• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities

Tucker Case said:
Instead, I believe this is entirely about their own discomfort. They don't like being around it, so they wish to make it so that they never have to be. If it didn't cause that mild discomfort, they wouldn't be btohered by smoke.
Click to expand...

That pretty much sums it up. They think they ought to be entitled to go pretty much anywhere and not have to "endure" the smell of cigarette smoke. And bars. I mean banning smoking in bars. I don't get it. its a place to go where someone wants to unwind after a hard day/week and maybe smoking gives them a feeling of relaxation. But we can't have that, while we simultaneously pursue marijuana legalization and build safe houses for people to shoot up heroin.
 
WI Crippler said:
That pretty much sums it up. They think they ought to be entitled to go pretty much anywhere and not have to "endure" the smell of cigarette smoke. And bars. I mean banning smoking in bars. I don't get it. its a place to go where someone wants to unwind after a hard day/week and maybe smoking gives them a feeling of relaxation. But we can't have that, while we simultaneously pursue marijuana legalization and build safe houses for people to shoot up heroin.
Click to expand...

not all non smokers feel that way. personally, i can't go to a bar where smoking is allowed, because it stinks. but that's my choice, and i'll take my business elsewhere. i don't want to force a business owner to go non smoking for me.
 
liblady said:
not all non smokers feel that way. personally, i can't go to a bar where smoking is allowed, because it stinks. but that's my choice, and i'll take my business elsewhere. i don't want to force a business owner to go non smoking for me.
Click to expand...

I'm a non-smoker myself. I don't prefer the smell of smoke, and I'll never encourage my kids to do so. But I personally believe its a bit presumptuous for me to assume that everybody has to adjust their habits for me when I walk in the door. it's easier for everybody if me, 1 person either adapts or leaves, than to change entire establishments and enact laws. My in-laws are smokers, and when I go to their house I don't demand they not smoke. And they know I don't allow smoking inside my house, so they smoke outside whenever they visit. That is the way it should be. Up to private establishments to make up their own minds as to what kind of environment they prefer.
 
WI Crippler said:
That pretty much sums it up. They think they ought to be entitled to go pretty much anywhere and not have to "endure" the smell of cigarette smoke. And bars. I mean banning smoking in bars. I don't get it. its a place to go where someone wants to unwind after a hard day/week and maybe smoking gives them a feeling of relaxation. But we can't have that, while we simultaneously pursue marijuana legalization and build safe houses for people to shoot up heroin.
Click to expand...

They banned indoor smoking for businesses here, a few years ago but it's lightly (almost never) enforced.
 
Tucker Case said:
I have no idea about bananas or about the severity of your allegy, but shellfish particles will get into the air and my allergy is extremely severe.
Click to expand...

Do you have empirical evidence that it does that, and that the issue is nearly as serious an airborn issue as smoke?


Again, though, your problem is rare, while smoke impacts everyone, given its an allergen to everyone. The majority of people should not be forced to cower at home and never leave for fear of disturbing smokers infiltrating everywhere and carelessly puffing their habit all over. Rational adults who don't smoke shouldn't need to cater to an irrational group of addicts who want the right to push people out of public, or force them to breath useless fumes.
 
Last edited:
Technocratic said:
Do you have empirical evidence that it does that, and that the issue is nearly as serious an airborn issue as smoke?
Click to expand...

Uhmmm... My evidence is entirely empirical, since it was gained from direct observation and expereince, which is what empirical evidence is.

But if you want some corroborating evidence, take a look here:

Shellfish Allergies

Read the headings marked "triggers" and "symptoms".

From those sections

...For example, one can also react to shellfish by having his or her food cross contaminated with shellfish, or even by breathing in the airborne particles from the steam of cooked shellfish....

...Sometimes just the smell of the particular shellfish is enough to initiate an allergic reaction.
...Some shellfish allergy sufferers have gone into anaphylactic shock by merely breathing in shellfish particles, without ever having ingested the food itself....
Click to expand...

Now, unless I somehow managed to gain control of that website and let them know that I was making this argument related to smoking, we can probably look at that as solid evidence in favor of my arguments. There is little reason to assume that it is a biased website because it has nothing to do with smoking at all. It is only offered as outside evidence for my claims about particles being present in the air, which have caused me to have some of the reactions described.

I have had the unfortunate experience of learning that what is contained on that website is entirely accurate.


Again, though, your problem is rare, while smoke impacts everyone, given its an allergen to everyone. The majority of people should not be forced to cower at home and never leave for fear of disturbing smokers infiltrating everywhere and carelessly puffing their habit all over. Rational adults who don't smoke shouldn't need to cater to an irrational group of addicts who want the right to push people out of public, or force them to breath useless fumes.
Click to expand...

The rarity shouldn't be a factor when it's clear that my situation is far more dangerous. The much greater severity of the danger should more than offset the lowered instances of the risk, no? I mean, I shouldn't have to cower in my home simply becuase a bunch of ignorant shellfish consumers can't stay home to perform their dirty habit, right?

And if I was cowering in my home, it would be because my life was legitimately in danger. Not becuase I have an irrational reaction to mild discomfort. And the claim that the "majority" of people would be forced to cower inm their homes is nice hyperbole, but it's also a load of horse pucky. It is the irrational minority of non-smokers who have that degree of fear. It's a phobia for them. A phobia is, by definition, an irrational fear.

Well, to be honest, it isn't really a phobia becuse they often aren't really afraid of the danger, because they do realize that the risk is astronomically miunute form a diluted exposeure to SHS in most cases. It's just their own desire to avoid discomfort that they care about.

I've shown that it ain't about danger, because the danger to me posed by shellfish is greater than the danger posed to non-smokers from second hand smoke (if we assume that a low risk for immediate death is a greater danger than an even lower risk of a disorder that happens decades in the future).

And from what I've read on the matter, tobacco smoke allergies are rare and that the antibody production is not a good predictor of a self-described "sensitivity" to tobacco smoke.

While there is evidence that allergic reactions to direct contact with the tobacco leaf itself is common, very little evidence exists to suggests that this is true of the smoke from tobacco and smilar resaults were found with multiple lplants in one study I have read. Do you have any scientific evidence supporting the universal allergen theory?
 
Last edited:
I have addressed that. I also mentioned that cross contamination can be an issue. BUt even considering the possible airborn particles in steam, this condition impacts less than 2% of the population, and it "may" trigger it.

Rare conditions are valid distinguishers, because you can't practically create policy based on whether or not 2% of the population will have an allergy triggered. The damage it would do to the economy, itself, is enough to differentiate it from banning indoor smoking, given you can alway smoke elsewhere without the negative consequences to society of the loss of you smokiing there. IF we were to ban all shellfish, and really, anything someone could be allegic to according to your logic, regardless of the rareness or scope of harm, the system would collapse. We'd be able to do nothing for fear that a tiny minority may have an allergen to something, and that's always the case. That's clearly absurd.

The problem of SHS isn't minute, and it's much more prevalent, impactinig many more people. And the solution to that will not destroy the service industry, because smoking is not critical to the function of the establishment. If ONE person has a allergy to anything, it makes it impossible to function economically if we apply the "lets ban it, no matter how prevalent it is" logic.

According to your logic, we can't serve any food anywhere. In fact, it's not even limited to food. .03 percent of the population may be allergic to something, somewhere, and therefore, we need to ban that activity, regardless of the scope of the problem or the secondary consequences of doing so. A ban of Z does not require a ban of Y. Your allergy to shellfish may be significant, but it's too impractical to apply a universal rule to without leading to too much harm or ridiculous results.
 
Last edited:
Technocratic said:
I have addressed that. I also mentioned that cross contamination can be an issue. BUt even considering the possible airborn particles in steam, this condition impacts less than 2% of the population, and it "may" trigger it.
Click to expand...

Yes, it may trigger an immediately life-threatening condition. Are you under the impression that SHS smoke does trigger health problems instead of may?

You can't practically create policy based on whether or not 2% of the population will have an allergy triggered. The damage it would do to the economy, itself, is enough to distinguish it from banning indoor smoking, given you can alway smoke elsewhere. IF we were to ban all shellfish, and really, anything someone could be allegic to, the system would collapse.
Click to expand...

The discussion here is about outdoor smoking being banned, though.

That's enough to differentiate.

The problem of SHS isn't minute, and it's much more prevalent, impactinig many more people.
Click to expand...

Impacting many people in a minute fashion is a minute problem.

It's more practical, and less socially harmful, to deal with that than to cater to every rare allergen conditon.
Click to expand...

It's not a rare allergen being discussed. It's one of the most common allergies among adults.

And the risks from SHS are not very high, and they aren't immediate, especially if the exposure happens outdoors.

Everyone is affected by smoke inhalation.
Click to expand...

If by "smoke inhalation" you mean minimal exposure to SHS, and by "affected" you mean there are negative health consequences, then this statement is false. If you mean smoke inhalation as in smoking cigarrettes or prolonged exposure to SHS, and by "affected" you mean it has some affect, even if the affect is very negligable then it is true.

SHS is known to cause various infections, after prolonged exposure, as well as a variety of other conditions. See the CDC on this.
Click to expand...

And "Some shellfish allergy sufferers have gone into anaphylactic shock by merely breathing in shellfish particles".

SHS may cause a variety of conditions, after prolonged exposure, for the individual. They are not assured by any stretch of the imagination. And outdoors (again, teh topic beign discussed), we're talking about fleeting exposure.

Here's the thing though, fleeting exposure to shellfish allergens CAN kill someone. Fleeting exposure to SHS ain't going to do ****.
 
Technocratic said:
According to your logic, we can't serve any food anywhere.
Click to expand...

It's not my logic. It's the logic used by non-smokers for outdoor smoking bans.

I've explained why my condition causes me to reject that logic. Have you not read all of my posts in this thread? It's kind of odd to jump in trying to disprove my argumetns when you haven't even read them, don't you think?
 
It's not a rare allergen being discussed. It's one of the most common allergies among adults.
Click to expand...

You're confusing rare with common. You can have a rare disease, that is the most common of the rare diseases among adults. According to your source, it impacts 2% or less of the population.
Pretty rare. We cannot have a rule to ban X because a tiny minority may have an allergic reaction to it. IT would shut down all commerce.




If by "smoke inhalation" you mean minimal exposure to SHS, and by "affected" you mean there are negative health consequences, then this statement is false. If you mean smoke inhalation as in smoking cigarrettes or prolonged exposure to SHS, and by "affected" you mean it has some affect, even if the affect is very negligable then it is true.
Click to expand...

I mean that smoke SHS inhalation causes eye, nasal, throat infections, as well as basic irritation. It's also known, by the CDC to cause other more serious problems over prolongued exposure, which happens if everyone's doing it everywhere.


I don't really care about smokers outdoors, so long as there is enough ventillation. But, you earlier were talking about shellfish being cooked in restaurants. Not outdoors.


If we applied the logic of "If the scope of people affected doesn't matter, and if someone can claim an allergy we should ban the practice,' we'd be able to do nothing.
 
Tucker Case said:
It's not my logic. It's the logic used by non-smokers for outdoor smoking bans.

I've explained why my condition causes me to reject that logic. Have you not read all of my posts in this thread? It's kind of odd to jump in trying to disprove my argumetns when you haven't even read them, don't you think?
Click to expand...


I don't agree with outdoor smoking bans. Indoor ones, yes. But even so, the shellfish logic cannot be applied to smoking, because of the difference in people affected and the consequences of applying such a rule. My reasoning is different from others' reasoning for banning smoking in public. It has to do with scope and practicality.
 
Technocratic said:
You're confusing rare with common. You can have a rare disease, that is the most common of the rare diseases among adults. According to your source, it impacts 2% or less of the population.
Pretty rare. We cannot have a rule to ban X because a tiny minority may have an allergic reaction to it. IT would shut down all commerce.
Click to expand...

Now you are being dishonest. Did you not say "It's more practical, and less socially harmful, to deal with that than to cater to every rare allergen conditon. "

You created a strawman where this would be about "every rare allergen condition" because it's easier to argue your point when you create a strawman like that (It's impractical because everything would be banned!!1111!!!)

But it is not a rare allergen condition. It's one of the most common allergen conditions. Had you not placed the allergen in there, you might have had an argument that was legit, but since you did place allergen in there my response was perfectly applicable.

Your strawman that it becomes impractical is nullified because it is just as practical (with a lack of social harm) to ban shellfish and peanuts (the two foods I actually mentioned) in public as it is to ban smoking in public.




I mean that smoke SHS inhalation causes eye, nasal, throat infections, as well as basic irritation. It's also known, by the CDC to cause other more serious problems over prolongued exposure, which happens if everyone's doing it everywhere.
Click to expand...

You act like it's common. It's not. the instances are fairly rare, and the actual effects are minimal. It's known ot be correlated to tese things, but the individual instance are not very common, and almost exclusively limited to continuous exposure. Typically with children who have parents who smoke in the house.

an adult non-smoker who has sporadic and mfleetign contact with SHS is displaying irrational fearts if they truly worry about these things.


I don't really care about smokers outdoors, so long as there is enough ventillation. But, you earlier were talking about shellfish being cooked in restaurants. Not outdoors.
Click to expand...

Yes. I talked about that when I was explaining to non-smokers what a real burden and health risk is. They seem to have delusions about what constitutes a legitimate health risk, so I explained how my situation is far more severe and the health risks far greater (I'm not worried about "oh noes!!!11 I could get a small dose of sinusitis!111!!!" I'm like "Oh ****. I can die from this in les than 10 minutes.").

If we applied the logic of "If the scope of people affected doesn't matter, and if someone can claim an allergy we should ban the practice,' we'd be able to do nothing.
Click to expand...

Nice strawman. I never said "and if someone can claim an allergy we should ban the practice". I'm talking about the two most common and deadliest food allergies specifically, where all of the danger could be prevented if the products were banned in public.

As far as scope goes, my argument was that severity should be a mitigating factor for scope. If many people are minimally affected by one thing while few people are maximally affected, the one that has maximal effects should have a higher priority than the minimal effects when dealing with things in a public safety perspective.

My ultimate point is that smoking bans have preceicely jack**** to do with safety and everythign to do with non-smokers wishing to be comfortable anywhere they choose to go.
 
Technocratic said:
I don't agree with outdoor smoking bans. Indoor ones, yes. But even so, the shellfish logic cannot be applied to smoking, because of the difference in people affected and the consequences of applying such a rule. My reasoning is different from others' reasoning for banning smoking in public. It has to do with scope and practicality.
Click to expand...

So severity of the reaction is not a factor, nor the rarity of the issues cropping up for non-smokers due to second hand smoke. It's all about the larger number of people put at minimal risk. I woudl argue that smaller numebrs of people placed at maximal risk are more important than vast number of people placed at minimal risk, or at the very least, the risk/severity equation should be viewed in order to apply the "public health" argument logically.

To me, the fact that a person who is allergic to shellfish (of which there are millions in the US) can be immediately killed by exposure whereas nobody is going to die immediately from SHS exposure makes these comomn allergies a more pressing public health concern.

But I favor bans on neither. I beleive that personal responsibility should be taken and peole who do not wish to be around smokers should make it so that it is profitable for businesses to ban smoking form tehir establishments. I have no problems with that being the case becuse I perosnally do that with regard to shellfish.

But my belief is that non-smokers do not wish to take that stance because they are unwilling to accept the personal discomfort it brings. They have to put effort into finding non-smoking establishments and they have to be willing to not go to places they otherwise would enjoy if not for the smoking.

Same thing for me with regards to shellfish. If the non-smokers stance is "Tough ****, you're in the minority, dude. We don't really care if our behaviors might actually kill you." Then why the hell should I care abotu their discomfort? So they get a sinus infection. Big whoop.
 
Tucker Case said:
Are you using a narrow definition of "benefit" to only include health benefits?

And I can start listing the negative health impacts of shellfish if we need to. In fact, shellfish poisoning is a real thing and has been known for centuries.
Click to expand...

Not everyone is allergic to shellfish, but everyone has the potential to suffer ill affects from cigarette smoke. That is the difference. We don't ban shellfish because the cost outweighs the benefit. Cigarette smoke, even second hand, has been proven with several decade's worth of studies as a hazard to human health. Maybe some day if all humans are equally as susceptible to shellfish, we would ban shellfish in parks.

Tucker Case said:
The point I've been making is that your risks from someone else smoking at the beach while you are having your picnic are minimal, nad the issue is primarily that you don't like cigarrettes. Which is perfectly reasonable.

Whereas when someone comes on by and sets up their picnic and starts grilling shrimp on the barbie, the risk to me is actually higher than the risk you have from the smoke (because the allergens do get expelled into the air, especially during the cooking process). I shouldn't have to pack up and go home just because someone ignorantly starts spewing something that is very poisonous to me up in the air. They should eat their shellfish at home.


I'm applying the same logic that non-smokers are suing on the smoking ban to shellfish because, for me, shellfish is a very deadly poison even if I do not consume it myself. It is comparable to effects of SHS for me, although more immediate and intense. And I'm not alone. It's the most common allergy among adults. My allergy just happens to be more extreme than normal.

When most non-smokers choose to leave because they don't want to be around smoke, they are doing so because they wish to avoid mild discomfort. But they do have the option of staying and, in the worst case scenario, endure that mild discomfort.

But when I leave the area because someone starts grilling up shellfish, I'm not really doing it by choice, I'm leaving by necessity because I'm not taking the risk of having a full blown attack on a beach or at a park because that is legitimately life-threatening. Technically I could choose to stay as well, but if I take that risk the worst case scenario is a hell of a lot worse than just mild discomfort. After having had some major attacks, I don't want to put any degree of risk upon myself anymore becuase the reactions are hard to predict. It's posible to have amajor attack from the particles in the air.

And I have had to move my location at public places numerous times because of shellfish being cooked because, as I've said, the risk is far too high to take the chance, IMO.

But I'm not arguing in favor of a shellfish ban. I'm explaining how this "burden" that I have gives me a different perspective regarding a less immediate (although admittedly more common) "burden" placed on the average non-smoker.

My belief is that the argumetn in faovr of such bans have nothig to do with the dangers of second-hand smoke in public.

If it was, there would be little resistance to my position about shellfish from those in favor of the ban.

Instead, I believe this is entirely about their own discomfort. They don't like being around it, so they wish to make it so that they never have to be. If it didn't cause that mild discomfort, they wouldn't be btohered by smoke.

I use my expereinces with shellfish to expose what I believe is the lie in their arguments. It's not really about the danger posed to people who choose to not engage in the behavior, because they support another behavior being allowed which poses a more immediate danger to those who choose not to engage in the bahavior. The difference being that if that behavior were "banned", it would lead to discomfort for them, because most of them enjoy engaging in that behavior themselves. Moot did a great job of proving my point on that by expressing sympathy for me since I cannot eat something that the "loves, yum".

The point is, even something we personally consider benign can be an extremely malignant action for other people who may be in our presence.

And here's the thing, at least some non-smokers will abide by a request to not smoke around them if asked politely. They can place themselves into the non-smokers shoes and be considerate of their desires.

I have yet to meet a shellfish eater that I do not already know who will do the same. Try it sometime. If you are at a restaurant and the person at the table next to you starts ordering shellfish kindly and politely ask them if they would be willing to get something else because you have a severe shellfish allergy. Or try it next time you are out with a large group of people where you may not know everyone at the table with you. Politely request that nobody orders shellfish becuase of your allergy. If someone doesn't listen, ask the server if you can be seated elsewhere on your own. You'll be treated like an asshole. With the stranger at the other table, you'll moist likely get a "tough ****. Don't go to restaurants then" and with the people at your table they might abide by the request, but they are going to act like you victimized them by making it. Snide comments about somebody spoiling their dinner or asinine bull**** like "I think you are just overreacting. I'm allergic to (insert something they have a mild allergy to here) and I can be around it without any problem."
Click to expand...

You're not applying the same logic as non-smokers at all. You say shellfish eaters are ignorant of your condition or the risks to others, but that's only because the majority do not suffer from the same allergy. I'm allergic to kiwi fruit, but I cannot expect every establishment to be free of kiwis. It is my responsibility to know where I am eating and what I am eating. That is me exercising choices. The hazards of cigarette smoke are universal; the hazards of shellfish are confined to a minority of people. If a smoker lights up near me and I smell it, that smell indicates I am already breathing it. My choice has been removed.

Cigarette tobacco should be banned in general for what it costs the health system every year, and its hazards to public health; but we all know how well prohibition works, so the next best thing we can do is limit where it can take place. People who don't obey get fined. If you want to sit in a soup of toxic gases then do it at home or in a private establishment that allows smoking. I don't see why that's so hard to comprehend.

Your argument is comparing apples and oranges. Again, I am sympathetic to your allergy, but it's not universal so it doesn't carry the same risk to public health as smoking does. The main complainers to these kinds of laws are, surprise surprise, SMOKERS. I think the majority of non-smokers support this kind of law.
 
Last edited:
WI Crippler said:
That pretty much sums it up. They think they ought to be entitled to go pretty much anywhere and not have to "endure" the smell of cigarette smoke. And bars. I mean banning smoking in bars. I don't get it. its a place to go where someone wants to unwind after a hard day/week and maybe smoking gives them a feeling of relaxation. But we can't have that, while we simultaneously pursue marijuana legalization and build safe houses for people to shoot up heroin.
Click to expand...

That doesn't sum it up whatsoever.

The argument here can be boiled down to this:

Don't like smoke in your home? Then don't smoke at home.
Don't like smoke in bars or restaurants? Then don't go to bars or restaurants.
Don't like smoke in public parks or beaches? Then move whenever someone lights up, or better yet, don't go to parks or beaches.

It makes much more sense to make parks and beaches smoke neutral than to give smokers entitlement to light up wherever they want. Smokers have the option of going to other places to smoke, or they can sit at a park or beach and simply not smoke during their time there. Non-smokers already aren't smoking. The only thing they seem to be guilty of is being in proximity to a smoker and not appreciating it. If it were a simple matter of dislike, then I would agree with you; but second hand smoke has established health hazards. I should not have to breath in one iota extra of cancerous material than I have to, and smokers take that choice away from me.

As for your straw man of heroin and cannabis... heroin users aren't directly hurting me. Their heroin doesn't magically end up in my body. All other smokers, including cannabis smokers, will be covered under these laws. Smokers are smokers. Cops could choose to be pests and decide to book cannabis smokers for possession if they wanted to, in addition to the smoking fines. So you see, the rule is consistent.
 
Orion said:
That doesn't sum it up whatsoever.

The argument here can be boiled down to this:

Don't like smoke in your home? Then don't smoke at home.
Don't like smoke in bars or restaurants? Then don't go to bars or restaurants.
Don't like smoke in public parks or beaches? Then move whenever someone lights up, or better yet, don't go to parks or beaches.

It makes much more sense to make parks and beaches smoke neutral than to give smokers entitlement to light up wherever they want. Smokers have the option of going to other places to smoke, or they can sit at a park or beach and simply not smoke during their time there. Non-smokers already aren't smoking. The only thing they seem to be guilty of is being in proximity to a smoker and not appreciating it. If it were a simple matter of dislike, then I would agree with you; but second hand smoke has established health hazards. I should not have to breath in one iota extra of cancerous material than I have to, and smokers take that choice away from me.

As for your straw man of heroin and cannabis... heroin users aren't directly hurting me. Their heroin doesn't magically end up in my body. All other smokers, including cannabis smokers, will be covered under these laws. Smokers are smokers. Cops could choose to be pests and decide to book cannabis smokers for possession if they wanted to, in addition to the smoking fines. So you see, the rule is consistent.
Click to expand...

You are not making it neutral. Neutral is when both people have choices. You are eliminating one choice. How does that make it neutral?

Neutral would be having BOTH non-smoking beaches and parks and smoking beaches and parks. That's neutral.

Think of it like electrons and protons. You are proposing that all beeches and parks become electrons (negative smoking environments). Thus there are no positive charges anywhere. The overall effect is that everything combined has a negative charge. If you add an equal number of positive charges, the net effect is neutral.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
You are not making it neutral. Neutral is when both people have choices. You are eliminating one choice. How does that make it neutral?

Neutral would be having BOTH non-smoking beaches and parks and smoking beaches and parks. That's neutral.

Think of it like electrons and protons. You are proposing that all beeches and parks become electrons (negative smoking environments). Thus there are no positive charges anywhere. The overall effect is that everything combined has a negative charge. If you add an equal number of positive charges, the net effect is neutral.
Click to expand...

That makes about as much sense as having "smoking" and "non-smoking" sections in bars. Smoke disperses and travels... first rule on the laws of the physics of gases. Non-smoking beaches are neutral to human health as it pertains to this particular argument.

As for the electron/proton bit, you can't get anymore non-sequitur than that. We're not talking about the charges of molecules, but human health. I understand the metaphor you're trying to use but it's still like comparing apples and oranges. Positive and negative charges aren't in of themselves harmful, but smoking is. Smokers in parks is not a consequence of non-smokers also existing in parks. The two are mutually exclusive. A smoke-free park can exist all on its own and be in perfect balance; in fact, that is just what human health requires in its natural state.

Smoking is an addiction and it's one that causes harm to bystanders. This law may not receive total enforcement but in principle its a good thing. People should indulge in their self-destruction in places where others will not be put at risk, or where they are in private establishments with patrons that are mutually self-destructive.
 
Orion said:
That makes about as much sense as having "smoking" and "non-smoking" sections in bars. Smoke disperses and travels... first rule on the laws of the physics of gases. Non-smoking beaches are neutral to human health as it pertains to this particular argument.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm not talking about sections, but entirely separate beeches and parks. I know that no anti-smoker would like that though, because for them its all about their selfish need for comfort. Smokers are willing to compromise. It's the selfish non-smokers who refuse to do so.

As for the electron/proton bit, you can't get anymore non-sequitur than that. We're not talking about the charges of molecules, but human health. I understand the metaphor you're trying to use but it's still like comparing apples and oranges. Positive and negative charges aren't in of themselves harmful, but smoking is. Smokers in parks is not a consequence of non-smokers also existing in parks. The two are mutually exclusive. A smoke-free park can exist all on its own and be in perfect balance; in fact, that is just what human health requires in its natural state.
Click to expand...

Once you brought up "neutral" the situation warranted the comparison. If the analogy doesn't apply, then you've redefined a word to suit your purposes, thus falling prey to the fallacy of equivocation. Can any non-smoker present a fallacy-free defense of their position?

Smoking is an addiction and it's one that causes harm to bystanders.This law may not receive total enforcement but in principle its a good thing. People should indulge in their self-destruction in places where others will not be put at risk, or where they are in private establishments with patrons that are mutually self-destructive.
Click to expand...

Nice hyperbole. There is little to no risk for bystanders form SHS in public environments. It's all about discomfort and selfishness. That's why you want it to be removed from any place you might visit and completely disregard any chance for an actually neutral solution.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
Actually, I'm not talking about sections, but entirely separate beeches and parks. I know that no anti-smoker would like that though, because for them its all about their selfish need for comfort. Smokers are willing to compromise. It's the selfish non-smokers who refuse to do so.
Click to expand...

Actually, I would be against that for completely different reasons. Mostly, if it's all public space then all of the public should have access to it. Smokers don't need to smoke in parks. They can exit parks and take their unhealthy activities elsewhere. I don't see the problem.

Tucker Case said:
Once you brought up "neutral" the situation warranted the comparison. If the analogy doesn't apply, then you've redefined a word to suit your purposes, thus falling prey to the fallacy of equivocation. Can any non-smoker present a fallacy-free defense of their position?
Click to expand...

I believe I already pointed out how your electron analogy was flawed; I also pointed out how your shellfish allergy does not compare to the universal toxicity of smoking to all humans. It's ironic because thus far all I have seen from those against this law are non-sequitur comparisons to other things that are not even comparable to the issue of smoking. Now because I'm pointing that out, I'm equivocating? What a joke.

Can you present a fallacy-free defense for your position? Can you even form of an argument in favour of smoking in parks without comparing it to other irrelevant things?

Tucker Case said:
Nice hyperbole. There is little to no risk for bystanders form SHS in public environments. It's all about discomfort and selfishness. That's why you want it to be removed from any place you might visit and completely disregard any chance for an actually neutral solution.
Click to expand...

All objective studies on SHS prove it to be harmful, which is why it's also called "passive smoking". The vast, vast majority of studies that dispute this are funded by the tobacco industry. Do some basic research on how the studies are funded and the facts will be very clear to you; it's one of the few instances in health research where the info lines up in a rather black and white manner. Outdoor smoke poses lesser risk, but there is still risk. There is no excuse for exposing others to the toxic material in cigarettes. This isn't about my comfort, but my health. If that makes me selfish, then oh well. Maybe my health matters more to me than yours does to you. :shrug:

I'm a fairly staunch defender of people being able to do what they want to do. I think you can find evidence of that on DP. I sympathize with most libertarian arguments; this, however, is not one of them. Smoking is a menace to the well being of society and the more limits put on it, the better. The only reason why I'm against an all out ban on tobacco itself is because it, like the war on drugs, would be a dismal failure. But the government might as well tax and fine the hell out of smokers in order to make up some of the cost to society.
 
Orion said:
That doesn't sum it up whatsoever.

The argument here can be boiled down to this:

Don't like smoke in your home? Then don't smoke at home.
Don't like smoke in bars or restaurants? Then don't go to bars or restaurants.
Don't like smoke in public parks or beaches? Then move whenever someone lights up, or better yet, don't go to parks or beaches.

It makes much more sense to make parks and beaches smoke neutral than to give smokers entitlement to light up wherever they want. Smokers have the option of going to other places to smoke, or they can sit at a park or beach and simply not smoke during their time there. Non-smokers already aren't smoking. The only thing they seem to be guilty of is being in proximity to a smoker and not appreciating it. If it were a simple matter of dislike, then I would agree with you; but second hand smoke has established health hazards. I should not have to breath in one iota extra of cancerous material than I have to, and smokers take that choice away from me.

As for your straw man of heroin and cannabis... heroin users aren't directly hurting me. Their heroin doesn't magically end up in my body. All other smokers, including cannabis smokers, will be covered under these laws. Smokers are smokers. Cops could choose to be pests and decide to book cannabis smokers for possession if they wanted to, in addition to the smoking fines. So you see, the rule is consistent.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as "smoke-neutral". You either have establishments that allow smoking, or establishments that prohibit smoking. Smoke neutral is a made up term, probably just now, to make it sound fair to everybody, when it is only "fair" to one segment. If we keep making areas both indoors and outdoors "smoke neutral", then smokers will not have anywhere to go to not smoke near you. But you don't care, because they won't be allowed to smoke near you. Its ironic that you say smokers don't give you a choice, when by your support of smoking bans, you are enforcing a lack of options on them. Now they cannot smoke in bars/restaraunts, beaches/parks, etc....

When I was training for my half-marathon, I originally ran a route on a busy street. The car fumes from the traffic made me feel as though it were inhibiting my O2 uptake. Did I call the city council and try to ban cars on the road between 3:30-5:00 PM due to concern for my health, and other people that like to run on that street. No, I either ran at a less congested time, or found another route of equal length to run.

My point about marijuana/heroin is that its ironic that we are choosing to demonize a perfectly legal activity in smoking, yet trying to be tolerant, supportive, and understanding about people who are doing drugs that are illegal, and in the case of heroin, much more socially and physically damaging. Its backwards retarded monkey logic.
 
Republic_Of_Public said:
Though, of course, the liberal idiots who want to ban tobacco smoking on the grounds of personal freedom for passive smokers, also would want pot legalised - for reasons of personal freedom of course!
Click to expand...

Hmmm... quashing a liberty doesn't exactly fall within the M.O. of liberals. They're the ones wanting to legalize pot, gay marriage, etc... You sure it isn't the other side behind this? That would make more sense.
 
Tucker Case said:
Now you are being dishonest. Did you not say "It's more practical, and less socially harmful, to deal with that than to cater to every rare allergen conditon. "
Click to expand...

Well actually, if you look back at what I said in the last two posts, I pointed out just that: one has a much larger scope, is more practical to deal with, and has different consequences that make the former so. I said that the shellfish thing is a much rarer problem and is a lot harder to deal with. As Orion said, and which my point was, your allergy is not a significant public risk or interest. We cannot cater to every minority's problem. That's impractical. Smoking is practical to deal with and eliminates a lot of problems for more people.

If you don't want shellfish contamination, don't go where seafood is. I can't avoid smokers anywhere, least I again stay at home.

You created a strawman where this would be about "every rare allergen condition" because it's easier to argue your point when you create a strawman like that (It's impractical because everything would be banned!!1111!!!)
Click to expand...

That's not a strawman. You argued we ought to ban shellfish from public because you, and a tiny minority, have a severe reaction to it. You also indicated that the scope and practicality of the social problem taht said allergy reflects was irrelevant. Given that consideration is dismissed....you have a problem in application. Your severe allergy is only the most common FORM of the type of allergy, but it doesn't mean teh allergy itself is frequent. It affects, by your own source, a small absolute figure. An allergen that affects a large number of the population is entirely different. If we ban shellfish, despite it not actually affecting a significant number of people, we'd have to do the same thing for every similar case. Thus, we'd be banning many services because tiny minorities have common-rare allergies. Many tiny groups of people are just like you, but with other items and foods.


Your strawman that it becomes impractical is nullified because it is just as practical (with a lack of social harm) to ban shellfish and peanuts (the two foods I actually mentioned) in public as it is to ban smoking in public.
Click to expand...

No, it's really not as practical at all, givent he consequences of application lead to undesirable results that outweigh the benefits to just the tiny minority. We can't go around banning things because 2% of people who may come into contact with it have an allergy. It makes much more sense to regulate the affects of an allergy that impacts everyone, and from which you cannot get away unless you don't go in public. If we allow shellfish to be banned because 2% have a problem with it, we'd need to apply the same logic to all instances which have 2 + percent of the pop. that has a problem with them, too. Impractical, unless you consider scope of application and unintended consequences.







Nice strawman. I never said "and if someone can claim an allergy we should ban the practice". I'm talking about the two most common and deadliest food allergies specifically, where all of the danger could be prevented if the products were banned in public.
Click to expand...

You didn't directly say it, no, but your argument's logic unintentionally supports it. You claimed that the scope of the problem doesn't matter, essentially. Thus, you have that problem.

My ultimate point is that smoking bans have preceicely jack**** to do with safety and everythign to do with non-smokers wishing to be comfortable anywhere they choose to go.
Click to expand...

Less about safety, and more about not wanting to get eye, throat, and nasal irritation and infections. You won't die from SHS, probably.

But it's absurd to shut down any service that may cause a small number of people who may be there to get hurt.

Your smoking is bad anyway, so you should stop. For you, and for society. Shellfish doesn'thave that additional problem. It's only bad to a tiny group of abnormal people.
 
Last edited:
WI Crippler said:
There is no such thing as "smoke-neutral". You either have establishments that allow smoking, or establishments that prohibit smoking. Smoke neutral is a made up term, probably just now, to make it sound fair to everybody, when it is only "fair" to one segment. If we keep making areas both indoors and outdoors "smoke neutral", then smokers will not have anywhere to go to not smoke near you. But you don't care, because they won't be allowed to smoke near you. Its ironic that you say smokers don't give you a choice, when by your support of smoking bans, you are enforcing a lack of options on them. Now they cannot smoke in bars/restaraunts, beaches/parks, etc....
Click to expand...

Smoke neutral means no smoke, but it's still a place that everyone can go to, smokers and non-smokers alike.

Smokers can choose where they smoke. I can't always choose where I am inhaling smoke. That is the difference in the argument on choice. There are still places they can go where others won't be exposed or at least where others are just passing by quickly and won't be exposed for long. Parks are leisure places for families and where people go to be stationery. I can't count the number of times that I have setup a beach blanket, go everything laid out that I wanted for the afternoon, and then some ignoramous lights up near me. I shouldn't have to move because they are oblivious or inconsiderate. Now I don't have to because the same law is in Vancouver.

Again, the health risks are established. There is no argument against it. And you're right, I don't care. Smokers don't care about their own health or mine, so why should I care about indulging their habit? They can take a hike.

WI Crippler said:
When I was training for my half-marathon, I originally ran a route on a busy street. The car fumes from the traffic made me feel as though it were inhibiting my O2 uptake. Did I call the city council and try to ban cars on the road between 3:30-5:00 PM due to concern for my health, and other people that like to run on that street. No, I either ran at a less congested time, or found another route of equal length to run.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and I hate car pollution too, as well as industry pollution. But do you think that is going to change? At least they provide some benefits: transportation, employment, production of goods for the general public, etc. I have always supported green initiatives. The sooner we can do away with fossil fuels the better, and that includes their use in cars. But what does smoking do that is beneficial to society? The answer is nothing.

WI Crippler said:
My point about marijuana/heroin is that its ironic that we are choosing to demonize a perfectly legal activity in smoking, yet trying to be tolerant, supportive, and understanding about people who are doing drugs that are illegal, and in the case of heroin, much more socially and physically damaging. Its backwards retarded monkey logic.
Click to expand...

It's not quite the same thing. Prohibition obviously has not worked, and by that same token, people should be free to do what they want to their own bodies as long as they are not harming others in the process. Smoking in public spaces does not meet that criterion. At least a heroin addict is using a needle and the substance only goes into them. We can talk about social costs too, and health care costs, but nothing is more damaging to society right now than the war on drugs. At least with decriminalization more people could get help, education, and understanding. That said, there is still a level of reasonable use, and that mostly relates to location. People should not be able to smoke crack in parks either, or cannabis, or tobacco. It's all the same... smoke that disperses and I have to breathe in, affecting me in who knows what ways.
 
Captain America said:
Hmmm... quashing a liberty doesn't exactly fall within the M.O. of liberals. They're the ones wanting to legalize pot, gay marriage, etc... You sure it isn't the other side behind this? That would make more sense.
Click to expand...

Not to mention, I have already said that I don't favour smoking pot in parks either. Smoke is smoke. If you're smoking near me then I'm likely breathing it.
 
Orion said:
Actually, I would be against that for completely different reasons. Mostly, if it's all public space then all of the public should have access to it. Smokers don't need to smoke in parks. They can exit parks and take their unhealthy activities elsewhere. I don't see the problem.
Click to expand...


Apparently you don't understand what having access means. Non-smokers do indeed have acces to smoking locations.


All you have done is prove that my beliefs about non-smokers are corect. they are by far and away the far more selfish of the two parties being discussed.


I believe I already pointed out how your electron analogy was flawed; I also pointed out how your shellfish allergy does not compare to the universal toxicity of smoking to all humans. It's ironic because thus far all I have seen from those against this law are non-sequitur comparisons to other things that are not even comparable to the issue of smoking. Now because I'm pointing that out, I'm equivocating? What a joke.
Click to expand...

Your not equivocating for "pointing" out your perceived flaws in my argument, you are equivocating because you created a new definition for a word.

Your arguments about my analgies have alrteady been proven false. And you've made up infomation to make SHS more dangerous than it really is in public space

Can you present a fallacy-free defense for your position?
Click to expand...

I have. Peopel who aren't even aware of which fallacy is which that have presented nothing more than emotional rhetoric and hyperbole aren't really in a position to criticize my logic until they develop an arugment that is actually logical.

Can you even form of an argument in favour of smoking in parks without comparing it to other irrelevant things?
Click to expand...

Yeah, there is significant no risk posed to others in open space posed from SHS. The whiners who pretend there is are distorting the data to suit their selfish agenda which is entirely because rthey don't like the smell and they will whine incessently about it until they get their way.

Because of that, it is morally correct to smoke around them, if only to piss them off for their lies and distortions.



All objective studies on SHS prove it to be harmful, which is why it's also called "passive smoking".
Click to expand...

No obejective study has ever shown minimal exposure in an open environment to have any harmful effects.

The vast, vast majority of studies that dispute this are funded by the tobacco industry. Do some basic research on how the studies are funded and the facts will be very clear to you; it's one of the few instances in health research where the info lines up in a rather black and white manner. Outdoor smoke poses lesser risk, but there is still risk. There is no excuse for exposing others to the toxic material in cigarettes. This isn't about my comfort, but my health. If that makes me selfish, then oh well. Maybe my health matters more to me than yours does to you. :shrug:
Click to expand...

You distort the facts. teh studies you are referring to all look at prolonged exposure in closed environments. No objective study supports an outdoor ban.

I'm a fairly staunch defender of people being able to do what they want to do.
Click to expand...

Only when you agree with it.

I think you can find evidence of that on DP. I sympathize with most libertarian arguments; this, however, is not one of them. Smoking is a menace to the well being of society and the more limits put on it, the better. The only reason why I'm against an all out ban on tobacco itself is because it, like the war on drugs, would be a dismal failure. But the government might as well tax and fine the hell out of smokers in order to make up some of the cost to society.
Click to expand...


You could rewrite this as "I really really really really really hate smoking so I want it banned from ever happening in any place I could possibly encounter."

I'm OK with that argument. At least it's an honest one. But distorting the facts about the dangers to present an argumetn while simultaneously rejecting a legitimate arguemnt regarding a legitimate threat as being irrelvent, when it is actually being used to illuminate the hypocricy and self-centered nature of the anti-smoker's position (and it really is doing a fantastic job of that, BTW) is dishonest.

Admit it's not about public safety, and it's not about "equality" and simply admit it's all about your personal hatred of cigarrettes and then we can move on.

The probelm is that everyone can see through the rationalizations. We've had non-smokers come in and agree with me on this multiple times in this thread. The only proponents of such bans are entirely, I mean entirely motivated by their selfish desire to not have to deal with the mild discomfort they occasionally encounter from cigarettes. I'm OK with that as long as they admit it.

It's just like how 9 out of 10 people who oppose the "ground zero mosque" are actually motivated by a secret dislike of muslims/islam, not the rationalizations they present in lieu of admitting the truth. (that's a non-sequitor, but it's also a comparison)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom