Smoker's Rights vs. Everyone Else's Rights

[HiddenDjinn]

Speaking of carcinogens. People *****, *****, then ***** some more about cigarette smoke, yet ignore everyday life that throws carcinogens (literally) down your throat without cigarette smoke being involved. There contains multiple heavy metals in your television and computer, of which traces find their way into your body, and guess what, most of those heavy metals have the potential to cause cancer. Do you have an air conditioner? Guess what, the refrigerant is a carcinogen, and don't fool yourself into believing that said refrigerant is forever contained within the coils of air conditioner. While we're talking refrigeration: Supermarket coolers/freezers, your own refrigerator, your car/city bus/other transit air conditioner, public buildings, etc. Do you have a furnace? Does it burn fuel oil or natural gas? Yes, even though hydrocarbons of the light variety are organic chemicals(technically, all hydrocarbons are organic, but what the hey), the fuels contain sulfides that can, you guessed it, cause cancer. Been in an old building(built before 1970) in your life? Lead paint and asbestos, both carcinogens, are prevalent in old buildings. Vehicle exhaust(if you are viewing this, you cannot escape the fumes from these nasty machines) is full of carcinogens. Unlike many of these things, tobacco is (mostly) a natural substance that releases a few toxins when burned(and everything, when burned releases toxins, including your own body). Please give this a ******* rest.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

Oh, I forgot to mention one BROAD category that is a part of everyone's life(everyone here, anyways): plastics, need I say more?

 

[Sententia]

Nothing worse than a born-again clean-airer.

Divisive classification and implication that even Hitler is better then rakhel's categorization of me. (hee hee) I guess ad hom's and demonizing me is easier then actually having a counter argument based in reason and not rationalization. To each their own.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

Divisive classification and implication that even Hitler is better then rakhel's categorization of me. (hee hee) I guess ad hom's and demonizing me is easier then actually having a counter argument based in reason and not rationalization. To each their own.

If we spent as much time looking up logical fallacies to what everyone was saying, we wouldn't have time to argue a point. Everyone uses ad hom's(have even seen you do it). Everyone uses circular reasoning(all reasoning is circular, if extended to a certain point). Worse, I've seen you concede under Godwin's Law repeatedly in this thread. Good day, Sir.

 

[Sententia]

Speaking of carcinogens. People *****, *****, then ***** some more about cigarette smoke, yet ignore everyday life that throws carcinogens (literally) down your throat without cigarette smoke being involved. There contains multiple heavy metals in your television and computer, of which traces find their way into your body, and guess what, most of those heavy metals have the potential to cause cancer. Do you have an air conditioner? Guess what, the refrigerant is a carcinogen, and don't fool yourself into believing that said refrigerant is forever contained within the coils of air conditioner. While we're talking refrigeration: Supermarket coolers/freezers, your own refrigerator, your car/city bus/other transit air conditioner, public buildings, etc. Do you have a furnace? Does it burn fuel oil or natural gas? Yes, even though hydrocarbons of the light variety are organic chemicals(technically, all hydrocarbons are organic, but what the hey), the fuels contain sulfides that can, you guessed it, cause cancer. Been in an old building(built before 1970) in your life? Lead paint and asbestos, both carcinogens, are prevalent in old buildings. Vehicle exhaust(if you are viewing this, you cannot escape the fumes from these nasty machines) is full of carcinogens. Unlike many of these things, tobacco is (mostly) a natural substance that releases a few toxins when burned(and everything, when burned releases toxins, including your own body). Please give this a ******* rest.

If other things are more harmful then cigarettes than however harmful cigarettes are is acceptable and to make this point I will talk about how I rationalize the harmfulness of other things in comparison to cigarettes....

Tobacco is a natural substance like Lava, The Sun or Cyanide... (All Natural fallacy?)

 

[HiddenDjinn]

If other things are more harmful then cigarettes than however harmful cigarettes are is acceptable and to make this point I will talk about how I rationalize the harmfulness of other things in comparison to cigarettes....

Tobacco is a natural substance like Lava, The Sun or Cyanide... (All Natural fallacy?)

The point: this world WILL find a way to kill you, just deal with it instead of ******** about one ******* plant.

 

[Sententia]

Worse, I've seen you concede under Godwin's Law repeatedly in this thread.

Repeatedly and did you miss the context? Further how does that address the point?

Is smoking made less harmful somehow?

Do people who die of second hand smoke who never smoked somehow get a reward if the smoker rationalized very well?

Do you believe that smoking is harmful to other people?

I think that is what is really being disputed...

So long as you can rationalize that people can smoke wherever it is allowed and others argue smoking restrictions make for nanny states gone wild I think you are arguing with yourselves to rationalize smoking...

Sure you can smoke... just don't do it in a way that endangers the lives of others. (Is that actually that controversial?)

 

[HiddenDjinn]

Repeatedly and did you miss the context? Further how does that address the point?

Is smoking made less harmful somehow?

Do people who die of second hand smoke who never smoked somehow get a reward if the smoker rationalized very well?

Do you believe that smoking is harmful to other people?

I think that is what is really being disputed...

So long as you can rationalize that people can smoke wherever it is allowed and others argue smoking restrictions make for nanny states gone wild I think you are arguing with yourselves to rationalize smoking...

Sure you can smoke... just don't do it in a way that endangers the lives of others. (Is that actually that controversial?)

Let's see, ad hom, check. False attribution, check.

 

[Rakhel]

oh but we have spent numerous days arguing this point with you. you are the one that keeps affirming the Consequent, then claiming we aren't using common sense when we point out where your argument fails

 

[Sententia]

The point: this world WILL find a way to kill you, just deal with it instead of ******** about one ******* plant.

That is not reason IMHO but rationalization. It does not serve the individual or the society very well. (Again imo)

Do you believe that smoking is harmful to other people?

Do you believe if people who could be harmed by smoking but don't know it that still choose to be around smokers deserve to die?

 

[HiddenDjinn]

That is not reason IMHO but rationalization. It does not serve the individual or the society very well. (Again imo)

Do you believe that smoking is harmful to other people?

Do you believe if people who could be harmed by smoking but don't know it that still choose to be around smokers deserve to die?

Oh look, an emotional appeal.

For evidence, please indicate that smoking is inherently more harmful to people than other trappings of modern culture. The second is only relevant if the first can be established as fact.

EDIT: refined argument

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh look, an emotional appeal.

For evidence, please indicate that smoking is any more harmful to people than other trappings of modern culture. The second is only relevant if the first can be established as fact.

Why would that matter? We can more easily get rid of second-hand smoke than vehicle exhaust, refrigerant, old buildings (though the ones with lead paint or asbestos tend to get remediated anyhow - these are hazards that our society doesn't find acceptable), or any of the other things you listed.

If our goal is to minimize carcinogens generally, second-hand smoke is the low-hanging fruit. If it disappeared tomorrow, life would go on almost exactly the same as it does now. How would our lives change if our supermarkets didnt have refrigeration?

 

[HiddenDjinn]

Why would that matter? We can more easily get rid of second-hand smoke than vehicle exhaust, refrigerant, old buildings (though the ones with lead paint or asbestos tend to get remediated anyhow - these are hazards that our society doesn't find acceptable), or any of the other things you listed.

If our goal is to minimize carcinogens generally, second-hand smoke is the low-hanging fruit. If it disappeared tomorrow, life would go on almost exactly the same as it does now. How would our lives change if our supermarkets didnt have refrigeration?

I'm saying that removal of second-hand smoke may have absolutely no effect, much like removing specific other sources of carcinogens. Please indicate that 1. Smoking, either first or second-hand is inherently more dangerous than other trappings of modern society, and 2. Eliminating said smoke would have any effect whatsoever.

 

[Kathryn]

-

Would you deign to answer the question I've asked (and you've ignored) at least three times now:

Hold up a minute - I've answered the question you're about to repeat at least three times on this thread already.

we've established as a general
principle that workers should be protected from avoidable hazards in their workplace, and any unavoidable hazards should be mitigated as much as possible.

Yes, and we also established that workers who work in risky professions have voluntarily chosen to do so. No one is forced to take a particular job at a particular company - at least not in the United States (which is where I am limiting my arguments to).

it's clear that second-hand smoke is a hazard.

It's also clear that that hazard is exxagerated by some. See, for instance, on this very thread, examples of people saying that a person could get lung cancer from breathing second hand smoke ONE TIME, or dying because of someone's second hand smoke from next door. I doubt very seriously that there is any valid research which would support those inflammatory and unrealistic fears.

Caveat - apartments differ from detached homes. If I owned an apartment complex which didn't have adequate construction to contain smoke within individual apartments, I'd probaby ban indoor smoking. I would NOT ban outdoor smoking, however. All people have to do is close their window or go inside if they don't want to be around smoke from someone else's private patio.

However (and I repeat), I think it's absolutely RIDICULOUS to claim, as some have on this thread, that if I smoke outdoors on the patio of my single, detached home, I am endangering the lives of others. BALDERDASH.

I also think that California's laws which prohibit professional truck drivers from smoking in the cab OF THEIR OWN VEHICLE, where no one else is present, is absolute poppycock as well.

Given these two facts, how is it not unreasonable to ban smoking in restaurants?

See, here we go - I'll repeat myself, but this is the last time.

I didn't say it was unreasonable for restaurants to voluntarily decide to be non smoking, or to provide well ventilated non smoking or separate smoking areas. In fact, I think it's a good idea.

But I also don't believe that any worker is forced to work in a smoking environment. And I gave examples of my brother's employees who WANT smoking to be allowed in his pub. Their income has been adversely affected - and they are smokers themselves anyway.

I used to have a customer who allowed his employees to smoke in the office (oilfield services company). I hated going into that office on sales calls. I hated smelling like an ashtray when I left there. Guess what though - I didn't HAVE to go in there (so I rarely did).

I'm not even saying that I LIKE smoking environments, because I don't. I'm just saying that our own presence in a smoking environment is optional.

And you know what - that's the LAST time I'm saying that. I'm getting really bored with this discussion. It's so repetitive.

 

[Revoltingest]

If I owned an apartment complex which didn't have adequate construction to contain smoke within individual apartments, I'd probaby ban indoor smoking. I would NOT ban outdoor smoking, however. All people have to do is close their window or go inside if they don't want to be around smoke from someone else's private patio.

In apartment buildings with shared forced air heating systems, I've prohibited smoking everywhere in the building.
Tenants being tenants, I get some uncooperative b******s occasionally. They're a pain for all concerned. I also
banned my workers from smoking anywhere on any property I manage.

 

[Magic Man]

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

No, you have to explain your equivalent of "Hitler was a Christian; let's ban Christianity".

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.

I'm glad you see a similarity where there isn't one. No one here is advocating banning smoking.

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?

I find it unsurprising that you refuse to understand what's being said. No one's being intolerant here. Let's say marijuana was legal just like cigarettes. Would it be OK with you, if when you wanted to go out to a restaurant or bar you had to inhale other people's weed smoke? I understand that smoking has been accepted for so long that some people just assume it should be a right for everyone to smoke everywhere, and anything less is infringing on smokers' rights, but it's simply not the case.

You also have an exaggerated view of what we're opposing. I don't care whether people smoke. However, it should be possible to go to a bar or restaurant without having to inhale smoke. It should also not be allowed for a parent to smoke in an enclosed area with their kid, just as it's not allowed for them to beat the kid. If you want to smoke in your own house, and there are only adults who are OK with it there, go right ahead. If you want to smoke when you go out, go ahead, just go outside. Is not allowing someone to fire a gun in a restaurant (even if they don't hit anyone) infringing on people's gun rights?

 

[Magic Man]

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.

The only homes anyone has talked about making smoke-free are apartments and those with children. As far as the business portion, we've gone over this. If it's not altogether banned in restaurants and bars, then nothing will change, and the owners of the businesses won't have the option not to allow smoking. I want to give them that option.

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.

Really? Who made that argument? I certainly haven't seen it on this thread, although I have seen some bad mischaracterizations of others' arguments on this thread (which is what I'm assuming this is).

 

[Magic Man]

Summary:
I don't like smoking. (I even prefer unsmoked bacon.)
Smoke is unhealthy to breathe.
I favor minimal gov't regulation of it.

Summary:
I don't like cigarettes anymore, but I still enjoy an occasional cigar and pipe.
Smoke is unhealthy to breathe.
I favor minimal government regulation of it (which would obviously include limiting it to adults, and banning it from some places and in some situations).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hold up a minute - I've answered the question you're about to repeat at least three times on this thread already.

Not as far as I've seen.

Yes, and we also established that workers who work in risky professions have voluntarily chosen to do so. No one is forced to take a particular job at a particular company - at least not in the United States (which is where I am limiting my arguments to).

So the United States doesn't require employers to mitigate workplace hazards?

You might want to tell the Department of Labour; the news will probably come as a shock to them.

It's also clear that that hazard is exxagerated by some. See, for instance, on this very thread, examples of people saying that a person could get lung cancer from breathing second hand smoke ONE TIME, or dying because of someone's second hand smoke from next door. I doubt very seriously that there is any valid research which would support those inflammatory and unrealistic fears.

So what? One person exaggerating the hazard doesn't mean that there is no hazard.

Caveat - apartments differ from detached homes. If I owned an apartment complex which didn't have adequate construction to contain smoke within individual apartments, I'd probaby ban indoor smoking. I would NOT ban outdoor smoking, however. All people have to do is close their window or go inside if they don't want to be around smoke from someone else's private patio.

But under the right circumstances, you would tell people that they can't smoke in their own homes?

However (and I repeat), I think it's absolutely RIDICULOUS to claim, as some have on this thread, that if I smoke outdoors on the patio of my single, detached home, I am endangering the lives of others. BALDERDASH.

Yes - I agree that's more of an inconvenience than a hazard. I'd rank it similar to a neighbour who plays loud music in the middle of the night. You're not going to die from it, but it's inconsiderate.

I also think that California's laws which prohibit professional truck drivers from smoking in the cab OF THEIR OWN VEHICLE, where no one else is present, is absolute poppycock as well.

Yeah... I'm not sure how I feel about that. rakhel (I think it was rakhel) pointed out that a trucker's truck is both his workplace and his residence. I think that muddies the waters.

See, here we go - I'll repeat myself, but this is the last time.

I didn't say it was unreasonable for restaurants to voluntarily decide to be non smoking, or to provide well ventilated non smoking or separate smoking areas. In fact, I think it's a good idea.

But I also don't believe that any worker is forced to work in a smoking environment. And I gave examples of my brother's employees who WANT smoking to be allowed in his pub. Their income has been adversely affected - and they are smokers themselves anyway.

But how is this different from other hazards?

For instance, I'm a race marshal. On weekends for fun (and I know I have a weird idea of fun), I stand in areas that have a significantly high risk of skidding and flying cars. When I'm responding to an incident, I will sometimes be over the wall next to a crashed car with nothing between me and approaching traffic but air; all I'm relying on to keep my safe is my own situational awareness and, if I'm lucky, another marshal watching up-track ready with a whistle to tell me when to get the heck out of there.

Now... if during the week, away from the track, I was working on a highway construction site, would it be acceptable for the company owner to say "hey - he doesn't mind vehicle hazards. We don't need to protect him with a concrete barrier"?

I used to have a customer who allowed his employees to smoke in the office (oilfield services company). I hated going into that office on sales calls. I hated smelling like an ashtray when I left there. Guess what though - I didn't HAVE to go in there (so I rarely did).

I'm not even saying that I LIKE smoking environments, because I don't. I'm just saying that our own presence in a smoking environment is optional.

And we could also say that our presence in workplaces with chemical respirators or guards around rotating parts is optional, too. Why should we set up a situation where we regulate those hazards but not cigarette smoke?

And you know what - that's the LAST time I'm saying that. I'm getting really bored with this discussion. It's so repetitive.

But you never really answered my question: how is tobacco smoke different from other workplace hazards?

All of your arguments have been supported by some sort of libertarian ideal that regulation of workplace hazards is bad. But that's not the situation we have; instead, every sort of workplace hazard is either eliminated or mitigated as much as possible... except cigarette smoke. AFAICT, it's the only workplace hazard that isn't directly related to the job, but is still allowed.

You've never come out and explicitly said that you want workplace safety rules to be eliminated across the board; is that what you're arguing for (and since I know your husband is an oilfield worker, and since I assume you like the fact that he comes home at night alive and uninjured, I'd be really surprised if you were)? Or are you arguing for a double standard?

 

[Revoltingest]

For instance, I'm a race marshal. On weekends for fun (and I know I have a weird idea of fun), I stand in areas that have a significantly high risk of skidding and flying cars. When I'm responding to an incident, I will sometimes be over the wall next to a crashed car with nothing between me and approaching traffic but air; all I'm relying on to keep my safe is my own situational awareness and, if I'm lucky, another marshal watching up-track ready with a whistle to tell me when to get the heck out of there.

That's allowed up there in America's tuque?
Sounds needlessly dangerous!