Smoker's Rights vs. Everyone Else's Rights

[beenie]

A law shouldn't have to be made when common sense should prevail.
Why should parents smoke in the house, with their kids around? Is it too much to at least step outside?

The comparison to fast food doesn't work well. Drinking would be more valid if the parents become tipsy enough to interfere with caring for their children.

No law, just some good old common sense.

 

[Magic Man]

What the heck are you talking about?

I'm talking about the fact that there's a line we draw. We allow parents to do many things to their children, but not others. Beating your child or keeping him/her locked up in a closet for days is illegal.

What about feeding your kid junk food? Should we ban parents from giving their kids cookies? How about drinking. Should parents be banned from drinking in the presence of their children?

What about feeding them junk food? No, we shouldn't ban parents from giving their kids cookies, and no, we shouldn't ban parents from drinking around their kids. You should really go back and read my previous post.

It boils down to this: If we take away kids from any parent who does someone else believes is harmful, then 90% of children would be taken away from their parents. Honestly, you can't just go around and tell people what to do in their own home when that something is NOT against the law. That, in my view, would even be more harmful than smoking around their kids. (that said, I wouldn't let anyone smoke in my house when my children were little, they had to go out on our balcony of our apartment and later on the porch of our mobile home and neither my husband or I smoke).

It boils down to this:

There are things we allow parents to do to their kids and things we don't. We allow them to feed their kids junk food. We don't allow them to lock their children up and never let them out. We allow parents to drink around their kids. We don't allow them to beat them.

It's about harm to the child. Drinking doesn't pose a threat to the child, unless it's combined with driving. Smoking poses a threat. This isn't a matter of saying "We don't like smoking, so we don't think you should to it around your child". It's a matter of saying "Smoking in an enclosed space around your child can be harmful to the child, so it shouldn't be allowed".

 

[Magic Man]

Prohibition doesn't work. It's a waste of time and money and resources.

Indeed. That's why no one is suggesting banning smoking.

I think the example of feeding kids terrible food is a very valid example. How many times have we seen parents feeding overweight kids McDonalds? Certainly that's at LEAST as harmful as second hand smoke. What about when we see a toddler with rotten teeth sucking on a bottle filled with KoolAid? What about that mother slapping the hand of her seven year old who won't stop touching merchandise in a store? Some people consider any physical punishment to be abuse - and maybe it is. What about homeschooled kids who are outside playing in the pool all Tuesday afternoon during the school year - is their education being neglected? What about those parents who force their child to wear a yamulke or a veil or "pentecostal hair" to a public school, even when they are ridiculed by their peers?

Or we could just focus on this one example, which is pretty cut and dry. Smoking in an enclosed place around kids is harmful to the kids. There is an easy solution: Don't smoke in an enclosed place around kids. I don't think that's too much to ask of parents. I don't think that's asking anymore than for parents not to beat their children.

The Taliban doesn't allow smoking either. Think about it.

What does that have to do with anything? Overreact much?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Taliban doesn't allow smoking either. Think about it.

And Hitler was a painter. Your point?

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

And Hitler was a painter. Your point?

Good one! LOL!

 

[Kathryn]

OK I guess I have to spell it out for those who can't seem to grasp it.

The Taliban's ban on smoking is rooted in intolerance and the concept of a nanny state (or in their case, an oppressive Big Brother state). I see a similarity between that attitude and our growing acceptance of nanny state rule.

Hitler just painted on the side.

I find it ironic that some of the very same people who preach tolerance and acceptance from such a high horse are so often the first to lambast smokers' rights.

Cafeteria plan, perhaps?

 

[Revoltingest]

Now that Hitler has made his appearance, we have this....
Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As hateful as old Adolph is, he sure is useful!

 

[Kathryn]

Ahhhh, Hitler. Let the games begin.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hitler was a vegetarian.
Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sententia]

I find it ironic that some of the very same people who preach tolerance and acceptance from such a high horse are so often the first to lambast smokers' rights.

I was a smoker for many years but smoking causes harm to the smoker and those around them. Its not lambasting someone else's rights so much as stating they are free to do what they want so long as they are not infringing on the freedoms of others.

Consider drinking. No one cares if you drink excessively. It is harmful to you and possibly your children but get behind a wheel and endanger others and many have a problem with it.

In the same sense do you see smoking in a similar light? If your neighbor had a family member on oxygen or a newborn and your properties were arranged in such close proximity as if someone in your house was smoking and thus polluting the air in their house then legally they have no recourse to prevent you from smoking but should they just suffer or move?

The idea that everything is a nanny state relies on the idea that everyone you run into will be educated, polite and not require rules as they will do the right thing if they are free to do so. Is that just being naive or an extreme form of wishful thinking?

 

[Kathryn]

Oh good grief. The vast, vast majority of people living in separate houses aren't suffering from any smoke from the NEXT HOUSE that they can't pretty easily avoid.

 

[Sententia]

Oh good grief. The vast, vast majority of people living in separate houses aren't suffering from any smoke from the NEXT HOUSE that they can't pretty easily avoid.

Neither are the vast majority likely to encounter a drunk driver on the road at 3 am. Who drives at 3 am? But that misses the point entirely.

 

[Kathryn]

So you're actually comparing someone smoking in another house entirely - to a drunk driver?

Wow. Just...wow.

 

[Sententia]

So you're actually comparing someone smoking in another house entirely - to a drunk driver?

Wow. Just...wow.

Why is that a wow? I grew up in apartments where what went on on the 1st floor affected the second and third. I grew up in projects where what went on in 1b affected 1c, 1a, 2a, 2b, 2c.

What is wow? Death statistics? Lung cancer deaths vrs drunk driving deaths?

And still... You just step around my original point to debate nonsense.

Its not lambasting someone else's rights so much as stating they are free to do what they want so long as they are not infringing on the freedoms of others.

In the same sense do you see smoking in that manner? You can smoke unless it hurts someone else in which case you shouldn't smoke. And what if you're drunk and you had a bad day and screw 2a... I am smoking a cigarette and who cares if they're on oxygen. (And that is actually a logical example as compared to reality where people just don't care at all... lol)

Again... the idea that every prohibition is a nanny state relies on the idea that everyone you run into will be educated, polite and not require rules as they will do the right thing if they are free to do so.

So is that just being naive or an extreme form of wishful thinking?

 

[Kathryn]

I have no problem with apartments voluntarily choosing to be non smoking facilities - or ANY restaurant or whatever other privately owned facility choosing to be non smoking - and it's probably a very decent choice to make. If you are a smoker, don't choose to live in a non smoking apartment complex. If you're not a smoker, don't choose to live in a complex which allows smoking.

I also have no problem with public buildings and grounds being non smoking.

The problem I have is forcing privately owned businesses and homes to be non smoking areas. People should be able to smoke in their own privately owned home or business if the owner is OK with it. No one is forcing anyone to be there or work there.

 

[McBell]

I have no problem with apartments voluntarily choosing to be non smoking facilities - or ANY restaurant or whatever other privately owned facility choosing to be non smoking - and it's probably a very decent choice to make. If you are a smoker, don't choose to live in a non smoking apartment complex. If you're not a smoker, don't choose to live in a complex which allows smoking.

I also have no problem with public buildings and grounds being non smoking.

The problem I have is forcing privately owned businesses and homes to be non smoking areas. People should be able to smoke in their own privately owned home or business if the owner is OK with it. No one is forcing anyone to be there or work there.

Ah, but one argument is that because non-smokers are completely unable to stop themselves from entering smoking allowed places, the government has to step in and ban smoking.

 

[Sententia]

Ah, but one argument is that because non-smokers are completely unable to stop themselves from entering smoking allowed places, the government has to step in and ban smoking.

You can smoke in cigar shops still and private clubs... I was at the elks the other night and lots of smokers were there. 1 in 5 people smoke in america... Turning away 4 to make the 1 happy seems to make poor business sense while tricking the 4 into entering their establishment by having smoking and non-smoking sections and actually putting the 4 at risk to benefit the one seems to be a more profitable but less moral path...

But whatever turns a buck I guess.

 

[Sententia]

The problem I have is forcing privately owned businesses and homes to be non smoking areas. People should be able to smoke in their own privately owned home or business if the owner is OK with it. No one is forcing anyone to be there or work there.

Because why? Should privately owned businesses and homes be allowed to allow crack smoking?

 

[McBell]

You can smoke in cigar shops still and private clubs... I was at the elks the other night and lots of smokers were there. 1 in 5 people smoke in america... Turning away 4 to make the 1 happy seems to make poor business sense while tricking the 4 into entering their establishment by having smoking and non-smoking sections and actually putting the 4 at risk to benefit the one seems to be a more profitable but less moral path...

But whatever turns a buck I guess.

Perhaps if the non-smokers actually stopped entering smoking allowed businesses...

 

[McBell]

Because why? Should privately owned businesses and homes be allowed to allow crack smoking?

Fail.

Care to try again with an example that is legal?