Pawlenty signs state smoking ban

[IglooDame]

And it's seeming like the real problem is defining just what is a public space.

Bingo. There are shades of gray, as "private clubs" are businesses as surely as pubs are - and stores like Sam's Club are just as much as WalMart.

I define "public space" as that which is either owned/operated/maintained by the federal/state/local government, or which does not require identification or any particular characteristics to enter. Thus the line for me actually gets drawn between a Wal-Mart and a Sam's Club. Though I'd add that my perception of smoking bans doesn't ride on whether it's a "public space" by that definition as whether it is publicly or privately owned property.

 

[Red Door]

Even if that personal choice is harmful to someone else?

Guns can be harmful to someone else too. Plus, there are other places to go. If you don't like to smell smoke and potentially get cancer (it's extremely low risk), you can go to another place.

Should the government interfere with my personal choice to set things on fire? Why can't I put bombs in people's mailboxes? Why can't my company just pour it's chemical by products into the river?

Well, first of all, it's against the law to do these things, so yes, the government should interfere. Plus, you can harm someone directly by doing these things.

 

[Gogf]

Guns can be harmful to someone else too. Plus, there are other places to go. If you don't like to smell smoke and potentially get cancer (it's extremely low risk), you can go to another place.

Second hand smoke is actually a major problem. Should smokers be able to determine where I go? What if there's smoke on the street, or, worse, drifting into my property from my neighbor's yard?

Shooting your gun at someone else except in cases of self defense is illegal. Why should forcing someone to inhale deadly smoke be any less illegal?

Well, first of all, it's against the law to do these things, so yes, the government should interfere. Plus, you can harm someone directly by doing these things.

He's not asking if it's against the law. We're not debating what the law is. We're debating what the law should be.

I don't see how giving someone cancer isn't "directly" harming them.

 

[Red Door]

Second hand smoke is actually a major problem. Should smokers be able to determine where I go? What if there's smoke on the street, or, worse, drifting into my property from my neighbor's yard?

And, why again, should you determine where smokers go? They're exercising their free choice, and you can either deal with it or go somewhere else. What you are suggesting is just banning that choice, thus deciding where smokers go. This is a two-way street here, not a one-way street for non-smokers. Tough deal, it's their property on that example, and their choice.

Shooting your gun at someone else except in cases of self defense is illegal. Why should forcing someone to inhale deadly smoke be any less illegal?

Smoke isn't deadly. It is if you inhale too much of it, it might cause a problem.

I don't see how giving someone cancer isn't "directly" harming them.

You don't get cancer every time you inhale someone's else's second-hand smoke last time I checked. It's very rare.

 

[Gogf]

And, why again, should you determine where smokers go? They're exercising their free choice, and you can either deal with it or go somewhere else. What you are suggesting is just banning that choice, thus deciding where smokers go. This is a two-way street here, not a one-way street for non-smokers. Tough deal, it's their property on that example, and their choice.

And what if someone walks around releasing poison gas while wearing a gas mask? Would banning that choice be unacceptable? Would you tell people that it's a "tough deal" and that the gas is "their property and their choice"?

Smoke isn't deadly. It is if you inhale too much of it, it might cause a problem.

You don't get cancer every time you inhale someone's else's second-hand smoke last time I checked. It's very rare.

Okay, that's just not true. One of the major conclusions of this report was that "secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke." The science of secondhand smoke is not in question.

Saying that people can leave if they don't want to deal with the behavior is absurd; what if someone is smoking in an office? A train? A hospital?

Your argument that smokers would not be able to move freely if cigarettes were banned in certain areas is also untrue. Smokers would be able to go anywhere they want—but they wouldn't be able to smoke there. There are plenty of nicotine supplements available if they need them.

 

[Red Door]

And what if someone walks around releasing poison gas while wearing a gas mask? Would banning that choice be unacceptable? Would you tell people that it's a "tough deal" and that the gas is "their property and their choice"?

I think there's a teensy difference between poison gas and cigarettes.

Okay, that's just not true. One of the major conclusions of this report was that "secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke." The science of secondhand smoke is not in question.

I'm not debating the question of whether secondhand smoke is deadly, I'm debating how deadly it is. Because, what are the chances of you getting cancer from inhaling cigarette smoke once per month, heck, once per week for 5 years.

Saying that people can leave if they don't want to deal with the behavior is absurd; what if someone is smoking in an office? A train? A hospital?

Well, most people are polite enough to leave those places to go outside and smoke, but whatever.

Your argument that smokers would not be able to move freely if cigarettes were banned in certain areas is also untrue. Smokers would be able to go anywhere they want—but they wouldn't be able to smoke there. There are plenty of nicotine supplements available if they need them.

People are allowed to go anywhere they want too, it's just a choice of whether they want to inhale smoke or not, just like the smoker chose to light up or not.

 

[Gogf]

I think there's a teensy difference between poison gas and cigarettes.

Poison gas kills you faster.

I'm not debating the question of whether secondhand smoke is deadly, I'm debating how deadly it is. Because, what are the chances of you getting cancer from inhaling cigarette smoke once per month, heck, once per week for 5 years.

I'm not sure what the exactly numbers are, but the point is that it is deadly. We have a responsibility to protect the citizenry from the release of deadly fumes into confined spaces.

Well, most people are polite enough to leave those places to go outside and smoke, but whatever.

That's all well and good, but what about the people who aren't?

 

[Red Door]

Poison gas kills you faster.

AFAIK, you have a much, much higher chance of dying from poison gas than from cigarette smoke.

I'm not sure what the exactly numbers are, but the point is that it is deadly. We have a responsibility to protect the citizenry from the release of deadly fumes into confined spaces.

It is deadly yes, but not as deadly as people make it out to be. Most people who get cancer from it are people who hang out at bars and bowling alleys for years of theirs lives among chain-smokers. I'm not sure how many people who are regulars at bars actually care about the cigarette smokers either, but that's besides the point. The point is that it's a very minimal risk, and people shouldn't even be putting themselves in that situation anyways. Plus, it's not a government's job to ban choices from an establishment, that's a business' decision.

That's all well and good, but what about the people who aren't?

Well, I'd tell them off personally. It's freedom of speech. Or you can cough loudly, or start gagging.

 

[Gogf]

AFAIK, you have a much, much higher chance of dying from poison gas than from cigarette smoke.

See, here's the thing: cigarette smoke is poison gas.

The point is that it's a very minimal risk, and people shouldn't even be putting themselves in that situation anyways.

There are two issues here. First, it's not a "very minimal risk." Secondhand smoke causes cancer. Period. Second, to say that "people shouldn't even be putting themselves in that situation" is ridiculous. That's tantamount to saying that smokers can decide where nonsmokers can go.

Plus, it's not a government's job to ban choices from an establishment, that's a business' decision.

Now this is a valid point.

 

[History_Buff]

Well, most people are polite enough to leave those places to go outside and smoke, but whatever.

So you'd think, but a lot of people would prefer to smoke inside, particularly when its -30 outside.

AFAIK, you have a much, much higher chance of dying from poison gas than from cigarette smoke.

They really are the same thing. Have you ever seen the list of chemicals that's in those things?

Well, I'd tell them off personally. It's freedom of speech. Or you can cough loudly, or start gagging.

Ah, but our mutual aquaintance Pasi has insisted that if we do this, we are merely incosiderate idiots.

It is deadly yes, but not as deadly as people make it out to be. Most people who get cancer from it are people who hang out at bars and bowling alleys for years of theirs lives among chain-smokers . . . The point is that it's a very minimal risk, and people shouldn't even be putting themselves in that situation anyways.

Is it wrong for non smokers to want to go to a bar, or bowl? And a number of these people are employees who work at these locations.

I'm not sure how many people who are regulars at bars actually care about the cigarette smokers either, but that's besides the point.

Well, back before they brought in the smoking ban, I was right pissed off about it.

Plus, it's not a government's job to ban choices from an establishment, that's a business' decision.

Hate to break it to you, but the market has it's flaws. We call them market failures, and when it happens, it's the government's job to correct it.

 

[MobBoss]

Smoke isn't deadly. It is if you inhale too much of it, it might cause a problem.

Yes, smoke can be deadly. Its effects are widespread and well published.

You don't get cancer every time you inhale someone's else's second-hand smoke last time I checked. It's very rare.

The effects of second hand smoke are indeed not as well documented as that of smoking....however, it has been shown to have negative effects on ones health over time just like smoking does.

 

[CurtSibling]

Well, some people do not regard pubs, bars, discoes, concert halls, etc as public places since they aren't. Since not anyone can enter.

Stop splitting hairs.

A place where the public congregate, such a train station waiting room is a place where smoking should be banned.

For safety reasons too...Can you say 'Kings Cross Disaster'?

And guess what, that loss of life was caused by a smoker.

I don't think you are able to point out the blatantly obvious.

Rubbish. I just did.
If you cannot accept it, so what?

Don't know, why did you?

Pointless. You started the cycle by saying you did not care.

Stop wasting my time with this.

My opinion still stands.

They aren't special, they're the same as people driving cars.

Smokers are more directly poisonous in enclosed public areas than cars.

Amusing that I have to point that out to you.

Indeed you aren't.

I wasn't trying to.
It is my level of frustration with immature people who
cannot accept that we non-smokers have spoken out.

A fist in the face.

I am glad you find it funny.

Now, do you have anything useful to add?

...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Stop splitting hairs.

A place where the public congregate, such a train station waiting room is a place where smoking should be banned.

For safety reasons too...Can you say 'Kings Cross Disaster'?

And guess what, that loss of life was caused by a smoker.

Silly argument. Ban anything that resulted in a disaster once?

And I was asking what definition you used for public place since the definition isn't as blatantly obvious as you make it out to be. Using one of the definitions would have me agreeing with you.

Rubbish. I just did.
If you cannot accept it, so what?

See above.

Pointless. You started the cycle by saying you did not care.

"I simply do not care about some shivering drug fiend, etc"

Smokers are more directly poisonous in enclosed public areas than cars.

Amusing that I have to point that out to you.

Amusing indeed, since that was not your initial point.

I wasn't trying to.
It is my level of frustration with immature people who
cannot accept that we non-smokers have spoken out.

That's one way of putting it

I am glad you find it funny.

Now, do you have anything useful to add?


...

Yes in fact I did

1. Defintion of public places is not blatantly obvious.
2. Smokers do not regard themselves 'special'
3. It's not about rights.

 

[CurtSibling]

I am not using King's Cross as the benchmark for banning smoking, but the fact
that it is a fatal habit and is proven to give non-smokers in the vicinity cancer.

Thanks, but I for one, do not want cancer because of other people's cigarettes.

Well, I am glad you finally got to the point.

1. Defintion of public places is not blatantly obvious.
2. Smokers do not regard themselves 'special'
3. It's not about rights.

1. Places where people congregate should have no smoking, this is a no-brainer.
2. Smokers are harping on about 'human rights' - Which is a load of baloney.
3. Non-smoking people should at least have the privilege of clean air.

Why should I, or anyone else make allowances for a filthy habit or people
who lack the character to cease blowing tobacco-smoke over everyone?

I don't see why as a taxpayer, that I have to fund the cancer treatment
for these losers? If they want to kill themselves, they should fast track
the process and gas themselves. Case closed!

...

 

[boarder]

Im a smoker...again ffs but anyway to the point, I think its unfair for non smokers to have to sit in the same room as me if I want to smoke, what right do I have to expose them to dangerous chemicals that they wouldnt be otherwise exposed to just to satisfy my own personal habits.

I choose to smoke(well not really, lack of willpower etc) so I should be the one whom has to go outside and away from non smokers to do it.
Its called respect.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

@Curt

Fine mate, have it your way.

I'm fed up with you about this.

 

[CurtSibling]

@Curt

Fine mate, have it your way.

I'm fed up with you.

Good, good.

Fun while it lasted.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Im a smoker...again ffs but anyway to the point, I think its unfair for non smokers to have to sit in the same room as me if I want to smoke, what right do I have to expose them to dangerous chemicals that they wouldnt be otherwise exposed to just to satisfy my own personal habits.

I choose to smoke(well not really, lack of willpower etc) so I should be the one whom has to go outside and away from non smokers to do it.
Its called respect.

I'm outside all the time. Even when I have visitors who don't smoke at my own house. I don't really mind.

Only in bars people choose to go in there, but I understand they lack alternatives. That's why I am in favour of an arrangement which makes it interesting for a barowner to convert to non-smoking, but at the same time allow smoking bars.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Good, good.

Fun while it lasted.

First few posts, then it turned into a tennismatch.

So much potential going to waste is just sad

 

[CurtSibling]

First few posts, then it turned into a tennismatch.

So much potential going to waste is just sad

We are from two diametrically opposed views.
You think smoking is cool, I do not.

We are not going to reconcile these views.

...