outlawed any more than alcohol should be. Our culture has a history of tolerating the legal use of these two commodities and it would be futile to try to outlaw them. I think the government's involvement should be to continue educating the public (starting in elementary school) in the bad effects of both. More laws restricting individual liberties should be weighed heavily before enacting. We cannot legislate against every risk in life. We will all be living in a very constrictive box if our government successfully eliminates all risky behaviour. Enough already.

We're not arguing first hand effects from smoking, but effects of ETS as it relates to the book. Michael McFadden details all types of anti-smokers from the professionals who make money off the crusades to the sheep who just follow the politically correct way of thinking. Those studies show that anti-smoking orgs inflate the risks of ETS. This is a message board. If you want me to construct a coherent argument for any of the myriad of things we've discussed so far, I can. Just name what you want to discuss first.

My leap in logic is not flawed. Whatever you consider a "better" use for the freed up capital from not smoking may not be considered better by everyone. Should I sign my checkbook over to you, so you can determine what I can or can't spend my own money on?

That dirt bike comment was just what it was, a comment to a snide, sniveling, mealy mouthed anti-smoker who has been spreading hate in the six years I've had the pleasure to debate her around the internet with her attempts to denormalize, dehumanize, and demonize smokers. She made the same off-hand comments of "better" uses for my money, and I gave her one. You take it for what it's worth or whatever you want it to be worth. It's a free country (or at least it was).

If I'd known you were all here having a party I would have come earlier! :)

I'm the one who wrote the book that Dean wrote about that started this thread, so you can kind of guess where my general feelings are. I largely agree with Lock, Rosemary and those on their side and largely disagree with John and those on that side.

That much being said... let me get specific for a bit. John said: "businesses have health codes they must comply with. A restaurant can't put poison in the food, so why should they be allowed to overlook poison in the air?"

Actually John, businesses are FULLY allowed to have poisons in their foods, as long as those poisons are at governmentally approved "safe" levels. Smoke has about 4,000 chemicals in it while the average American diet has about 10,000.

One of the favorite chemicals Antismokers like to care you with is ARSENIC! Deadly poison right?

According to the Mass. Dept of Public Health the verage total output of arsenic in a smoke from a cigarette is about 32 nanograms. The average nonsmoker in a decently ventilated room with a smoker will breathe in a total of about 1/1000th of that amount or about 3 hudnredths of a single nanogram.

Under the new superstrict government safety standards for arsenic in water, 10ppb is allowed. That's 10 nanograms per gram or about 5,000 nanograms for a 16 ounce tumbler of "safe" water served to you in that restaurant.

A nonsmoker would have to sit in such a room with a smoker while the smoker smoked 165,000 cigarettes before even getting to the same SAFE level as they're getting from the glass of water.

The same sort of thing holds true for virtually every other chemical in smoke. They do NOT exist in normal situations at levels that OSHA or the EPA have EVER found to be dangerous to workers, thus it is in NO way analogous to assault.

Whew... sorry about being so long.

That's all fer now folks! Hope ya like my book if ya get it. I've gone to GREAT care to document everything in it and it blows most of the Antismokers' arguments away.

:)
Michael J. McFadden
Dissecting Anti-Smokers' Brains

Sorry, John, that "snide, mealy mouthed" comment was not directed at you. This woman is now a professional anti-smoker and has written a book. I can put you in touch with her where she usually hangs out and you will see just how bad the hate campaign is against smokers.

Lockjaw,

I almost clarified my idea of "better", but then I felt it was clear in my previous postings that my idea of "better" is something that does not harm the smoker, harm people subjected to the second hand smoke or promote the perpetuity of such actions through direct contribution to the tobacco industry.

With regards to your point, perhaps your studies support the idea that anti-smoking groups have inflated the risks associated with ETS. This said, I again pose the question to you: Would you smoke around an infant?

If you wouldn't, then I argue if it's bad for them it's still bad for me. I see any ill effect to be derived from second hand smoke to be objectionable. I also find the smell it leaves in my clothes to be objectionable, but this is not a direct threat to my well-being.

To the author of the book, I would first need to read your book and better understand the statistics you have presented before replying. I am admittedly curious about your findings, but I am often skeptical of statistics as we all know researchers frequently arrive at whatever conclusion they desire.

My first thought is only that the respiratory system functions differently from the digestive system; so despite my previous analogy, drinking water and inhaling smoke are different processes and thus subject to different examinations. I will look into the information you have presented with an open mind.

But there's workplace safety at question here. If second-hand smoke is really so dangerous (which hasn't been properly documented) how can a bar owner, for instance, be allowed to subject their workers to it?

That is what I first said in this thread. I just wanted to point out that I'm not on John's "side" in this debate, and have even been arguing with him a few times.

Just wanted to clear that up...my reputation is at stake here.

I've just explored some new and interesting websites, as linked to by Mr. McFadden's website promoting his new book. I'm even more intrigued at this point, as I am fascinated by this subculture of smokers fighting for their rights to harm themselves and, pursuant to this debate, potentially harm others.

I feel this has been an excellent and friendly debate, and we have not even touched on the moral implications of marketing an addictive product or the impression that support of such rights gives to our children. I just can't resist stating again what I feel is so very obvious- smoking is stupid! We've debated rights in this thread, but I also wonder why anybody would want to be so selfish as to support a habit that might likely continue with the next generations? Even the author acknowledges that he does not designate smoking as a healthy activity.

I know, here we go again, this entire argument can go full circle at this point and we can begin again. I'm interested to explore the statistics and arguments of the other side, but I still have a hard time understanding why anybody would even start smoking, much less advocate it.

John wrote: "To the author of the book, I would first need to read your book and better understand the statistics you have presented before replying. I am admittedly curious about your findings, but I am often skeptical of statistics as we all know researchers frequently arrive at whatever conclusion they desire. "

A very wise approach. The statistics I presented above are a little different than things like relative risks, confidence intervals, multivariate analysis and such however. I try whenever possible in the book to look for examples that involve very simple math and very simple figures that can be looked up by anyone in the references I include (sorry, I didn't include them in the post.)

Drinking water and inhaling smoke may indeed deserve different examinations, but imagine if a tobacco company said "Well, our cigarette gives out 180,000 times what would be safe if you drank the chemical, but inhaling is different... let's examine it further."

:)
Michael

But John, smoking is addictive. I smoke. I feel I have a right to function in society even though I have this disability. That's what it is, you know. I don't smoke to be "cool", and I doubt anyone above the age of 15 does. I smoke because I'm hopelessly addicted to cigarettes. I've attempted to quit many times (once I even succeeded for 6 months), and will continue to try quit probably until the end of my days (if I continue to be chronically unsuccessful).

I don't know you personally, John, so I don't know if you're an ex-smoker or not, but if you aren't, I'd just like to tell you quitting is, for most people, the absolute hardest thing they will ever do. Of course, some people have an easy time of it. And those people don't smoke. You know why? Because smoking sucks.

It's a disease. But I'd still like to have rights as a human-being. And I appreciate what people like mr. McFadden here are doing. Alot of the anti-smoker rationalization has been exposed as false, you know. And if McFadden's information above is correct, it brings yet some more light into the situation.

And John, as for the moral implications concerning the tabacco industry: I hope everyone involved rots in hell. They are in the process of thoroughly ruining my life. Do you know that cigarettes nowadays are something like 1000 times more addictive than they were 50 years ago because of chemicals they add for that very purpose? It's absolutely disgusting.

I acknowledge the addictive nature of cigarettes, but if you are addicted then there are ways to stop. You are in control of your own life and actions. I know this is easier said than done, but the thought remains valid.

I don't know very much about the effectiveness or cost of the nicotine patches that are available, but wouldn't they address your concerns of addiction by allowing another means of introducing nicotine into your bloodstream, while at the same time alleviating the smoking? Wouldn't this be a win-win way for smokers and non-smokers alike? Are they not also designed to facilitate dicontinuance of smoking through a stepped process?

I used nicotine patches twice before, and am on the verge of using them a third time. The first time I used them was the time I quit for 6 months. The patch helps, only because it allows you to, with heavy concentration, manually relax yourself. It's still incredibly hard. And I feel that one of the major reasons I failed after 6 months (about 4 months after I finished the patches) was that I was simply not ready for the realization that the addiction never actually goes away. It'll be there for life. It's an excercize in "living with it".

I regret that anybody need go through such a process for any addiction; consequently I don't like to see smoking promoted in any fashion.

Best of luck to all of those posting here today that have quit or are in process of quitting.

Thank you for the support. If more people realize that, while smoking is certainly bad, it is the smokers themselves who are the main victims, maybe more people would get the moral support they so deserve.

John wrote: "I don't know very much about the effectiveness or cost of the nicotine patches that are available, but wouldn't they address your concerns of addiction by allowing another means of introducing nicotine into your bloodstream, while at the same time alleviating the smoking? Wouldn't this be a win-win way for smokers and non-smokers alike?"

John, for someone like dowingba who has decided they want to stop smoking such things might be helpful. The fact that they're not an instant cure-all shows the weakness of another antismoking claim: smokers do NOT generally smoke simply because of a physical "addiction" to nicotine.

Addiction is different for every individual and is different in regard to every different substance. Someone who is quite readily addicted to caffeine may have no problem whatsoever taking or leaving alcohol. Some substances are more physically addicting than others in terms of withdrawal symptoms (e.g. acute alcohol or barbituate withdrawal can kill you) some are more addicting in terms of likelyhood of addiction (most people who regularly smoke for more than a short period of time come to feel they are in some way addicted) some are more addicting purely by societal circumstance (it's hard to give up smoking when it's cheap and everyone around you is doing it... easier to give up heroin when it's 100x as expensive and you go to jail if you get caught.

That's where the rub is: according to the way Surgeon General Koop and cohorts deliberately fiddled with the meaning of the word in the late 1980s so as to allow them to define smoking as addictive it is now possible to change how addictive a substance is simply by changing its price tag. They've made a mockery out of the meaning of the word and we now have people addicted to sex and rock and roll in addition to drugs.

A lot of smokers ENJOY smoking, and that's something almost no dyed-in-the-wool Antismoker wants to accept. The cause of that enjoyment, whether it's taste, smell, playing with smoke rings, a caffeine-like jolt to the bloodstream,
or whatever, is pretty irrelevant. The only time it really comes into play is if one is trying to quit. At that point a smoker who is truly simply "addicted to nicotine" will find things like the patch very helpful. For a lot of other smokers though it is certainly NOT a "win-win" situation simply to have nicotine floating in one's bloodstream: they are addicted to the enjoyment of smoking and miss it when they cannot smoke.

Some people do better at deprivation of enjoyment or the resisting of urges than others. This game of simply defining nicotine and smoking as addictive was simply and deliberately motivated by the desire to produce a similar societal reaction against tobacco as had been done against heroin: and it's worked.

30 years ago people knew that smoking was hard to give up, and yet it was still pretty widely acceptable, though somewhat frowned on, for parents to let their kids light cigarettes for them. But once it became part of the common
world-view that "Smoking is as ADDICTIVE as HEROIN" suddenly that changed... and the ability to classify smokers as sick, or unworthy of jobs, or deserving of being thrown into back alleys all became much easier to swallow.

The concept of addiction has a lot of nasty social uses when it can be defined to mean whatever those in power want it to mean. Orwell knew a lot about the power of word definition. Go back and read 1984 again... it's a VERY good
book.

Michael J. McFadden
www.AntiBrains.com

John wrote:We've debated rights in this thread, but I also wonder why anybody would want to be so selfish as to support a habit that might likely continue with the next generations?

I'm an ex-smoker. I haven't smoked in years. I think it's stupid, the smell bothers me, and I hate being around smoke. I'll defend a person's free will, though. If I'm in a mood where being around smoking will make my dining or drinking experience unbearable, I go to a place that doesn't allow smoking. I have that right. I don't feel I have the right to walk into a bar and make everyone put out their cigs because I don't like it.

Cigarettes are addictive. I laugh when I hear people blame the tobacco companies for their addictions, though. If someone doesn't know that cigarettes are addictive and/or bad for you before they start smoking, then they live in a box. It's the rare case that someone ties you down and forces you to smoke until you're addicted.

Here's what I tried to post:

Even right here in this debate thread, civil as it has been, we've seen the uses to which the designation of smoking as an addiction has been put and the way the universal propaganda ploy of "saving the children" has been pulled in.

Another problem I've seen here, and elsewhere, is the tendency of those arguing on the side of smoking bans to constantly mix up and confuse the issues of smoking itself with exposure to secondary smoke. Two VERY different issues, but those taking the Antismoking side of the argument in debates such as this seem to always like to bring the smoking and health debate language into debates about smoking bans as though the two were the same thing. They're not: the exposure factors are different by a factor of anywhere from 100x to 100,000x or more (depending on how vigilant a nonsmoker is about avoiding smoke.)

Does exposure make a difference. Sure it does. Tap water has arsenic. But it's "safe." It has as much arsenic as thousands of cigarettes. It's STILL safe. But Truth.com shows dying rats on TV crawling up out of subways cuz they might have caught a wisp of smoke. Does such exaggeration count as an outright lie? From Truth?

:?
Michael
www.AntiBrains.com

I've never smoked and I'm glad of it. But the only thing I don't like about smoking is that it tends to kill off the kinds of people I like the most, i.e., the kinds of people who tend to smoke. I wonder if there's a correlation between those who support bans on smoking and those who support bans on guns, or, conversely, between those who defend smokers' rights and those who defend gun owners' rights? Be interesting to do a study on that. Also, on either group and support for "sodomy" laws. "Sodomy" laws, i.e., laws against sex between consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes, were excused on the grounds that some homosexuals have AIDS, as well as on grounds of homosexuals being "disgusting", "deviant" (i.e., a minority), "contrary to the infallible Word of God", or not reproducing babies for Church and State. Fortunately, the majority of the Supreme Court did not agree. I say you have the right to make love or to smoke on your own property, as well as to own the means with which to defend your property if need be.