posted
I think people on both sides of this are being ridiculous.
The anti-smoking folks have made laws that force businesses to not allow smoking. This is stupid. Good ventilation is all you need to protect non-smokers from secondhand smoke. Businesses should have the right to pay for better ventilation and allow smokers to smoke, if that's what the owner of the business wants to do. That's common sense.
The smokers are being idiots by smoking too much in the first place, and in many cases, for no good reason. They're driving up the medical costs that we all have to pay. It's not smoking that kills, usually, it's smoking too much. There are also spitless snuff options that are becoming available, from Camel, and I think even Phillip Morris. These offend no one, and are excellent substitutes for when you cannot smoke due to the situation.
I say that some people on both sides of the debate are being childish and ridiculous.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do I get points for saying that in addition to wanting smoking to be legal (although I do not oppose certain restrictions on where), I also oppose public healthcare in all shapes and forms?
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, continuing to speak for the asthmatics in the world here: Good ventilation is NOT ENOUGH to protect them from the smoke. My sister frequently says that having a smoking section of a restaurant is like having a peeing section of a pool, and believe me, I have been out with my family in places with smoke enough times to know that this is completely true.
That said, of course there are people on both sides of the debate being childish and ridiculous. That's always true of any debate.
Posts: 910 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Do I get points for saying that in addition to wanting smoking to be legal (although I do not oppose certain restrictions on where), I also oppose public healthcare in all shapes and forms?
Is it okay to ask you about this? (Honestly, I can't see how we can have a modern society without public health care, at least by default. Not that I'm saying we have to for moral reasons (though I would agree with that, too), but as a matter of the practicality of providing emergency care. There just isn't time to check up on someone's insurance before paramedics give CPR, or before someone in late labor is attended to in an ER, etc. And those costs that aren't paid will get passed on.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd be happy to discuss it with you, CT, though not here. I'll compose a response to your parenthetical when I get the chance. Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Question. Isn't this a free market? If smoking is so unpopular then there should be plenty of bars around that are non-smoking. I say the people with asthma go there and leave the smokers the remaining bars that allow it.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the smokers let their addiction affect their thinking. They just don't see it as a problem for other people, they refuse to see, because it might mean they have to curtail their addiction. They'd rather believe that people are exaggerating about the breathing problems they have.
I know someone whose asthma is so sensitive to smoke that even the lingering smell on someone's clothes who's been around a smoker can cause her to have trouble breathing. She has to take steroids so that she has significant health issues just from the side effects. But her labored breathing and oxygen deprivation still leave her exhausted a lot of the time. When people casually assume it's no problem for her to smell their smoke, they're doing her serious physical harm. Why do they not care? I think it's because they're addicts, and addicts put their addiction ahead of everything else.
Every time I go visit my mom who smokes I get head congestion that lasts for 2 or 3 days. It's not bad enough to keep me away entirely, but I go probably half as often because of that. I have absolutely no doubt that if my allergies got worse and I couldn't go at all, mom would still not consider not smoking while I'm there. It's her house and if I don't like the smoke I can not go, is her opinion. In other words, she would decide I was just pretending in order to make her feel bad about smoking. <laughs> She would never believe it was real. She smoked around all her grandchildren when they were little, despite studies showing the ill-effects this has on their lungs. In her mind, all that is invented. She would never admit to herself there was something real there, because it would mean she had to go longer times without smoking, something she just isn't prepared to do.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So... living in a free market society gives you the right to hinder others peoples' breathing and cause harm to them?
Interesting. My personal preference is for the government to protect us from the extremes of a free market society, and this would be one of those cases. Particularly at the behest of its citizens.
Also, aren't comparisons to power plants, factories, cars et all a bit fallacious? All of those items actually serve a productive purpose (you can argue driving cars for enjoyment if you really want, but they are very useful tools nonetheless).
Posts: 55 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:So because you have this inalienable right to smoke wherever you want, my entire family should not be able to enter a bar?
You are free to enter bars where the owner has decided not to allow smoking.
quote:So... living in a free market society gives you the right to hinder others peoples' breathing and cause harm to them?
No, living in a free market society gives you the right to not enter places where people's acts, as permitted by the business establishment, hinder your breathing. If enough people don't enter those places, they will go out of business.
quote:But it's more than just this. You going to be using Medicare eventually, and most health care dollars are spent in the latter years of life (for diseases which are mostly affected by a smoking history, such as heart disease and diabetes). And you are eligible to use Medicaid if something unexpected happens, and your family ends up with no insurance. [I'd hope you wouldn't turn down BadgerCare if your daughter had no other access to insurance.]
It's the very common-sense concept that if government is paying for health care then government ought to be able to regulate actions that harm the health of the actors that is at the root of my philosophical resistance (not opposition, but resistance) to government-provided health care.
(I know you weren't presenting government subsidy of medical care as a reason to regulate smoking in that post, but it's the post that made me think of this.)
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are free to enter bars where the owner has decided not to allow smoking.
Actually, his entire family's free to enter whatever bar they want--they're choosing not to enter bars where people smoke.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it were up to me smoking would be outright illegal, or cigarettes would be taxed an insane amount so that those who insist on smoking would be doing some good for the rest of us. It's an inherently stupid and selfish habit.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: Just so you are aware, OP, this website is hardly pro-smoking. There are a few of us, but we're a silent minority as any thread about smoking quickly turns into an anti-smoking pile-on.
quote:If it were up to me smoking would be outright illegal, or cigarettes would be taxed an insane amount so that those who insist on smoking would be doing some good for the rest of us. It's an inherently stupid and selfish habit.
It's a good thing that it's not up to you, because that's an incredibly selfish point-of-view.
Posts: 1225 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If it were up to me smoking would be outright illegal, or cigarettes would be taxed an insane amount so that those who insist on smoking would be doing some good for the rest of us. It's an inherently stupid and selfish habit.
It's a good thing that it's not up to you, because that's an incredibly selfish point-of-view.
Yeah, I'm just a heartless monster... suggesting we eliminate totally unnecessary carcinogens from the air, and maybe clear up some room in cancer wards for people who aren't there just because they couldn't pick a faster way to kill themselves.
Next I'll be suggesting that they outlaw puppy dogs and flowers.
Really, tell me the good that comes from smoking and then explain how it outweighs the bad. Then you'll be able to tell me how smokers aren't the selfish ones.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't matter whether smoking is good or bad - what matters is your assumption that you can make a choice for someone else about whether or not they can indulge in a habit that happens to be harmful. To me, that suggestion is every bit as ridiculous as outlawing "puppy dogs and flowers". It simply is not your decision to make. Or the government's, for that matter. I believe that if a restaurant or a bar wants to allow smoking on the premises, then the owner of the establishment should be permitted to make that choice.
Posts: 1225 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Avadaru: It doesn't matter whether smoking is good or bad - what matters is your assumption that you can make a choice for someone else about whether or not they can indulge in a habit that happens to be harmful. To me, that suggestion is every bit as ridiculous as outlawing "puppy dogs and flowers". It simply is not your decision to make. Or the government's, for that matter. I believe that if a restaurant or a bar wants to allow smoking on the premises, then the owner of the establishment should be permitted to make that choice.
(Quick note, didn't feel like slogging through the whole thread, and I'm sure my same points have been made, but I'm lazy. I apologize in advance )
If a habit is harmful to people around the person with that habit, then that habit should be heavily discouraged. There are a multitude of other habits that are harmful that we already legislate against. Abuse of drugs like heroin, cocaine, and others are one example. None of these drugs are typically harmful to anyone but the user directly, but the effects on society are quite different. I'm not trying to compare tobacco use to these drugs, my point is as I said. A person should not have the right to cause potential harm to another person as a result of one of their habits.
As for ventilation in businesses that wish to allow smoking, you would have to use ventilation that would almost turn the business into a wind tunnel in order to effectively remove both the smoke and harmful, invisible chemicals found inside cigarette smoke from a room in such a way to prevent non smokers from breathing it in. This would result in severe noise problems as well as an incredible lack of comfort for all customers.
That said, I am *very much* against public smoking in enclosed spaces. Whenever I'm near a smoker, I get sick. I'm not certain, but I'm fairly sure I'm allergic to some of the crap that is in cigarette smoke, since I can't stand being around a smoker for 5 minutes without getting a mild stomach ache. Going into a smoke filled bar for 30 minutes one time brought me very close to vomiting. This is in addition to the severe irritation it causes my asthma. Why should I have to suffer like that so people can get their nicotine fix whenever and however *they* want? Don't I count?
The simple fact of the matter is this, smokers *choose* to smoke. They are not forced to. If it is so inconvenient for you to continue your habit, stop. If it is such an important part of your life to have that nicotine in your body, please do your best to make certain that it doesn't cause anyone else discomfort. The government is legislating public smoking because, quite simply, too many smokers just don't care about anyone's health. They want their fix, they want it now, and they don't care at all who they hurt or bother with their habit. If smokers would accept the fact that they are bothering other people, and be a little less selfish, the government wouldn't be forced to step in and protect the large number of people who don't smoke.
edit: I'd also like to add an interesting experience I had in the hospital. An old lady who had been brought in on an ambulance was in a room across the hall from me. Her voice was high-pitched and severely cracked from years of smoking. I listened for 30 minutes before having my appendix removed as this woman was requesting a cigarette from the nurse. "We can't allow you to smoke in here, Ma'am," the nurse would respond. Every time the nurse said this, the lady would respond, "I don't care, I need a cigarette!" and the nurse would explain, calmly, why she couldn't smoke and that she could not have a cigarette. By the time I had to go in to surgery myself she was practically irate at this nurse because he would not let her smoke in the hospital. My question, and I would actually like an honest answer for this, why would someone willingly form a habit that could eventually cause them to care so little for the health and safety of others?
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
While you can say the waiters and waitresses have made a personal choice about whether or not to work there, I can't help but think about the six months I used latex gloves despite being allergic. The job paid well, good hours and I had had trouble finding a job prior to that, so when I realized I had developed a latex allergy and the lab owner wouldn't buy nitrile, I just put up with it. Looking back, I probably should have fought them on that decision. People need money and turning down a job because of health problems can be extremely difficult. So, it seems like banning smoking in public places eliminates for many the difficult decision of feeding your family today or protecting your self from a cancer risk.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Avadaru: It doesn't matter whether smoking is good or bad - what matters is your assumption that you can make a choice for someone else about whether or not they can indulge in a habit that happens to be harmful. To me, that suggestion is every bit as ridiculous as outlawing "puppy dogs and flowers". It simply is not your decision to make. Or the government's, for that matter.
While I'll admit that making cigarettes illegal is an extreme solution that isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future, tell me, who wouldn't be better off if it were to happen?
It's not the government's decision to make? It's the people who give the government the authority to make these sorts of decisions. As smokers become a smaller and smaller minority (ie. as people gradually wise up) they'll continue to find that they have fewer and fewer places where their habit is tolerated. It's not the big bad government restricting their freedoms, it's their fellow citizens saying they've had enough and that if smokers aren't smart enough or considerate enough to get that inhaling and expelling poisons is a stupid decision, the rest of us will make that decision for them.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not the government's decision to make? It's the people who give the government the authority to make these sorts of decisions.
And do those people have the right to tell others which activities which, even though they may harm nobody but myself, are too dangerous for others to be allowed to participate in?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to a majority of Republicans, yep. [/glib]
I think we've established in the history of the US that yes, government does have a right to make laws about what you may or may not do outside of your home (and unglibly, Republicans (and probably Democrats, though nothing comes to mind) seem to be at the forefront of that charge in the last 10 years at least) when your actions might effect other citizens.
Unless you're not asking whether they CAN, but whether or not he thinks they SHOULD be able to or not. I'd have to say sometimes yes, sometimes no, would depend on the circumstances.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not the government's decision to make? It's the people who give the government the authority to make these sorts of decisions.
And do those people have the right to tell others which activities which, even though they may harm nobody but myself, are too dangerous for others to be allowed to participate in?
Therein lies the deciding factor, no? I personally believe that people should be able to do what they want if they are the only ones being directly affected by it. But how are non-smokers ever going to avoid being harmed when children have to live with parents who smoke, for example.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: In the July 12-15, 2007, poll, 21% of American adults report that they smoked cigarettes in the past week. Gallup has never found a lower percentage in the more than 60 years it has asked this question -- although from a statistical perspective, a 22% reading in 2004 and a pair of 23% measurements in 1999 and 2006 would be considered equivalent to the current reading.
quote:Republicans (and probably Democrats, though nothing comes to mind) seem to be at the forefront of that charge in the last 10 years at least) when your actions might effect other citizens.
I think you're forgetting handgun bans and other gun control, as well as a host of other things.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed, I did forget. I specifically didn't single out Republicans because I was sure there'd be something Democrats had done, but literally nothing was coming to mind. Thanks for filling in the cracks.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DevilDreamt: I don't know what kind of casinos you go to, but all of the ones I've been to (which is, admittedly, only 3) have been incredibly spacious with astonishingly effective ventilation systems. Heck, it was almost like they were pumping oxygen into them, they were so clean. And people were smoking all over the place.
I just got back from a weekend in Vegas, during which I spent quite a bit of time in well-ventilated casinos where people were smoking. It didn't reek the way a smoky bar interior does, but I still noticed it immediately upon entering. The smell pervaded the non-smoking hotel rooms above the casino as well; when I got home to my apartment and opened my luggage it was obvious. (Note: I didn't gamble, and consequently spent very little time physically near any smokers. All of the clothes I took still smelled.)
I don't smoke, and while I'm not asthmatic/otherwise sensitive to smoke beyond being repulsed and sometimes nauseated by it, I don't think a smoker would have noticed.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I have only read parts of this thread so far, so if I am repeating anything that others have said I apologize up front.
I am not a smoker, but I don't agree with smoking bans in bars. I can see it in restaurants, offices, and most other public places, but not bars. I understand and agree with many of the reasons for smoking bans, which is why I have no problem with such bans in most public places, but if we remove all such places for people to socialize while smoking we approach the smoking equivalent of prohibition, and we all know how well prohibition of alchohol worked. It just sent it underground and empowered organized crime.
My city recently passed such a ban, which was repealled several months later, but will be replaced with a statewide ban starting at the beginning of next year. Many bar owners in town started reporting drops in revenue of as much as 40 to 60 percent from the same time period the previous year. Many long established bars in town started laying off employees. Many bars in outlying communities that do not have the smoking ban started picking up business.
I was taking an economics class while the citywide ban was being discussed and we discussed different ways that could address the problem without an outright ban. I think that the best idea that came out of our class discussion was to have a smoking license for bars to allow smoking on the premises much like the alcohol license they have to have in order to serve alcohol. The number of smoking licenses allowed would be a percentage of the number of acohol licenses. An establishment would have to receive less than a certain percentage of its revenue from food on average to be eligible for a smoking license. An establishment that wants a smoking license would have to meet certain ventilation requirements, and would have to make available information on the dangers of second hand smoke to all patrons and get a signed affidavit from all employees that they had been provided a copy of and read the same information. The intended result of this idea was to provide for some drinking environments that allowed smoking and others that do not, and allow the market to decide which ones will succeed and which ones will fail.
Posts: 148 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Drinking a beer doesn't endanger the bartenders health....unless he is slow providing a refill, I guess. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: If a habit is harmful to people around the person with that habit, then that habit should be heavily discouraged.
I quite agree with this. I am all for discouraging smokine. And honestly, I can't think of a single person, smoker or non-smoker, who actually *encourages* the act of smoking. I'm a smoker, and I know it's a disgusting, filthy habit, but it's MY disgusting and filthy habit. I'm not telling anyone else to smoke, and if I am ever around a non-smoker, I ask if it's ok before I light up. The only exception to this is if I'm at a bar or a concert - I'm not going to ask everyone else in the entire venue if it's ok for me to smoke. I paid to be there, and if the owners of the building are ok with it, that's good enough for me. I recently went to a show at which the artists performing had specially requested no smoking, and I didn't have any problem stepping outside to have a cigarette. Any bar owner who decides they don't want smoking on their premises has my full respect and understanding, but I don't think it's any of the government's business what goes on in a privately owned establishment.
Posts: 1225 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: Quoting myself from the first page:
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: Just so you are aware, OP, this website is hardly pro-smoking. There are a few of us, but we're a silent minority as any thread about smoking quickly turns into an anti-smoking pile-on.
Yeah, yeah. You're martyrs for the cause.
*tiny violin*
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I just got back from a weekend in Vegas, during which I spent quite a bit of time in well-ventilated casinos where people were smoking.
I, OTOH, found it uncomfortable to even walk through the casino in the hotel. There was not a consciously noticeable smell, but I definitely started getting the symptoms I associate with cigarette smoke exposure. (Headache, nausea.) The time I had to walk through when I was already nauseated (by something else), it was almost enough to make me lose my lunch. So I avoided the casino, and kept my $20.
(I do not have asthma, but I do have respiratory allergies.)
I live in California, which has one of the longest restaurant/bar cigarette bans. While there was an initial economic impact, after a few years the establishments were, on average, doing considerably better than they had been before the ban. And a friend who owns a restaurant tells me he doesn't have to replace or professionally clean the curtains, carpets, and other furnishings as often as he did before the ban.
Also, I agree with Avadaru, and I am intrigued by DavidR's suggestion.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Legit- I thin that's the way to go ultimately.
I am of a mixed mind on this issue. On the one hand there's nothing better than a cigarette with your third pint of good beer, or while you're playing cards, but there's also nothing much worse than a room full of people enjoying the same thing. If we simply encourage businesses to limit smoking to areas or to specific restaurants I would be much happier than with a total ban. For instance, I think smoke ruins the restaurant experience, but not smoking ruins the casino experience- at least for me. Bars are a mixed bag, so I think any bar should be allowed to have smoking in part of the patio or, as they now do in San Francisco, an enclosed outer area with direct bar access. A crowded bar full of smokers is not pleasant, and terrible on your clothing- so I think that should be restricted by the bars themselves simply because it is unpleasant.
The idea that second hand smoke is killing countless Americans seems utterly silly to me, but the fact that it is bothering millions of us is more reasonable. There are regulations against noise, even though we have the right to speak in public, so I think it is within the rights of the government to restrict smoking for similar reasons- not the fake psuedo-scientific reasons so long used as justification for the bans.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:we all know how well prohibition of alchohol worked
I don't think that's true.
Such a sad thing, the ignorance we live with concerning our own history. Fortunately ignorance of history can be addressed by reading about it. Unfortunately failing to address the ignorance can lead to making mistakes already learned by our ancestors.
Posts: 148 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Such a sad thing, the ignorance we live with concerning our own history.
What's really sad is assuming that someone who has reached a different conclusion about the historical effectiveness of a government policy is ignorant, rather than, say, exploring the different possible meanings of the word "worked" or even asking for an additional explanation.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Drinking a beer doesn't endanger the bartenders health....unless he is slow providing a refill, I guess.
I don't know, an argument could definitely be made the regularly providing someone with the chemicals necessary for them to possibly behave violently and cause harm to others could be an interesting counter-argument. Certainly you can argue that bartending provides the chemicals necessary for someone to behave without fear of consequences and do stupid things like smoke. Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Drinking a beer doesn't endanger the bartenders health....unless he is slow providing a refill, I guess.
I don't know, an argument could definitely be made the regularly providing someone with the chemicals necessary for them to possibly behave violently and cause harm to others could be an interesting counter-argument. Certainly you can argue that bartending provides the chemicals necessary for someone to behave without fear of consequences and do stupid things like smoke.
That brought the following amusing sentence to my mind:
"I'm sorry, sir, you've smoked enough. We'll have to ask you to leave."
Based on the portion of my statement that mr_porteiro_head quoted and his choice of wording, I understood him to mean that not everyone knows how well prohibition worked, not that he disagreed with my rather terse summation that I supplied in the sentence that followed it. My statement about the ignorance that we live with concerning our history was intended to convey the fact that we are exposed to fewer facts about our history these days than we have been in the past, and not about the conclusions drawn from those facts.
This past spring I had the opportunity to thumb through a highschool history textbook, and noticed that many subjects that got multipage sections or entire chapters when I was in highschool barely got a couple of paragraphs in this textbook. I also noticed that more recent events, from the civil rights era onward, got more space than prior events.
Posts: 148 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When you said "we all know how well prohibition of alcohol worked", I wasn't commenting on anybody's ignorance of our history, but on the fact that there is not agreement about what effects prohibition had on America or whether those were good or bad.
So we don't all know how well prohibition worked, because different people "know" different things about prohibition.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Drinking a beer doesn't endanger the bartenders health....unless he is slow providing a refill, I guess.
I don't know, an argument could definitely be made the regularly providing someone with the chemicals necessary for them to possibly behave violently and cause harm to others could be an interesting counter-argument. Certainly you can argue that bartending provides the chemicals necessary for someone to behave without fear of consequences and do stupid things like smoke.
That brought the following amusing sentence to my mind:
"I'm sorry, sir, you've smoked enough. We'll have to ask you to leave."
If only smoking had the cumulative effect that drinking does.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
I'm curious, if you were commenting on there being no general agreement about the effects of prohibition on America, why didn't you quote my admittedly terse conclusion about the effects instead of just this part?
quote:we all know how well prohibition of alchohol worked
The entire two sentences I devoted to prohibition with my conclusion in bold. I italicized the portion relevant to prohibition.:
quote:I understand and agree with many of the reasons for smoking bans, which is why I have no problem with such bans in most public places, but if we remove all such places for people to socialize while smoking we approach the smoking equivalent of prohibition, and we all know how well prohibition of alchohol worked. It just sent it underground and empowered organized crime.
I'm not disagreeing with your statement here, just noting that your stated intent would have been more clear to me had you quoted my conclusion instead of what you did quote, which led me in the direction I went.
Posts: 148 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It did not just send it underground and empower organized crime, although that did happen to a degree. The amount of alcohol consumption by Americans dropped considerably because of prohibition.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm curious, if you were commenting on there being no general agreement about the effects of prohibition on America, why didn't you quote my admittedly terse conclusion about the effects instead of just this part?
Because my point was that you can't use prohibition as an example that we all agree on, because we don't. I didn't really feel like getting into a debate about prohibition.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't want to take this thread off on a tanget so let me just say that you have a point that different people draw differnt concolusions from the facts. My conclusion from the facts is that prohibition in the 1920's and early 1930's did curb public consumption of alcohol, but it did so more by driving the production, distribution, and consuption of alcohol underground than it did by reducing the numbers of people who drank alcohol regularly overall.
Today we have a quite a few community bans on smoking in public places, and a growing number of similar statewide bans coming into place as well. These bans differ in detail from community to communtiy and from state to state, but they are becoming more comprehensive as time goes on. Some places are becoming very invasive, going so far as to ban smoking in private homes. Mostly this has had to do with homes with children living in them, but I have read about condo owners being thrown out by condo associations because they smoked in their own condominiums. If the current trends continue we may well see smoke free states where that means no smoking anywhere and no production, sale, or transportation of smoking products or paraphenalia anywhere within the state. As we close in on that state of affairs we close in on prohibition with regard to smoking.
I think that the number of smokers has been dropping and will continue to drop. I think that this trend has had a lot to do with growing public awareness of the dangers of smoking. I also think that when an activity is prohibited, a significant subset of the human population tends to respond with a desire to participate in that activity. Some of those will actually ignore the prohibition and take part in that activity, and others will take steps to facilitate them and make money in the process. It happened with organized crime and the speakeasies in the the times of prohibition, and I see no reason that it wouldn't happen if a similar state were approached with regard to smoking. I think that as we escalate the prohibition of smoking we will apply more breaking power on the current decline of smoking resulting in fewer people quiting and quite possibly more people starting. But these are my own opinions based on my own understanding of behvior and history. I think that we need to leave a legal safety valve for people to smoke socially in an environment where they are comfortable to keep it in the open where it can be monitored and also continue to fight smoking with education.
Posts: 148 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Longer term, comparing the role that alcohol played in American life before and after prohibition.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
(Honestly, I can't see how we can have a modern society without public health care, at least by default. Not that I'm saying we have to for moral reasons (though I would agree with that, too), but as a matter of the practicality of providing emergency care. There just isn't time to check up on someone's insurance before paramedics give CPR, or before someone in late labor is attended to in an ER, etc. And those costs that aren't paid will get passed on.)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)![[Wink]](wink.gif)
