Posted on 02/06/2007 4:41:36 PM PST by Eric Blair 2084
In recent years, legal scholars have produced a voluminous literature on the rule of law in indirectly controlling social norms and individual preferences. Smoking bans provide on of the favorite "success stories" of those who laud the use of legal rules to change norms and preferences. According to these scholars, smoking bans affect behavior, even if under-enforced, because they change the social norm regarding smoking in public. With the advent of smoking bans, non-smokers who previously felt embarassed about publicly expressing their distaste for ETS are speaking up. By providing a de facto community statement that public smoking is unacceptable, the bans embolden non-smokers to confront smokers who are inconveniencing them. Facing heightened public hostility towards their habit, smokers are likely to revise their preference regarding smoking, thus by making smoking more socially costly, the theory goes, bans reduce the number of smokers.
(Excerpt) Read more at cato.org ...
Just like any other type of smoke, if it get's too dense it replaces oxygen with another compound and can be dangerous.
You notice I said in a normal situation.
I don't attack any study. I read the studies (not the sound bites that come from them), comprehend the results (not the sound bites that come from them), and have done research into this field for a good number of years.
Can you say the same?
You sound like you have a chip on your shoulder about smoking and it has led you down an incorrect path on ETS.
All I'm saying is that it should be up to the property owner as to allow, or disallow, smoking on their premises.
If scientific studies can show, even a majority of them, that ETS is deadly, then we have a public health issue.
Until that time it should be the decision of the property owner, not the government.
Anything can be dangerous.
Water can be dangerous. A woman in Nevada died from drinking too much water.
Salt can be dangerous.
The dose makes the poison.
ETS, in normal situations, has not been proven to cause anything.
SHS, ETS you make the distinction. Do people who have lost loved ones to addictive drugs have "a chip on their shoulder" about drug use? Water provides life, salt is a preservative. Motor vehicles are necessary to commerce. Smoking is a deadly addiction. Some dangers are acceptalble risks, while you continue to just rationalze accepting a bad habit.
How many non-smoking people do you know that died because of contact with cigarette smoke?
How about smog from commuting in the city each day?
I would bet none because people don't die of inconvenience and you won't either. Not only that but the govt. won't be able to protect you from it. When you're done using the govt's guns to make your life more convenient at the expense of my freedom somebody else will be encouraged by your success to use them to do the same to you.
I wish you could see that, and I wish you gave a damn.
Will/can you say the same about smokers?
Whether a substance provides anything beyond enjoyment to the user is beside the point. As long as it doesn't cause harm to another it should be up to the owner of the property to allow, or disallow, it's use.
Indirectly it is. If you want to look at it from the perspective that a business/property owner has the right to engage, or allow legal activities on his property as he sees fit. Tobacco is legal, possessing and smoking tobacco is still legal.
The problem I, and many other FReepers have with bans, is the nanny state. The other problem we also have is the so-called conservatives here who should know better than to allow the state to have more power than it should, and yet cheer on these new laws.
I'm glad you quit smoking, and if being around smoke bothers you; don't patronize any private establishment that allows it. But don't send the state in to make the decisions for you and me.
No one forces a non-smoker to go into a smoking establishment, if they do, you should have them arrested for putting that gun to your head.
Wouldn't it be interesting to see how many of the smoke nazis own their own business?
It's very easy to take away someone's rights, when you don't have any exposure to the possible taking of rights.
It is the statist American delusion that they some how have a God given right to be comfortable and not offended 24/7 all year long.
If we do something that violates this imaginary right they feel justified in using the force of the federal and state governments to infringe upon my constitutionally protected rights that actually do exist.
Thank you.
Because you are addicted to smoking, your are forced to delude yourself into thinking secondhand smoke is only an inconvience to others. It is far worse than that. I do not need the governments guns for anything, I have plenty of my own. I will defend my right to firearms ownership as vehemently as you defend your right to smoke, but they are two very different things. I wish you could see that. Firearms save lives, smoking takes them.
Here's why you are an all day sucker and useful for marxists.
You don't know anyone who has died directly from second hand smoke but you believe the lie when they tell you that this is rampant and a national crisis. Why? Well because you object to it morally and it is inconvenient. You are being emotionally manipulated.
-----I do not need the governments guns for anything, I have plenty of my own.-----
You might as well take one of your guns and put it to the head of the next guy you see smoking because what you are currently doing is having the govt. do this for you. There really is no difference except that it's easier and less dangerous to have the govt. do your dirty work for you.
YOU believe guns are a good tool. Many of the same people you have joined forces with and empowered believe the opposite about your guns. They are deadly, lethal and easily wind up in criminal hands. The safest thing for them is to take away your guns for the greater good.
You'll have given them the practice and experience needed to do it with your crusade against a simple vice. They might even be able to manipulate you emotionally on this issue as well and maybe you'll help them infringe on more of our personal liberties?
More people die from gunshots than second hand smoke so by your logic it's time to disarm. Unless of course you're only interested in making life more convenient for yourself and to hell with living in a free country.
Sir, you're as transparent as scotch tape!
If second hand smoke is so deadly and lethal, tell me how many people do you personally know who were nonsmokers and died as a result of exposure to second hand smoke?
Jerry,I'm 74 and my doctors are like yours.Everytime I see a doctor they ask "Still smoking?" and I say "Yep!" and the subject is dropped.
I had thyroid cancer 3 years ago and of course everyone assumed that my smoking habit caused it.
The first time a classmate of mine saw me light up a cig he jumped all over me. Saying, "how dumb I was to be smoking after having cancer." Well, I still smoke and I have been cancer free for over two years now.
I asked two of my specialists if smoking was the cause and they both answered "NO, as a matter of fact nobody knows what causes it." I am more apt to accept the word of my doctor than some layman with no background in medicine.
Well, now I can sit back and hear from all the antis about how dumb I am...blah, blah, blah, blah....
Yes. Many of them. I'm glad that you're learning new things.
Well, enough for now.
One wonders what all that burnt nitro powder you've inhaled over the years has done to you. Perhaps you should give up your guns.
Second hand gunpowder smoke dontchaknow.
Oh I see, YOU made a conscious choice, just like you did to smoke originally (and then quit), and then to continue to patronize establishments that allowed it, until you jumped on the ban bandwagon.
And despite all your objections to the contrary, you have jumped on that bandwagon.
Smoking bas are an example of the weak minded, weak willed people, who feel compelled to patronize such establishments because it has the hot band, the cool atmosphere, great food, whatever, but allows smoking.
Instead of saying no, I'm not going there, they bring in the nanny state to make the decision for them, to force others to conform to their ideals.
Second smoke may be harmful or not. I know I had a grandmother who was born in the late 19th century, and therefore grew up around people who smoked; hell everyone smoked around her her whole life; back when you could smoke in theaters and elevators, airplanes... where ever.
Lived to be 93.
Rule #1: You are going to die sometime, somehow, somewhere. Get over it.
Rule #2: You cannot change rule #1 no matter how many laws you pass.
Rule #3: Enjoy your life, however long it may be, in what ever manor you can. But leave the nanny state out of the equation. Make your own choices, and let others do the same.
Let's set aside the debate over the validity of SHS studies. For the sake of argument, let's say that smoking AND secondhand smoke are serious risks to one's health.
How does such a danger warrant intrusion by the government into private affairs? How does that danger justify smoking bans in restaurants or private clubs or bars?
In this day and age, pretty much everyone is aware of the alleged dangers of second hand smoking. If an adult wants to voluntarily expose himself to that risk, why is that the government's business? No one is forced to go to the bar on Saturday night or to work in the bingo hall.
For truly public places - elementary schools, city hall, the police station - a smoking ban does make sense because people don't always have the choice to go somewhere else. They are exposed to the risk involuntarily. But that's not the case with restaurants, bars, or other private businesses.
Suppose there was a restaurant that had a burning pile of garbage at every table. I'd probably discover within 5 seconds of walking in the door that I didn't want to eat there, so I'd choose to go somewhere else. Why can't non-smokers do the same thing when they enter a private establishment that allows smoking? Why do they need the government to help them?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.