Smokers' rights?

[matt_s]

It's not just Cameron, just about every medical facitility in the country has moved smoking outdoors and away from the building. Smoking in the oxygen rich, clean/sterile environment of a hospital has never made a lot of sense to me so I guess I can understand the reasoning behind pushing it out away from the facility. Most hospitals have been seeting up facilities in their parking garages so that it is outside but at least not out in the open/exposed areas - I can see how that would not be fun in the winter.

[LuciusBeebe]

Smoking in the oxygen rich, clean/sterile environment of a hospital has never made a lot of sense to me

I lament the loss of cartoons with expectant fathers pacing back and forth, puffing on a cigarette, waiting for their baby.

[james_t]

Its a danger... okay. Driving a car is dangerous. Does everyone who drives a car get into an accident? No. Does everyone exposed to secondhand smoke get cancer? No. So where is the logic behind banning one thing because something bad might happen, when we regularly participate in potentially dangerous activities that are completely legal?

Sorry to come back to the discussion late - the real world needed me yesterday.

I don't buy this argument in the least. I don't think anyone's trying to argue that everyone exposed to secondhand smoke will get lung cancer, but isn't one person dying who doesn't need to - particularly from something as nasty as lung cancer - too much? Besides cancer, how about my asthmatic son, or the fact that I get migraines if I'm around a lot of smoke? Yeah, we try to stay away from it - who wouldn't? - but what about our right to be in a supposedly open-to-the-public place free of discomfort? Is that overruled by your right to stick a carcinogenic weed in your mouth and ignite it?

Cars are necessary for most people, although with gas prices what they are I'm doing my best to make them less so. Even guns can serve a legitimate purpose - self-defense, etc. We all participate in dangerous activities every day - life is the leading cause of death, after all - but in many of the cases there is no alternative. I don't think anyone would argue that cigarettes are necessary for quality of life, in fact quite the opposite...

[james_t]

1. People are stupid.

...

You just wait. They will ban cigarettes entirely. And while I DO support such a thing to end the hypocrisy of legalized cigarettes and illegal marijuana, the end result is increased crime. Please. Stop banning things. Its juvenile and solves nothing.

There may be more of a relation between the two than you think. A lot of legislation has to be enacted - not to mention some ridiculous product warning labels ("WARNING: Do not use hair dryer in bathtub") - just because people don't have enough common sense to make the smart choice. It would be wonderful if smoking went away on its own, but with it's taken more than 50 years of government effort to get us this far.

By the way, this mass stupidity may be caused by exposure to secondhand smoke, according to one study:

http://media.www.theramonline.com/me...-3007900.shtml

[LuciusBeebe]

I don't buy this argument in the least.

It was a strawman argument, that's for sure.

I don't think anyone's trying to argue that everyone exposed to secondhand smoke will get lung cancer, but isn't one person dying who doesn't need to - particularly from something as nasty as lung cancer - too much? Besides cancer, how about my asthmatic son, or the fact that I get migraines if I'm around a lot of smoke?

But nobody is forcing you or your son to be around secondhand smoke.

Yeah, we try to stay away from it - who wouldn't? - but what about our right to be in a supposedly open-to-the-public place free of discomfort? Is that overruled by your right to stick a carcinogenic weed in your mouth and ignite it?

No. Both of us are subject to the rules imposed by the owner of the establishment. I have no more a right to smoke in someone else's business than you have a right to a smoke free environment in that same business. Just as I have no right to tell him what to put on his menu, what muzak to pump through his speakers, or what hours he should be open. The only time you or I have a right to determine if people should or should not be smoking in a business is if you or I own the business.

We all participate in dangerous activities every day - life is the leading cause of death, after all - but in many of the cases there is no alternative. I don't think anyone would argue that cigarettes are necessary for quality of life, in fact quite the opposite...

That's opening a whole new can of worms, is it not?

There may be more of a relation between the two than you think. A lot of legislation has to be enacted - not to mention some ridiculous product warning labels ("WARNING: Do not use hair dryer in bathtub") - just because people don't have enough common sense to make the smart choice.

A warning label is fine. But what if you heard they made it illegal to use hair dryers in the bathtub? That's how I feel about smoking bans. Its not my place to tell someone else how to live their life.

[james_t]

No. Both of us are subject to the rules imposed by the owner of the establishment. I have no more a right to smoke in someone else's business than you have a right to a smoke free environment in that same business. Just as I have no right to tell him what to put on his menu, what muzak to pump through his speakers, or what hours he should be open. The only time you or I have a right to determine if people should or should not be smoking in a business is if you or I own the business.

So, going back to the Denny's argument - do you think Denny's had the right to serve only who they wanted to, as a business owner? (You posed the question to me way back when but never answered it yourself.) Or are there certain issues that outweigh the rights of a business owner to do what he or she wants?

[matt_s]

Proper use or execution (no - not that type of execution) by a responsible person or group of people produces a product or effect that is both individualy and socially beneficial.

Our society has has allowed too much responsibility (definitely more than is reasonable) to be taken out of a really simple equation that should otherwise be the basic litmus test for the acceptability for items/substances/activities within a society.

[LuciusBeebe]

So, going back to the Denny's argument - do you think Denny's had the right to serve only who they wanted to, as a business owner? (You posed the question to me way back when but never answered it yourself.) Or are there certain issues that outweigh the rights of a business owner to do what he or she wants?

Honestly? Yeah, I do. Just as I believe Augusta National can decide who they allow as members, and the United Negro College Fund can allocate money the way they like. I'm sick of people thinking they are entitled to do whatever they like whenever they like. If Denny's wants to be racist jerks, hey, that's legal. There's no law that says you can't be a jerk. I have the choice not to go to Denny's. I don't want the Boy Scouts to have gay scoutmasters, either. I'm not some crusty old dinosaur who's set in my ways, a byproduct of an era of racism and sexism. I'm just a guy who's sick of people bending over backwards to make sure nobody's feelings are hurt. I'm sick of the PC movement of the past 20 years, and yeah, I'm a guy who wants roadside diners where you can get a cup of joe and puff on a chesterfield. I'd like a little less intervention by the government, not a little more.

[james_t]

I'd like a little less intervention by the government, not a little more.

I think everyone would. It would be nice to think that, left to their own choice, people would do the right thing. Unfortunately, there's way too much evidence at this point to the contrary...

[LuciusBeebe]

I think everyone would. It would be nice to think that, left to their own choice, people would do the right thing. Unfortunately, there's way too much evidence at this point to the contrary...

Yeah, I understand what you're saying. People suck, and if you allow people to, pretty soon you'd have the "colored water fountain" back again.

I dunno... i'm sick of every town in America being exactly the same.

[Hawk-64]

This entire issue is easily solved. All that has to be done is to provide a reasonable location for those that smoke. Restaurants in Fort Wayne had full glass partitions between the main restaurants and the dining room area. This was in my opinion working very well. Yet they required these businesses to lay out the cash to build such partitions and then later said, "we don't care how much you laid out in cash to build it, now we are banning it all together". Nice aye?

The Steuben Community center ban was obviously the result of far to many people standing out front smoking while the general public had to enter through the front. As a result, the wrong person gets offended and the muscle gets flexed. As a result, a 30 feet ban is enacted not just on the community center but all county buildings. I do not understand at all why any public building would have allowed the smokers to stand next to the front or main entrance/exit to smoke and not see a problem coming down the tube. DUHHHH. One again, we react to a situation or problem rather than have the vision to see this and plan accordingly.

In reality, all that was needed was a realistic location for these people to smoke and guess what folks...everyone gets along.
Now lets examine "reasonable". There is a topic for anti-smoking groups to impose their belief's on everyone else.

Just keep it simple and reasonable and those that choose to smoke can and those that don't...don't.

James_ T - Although I empathize with your statement regarding an unability to patronize locations that allow smoking because of children asthma or your migrains. The solution is simple, stay out. As you talked about life, well life is hard and we don't always get what we want out of it. Lets take it to the extreme...Would you take your children to a strip club because they served very good hamburgers and mac and cheese? What if they had a family room in the back that was smoke free or stripper free? Obviously not but in reality if you truly examine the facts, it is the same thing. You have chosen to not expose yourself or your children to the enviornment. So why the issue that you can't go there? You can, if you want to have a migrain or expose your children to the strippers....

[LuciusBeebe]

Well said, Hawk.

[james_t]

James_ T - Although I empathize with your statement regarding an unability to patronize locations that allow smoking because of children asthma or your migrains. The solution is simple, stay out.

I don't have as much problem with the restaurant as well as there is a good smoke-free area. There is one in Kendallville I went to only once because they don't - anywhere in the place reeks of multiple packs of whatevers. But there are plenty of other places I can eat. (If you and Lucius want to know which it is, I can PM you.)

I get a bit more miffed about it at more public events. Like I said, our last trip to the Indy Motor Speedway was not as enjoyable as it should have been because of the great cloud around us. (Though a lot of the smokers seemed to leave after Junior crashed.) I don't think it's fair to not be able to enjoy a public event because someone can't step out out of the stands for a few minutes to take a puff.

[LuciusBeebe]

Funny that you bring up racing.

3 hours worth of car exhaust being breathed in by thousands of fans...

[james_t]

Yes, but the cars are on the track, not in the stands surrounding us. We definitely would NOT choose to go down and smell the tailpipe.

[LuciusBeebe]

[james_t]

I think you can afford better seats than I can.

If we were close enough that exhaust was a bother, then yes, we'd leave, and not go back (or move back to the cheap seats), since car exhaust is a natural byproduct of, well, cars. Cigarette smoke, however, is not.

[tandjflo]

James, smokers don't care about their own health. Why do you think they would have any regard or respect for yours or your childrens???

[james_t]

James, smokers don't care about their own health. Why do you think they would have any regard or respect for yours or your childrens???

I don't. Unfortunately, that's why the government (local, federal, whatever) would need to get involved.

[LuciusBeebe]

James, smokers don't care about their own health. Why do you think they would have any regard or respect for yours or your childrens???

Well looty doot doo! Don't we think we're so smart!

Smokers care about their own health as much as people who eat hamburgers or those that don't exercise like they should. Its a choice, smarty pants.

And smokers do have regard and respect for other people and their children. What is really galling is all the people in the world who have no respect for anyone in the world but their children.

So, you know, back off a little bit, Tandjflo. We've been having a nice conversation in here without more people coming in and flinging around insults like Ebbie was doing.