Idea about "click it or ticket" (mandatory seat belt laws)

[Ming]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Well, getting drunk is not a sufficient condition for drunk driving. It is a necessary condition, but being drunk alone is not enough.

But... MANY, MANY people die from drunken driving...
Yet not a SINGLE death has ever been attributed to second hand smoke.

OTOH, smoking is a sufficient condition for environmental smoke ("second-hand smoke"). Once you light up, you automatically release toxic fumes containing numerous chemicals into the environment, many of those are carcinogens.

Start your car, and you do far worse to the envoirnment than somebody lighting up a smoke.

Besides cancer, smoking and environmental smoke induce a large number of disorders, such as hypertension, heart diseases, lung diseases, etc.

Yep... to the smoker... just like a person who drinks is destroying his body as well...

The dangers of environmental smoke is well known and it is a concensus in the medical field. Although science does not work by concensus, there is also a large body of research all pointing in the same direction.

And there is even more research that proves polution is far more deadly... again, not one death has EVER been attributed to second hand smoke... and that is because people breath in worse while walking down the street next to cars.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ming


What exactly is your position. You seem to be saying that smoking offers no value to society... So therefore, it's ok to make whatever rules/restrictions/bans as you see fit. Yet booze falls in the same class... and also is a menance to health care and is the cause of more deaths due to drunk driving than second hand smoke And there is still not ONE single proven case of second hand smoke ever causing a death because of all the other pollution that you seem to think is acceptable when people go beyond just basic transportation.

Yet you have no problem with other excessive forms of pollution that pose a greater risk, and your answer to booze was it was tried and didn't work....

So why again should smoking be singled out for all your whims of harrassement and the others not? Could it be that you use cars, and maybe even drink, but you don't smoke... so your attitude is screw anybody but yourself

A few things:

1. Alcohol does not fall in the same class as smoking, for several reasons.
a. Purely from a historical basis, alcoholic drinks are part of human society in ways that smoking is not- beer probably predates bread, and wine is significant enough to get many mentions in the bible and is part of the religious tradition of at least 1 Billion people (catholics). None of this is true for smoking. A few Native American societies do have a deeper connection to smoking, but these societies are gone.
b. If you read the current medical information, you will know that doctors have found that low to moderate amounts of alcohol, say 4 glasses of wine or beer a week's worth, help the elasticity of blood vessels. Hence, moderate amounts of alcoholic drinks can actually increase your lifespan.
c. There is a fundamental difference in the end between something that in small amounts is either harmlessor beneficial but in large amounts dangerous, and something that is never beneficial in any amount. For one substance, moderation is the key. There is no point to the second.

The only crimes one can commit with regards to smoking are related to sales. All other smoking offenses are civil matters which lead to fines. This of course is different with drinking, and we already do have stringent controls on alcohol consumption. Its obvious that society does undertand the dangers of alcohol, and has imposed heavy penaties for the oversuse of it-maybe you forget the constitutional ammendement that was ennacted 85 years ago to end the consupmtion of alcohol?

Its historically obvious that people long ago saw the danger of drinking you keep bringing up-a nd they did act, far more stringently than any laws against smoking yet passed. But history proved that drinking is much more ingrained in our western culture than smoking ever will. That attempts are currently ongoing to move smoking underground and stampt it out not through complete abolitiion, but by basically making it too much of a hastle to bother are a rather worthwhile experiment in getting rid of the filthy habit.

And on another point in which you and Vel seem unable to grasp:

That a choice exists does not mean it must be taken. Conversely, because one choice was taken does not mean any other choice must be taken. Eradicating smoking is a good thing, period. To state that no ills of this world should be tackled unless one tackles all ills of the world is a rather strange notion. Reducing smoking mean reducing the amount of unnecessary death and misery out there and is therefore a great thing to do. That other misery and danger exists in no way invalidates an attempt to lessen the overall misery present in the world.

And finally, of course, to pity smokers is absurd. Pity is reserved for those who meet misfortune, not those that knowingly seek it. A huge collective Darwin Award iis perhaps what smokers deserve, but worrying about them feeling harrassed is a joke. You decide to take on a socially unacceptable, filthy, useless addiction? Then suffer the consequence of it.

[Az]

But history proved that drinking is much more ingrained in our western culture than smoking ever will.

Not only in western culture.

[Velociryx]

That a choice exists does not mean it must be taken. Conversely, because one choice was taken does not mean any other choice must be taken.

I'm not against the ban on the grounds that I myself smoke, or that I currently enjoy it (since I quit).

I'm against it on principle, because, while the words you wrote above sound fantastic, we both know that's not how the government works.

They pass a law to set a prescedent, then use the prescedent to pass another law...and then another law...and so on.

I am against the principle of the government telling a private citizen what he or she can or cannot do to his or her own body.

Be that abortion, smoking, buckling up, over eating, or whathave you.

If it does not directly interfere or infringe on the rights of another human being, then the government should LEAVE IT ALONE.

Thus, I've got no problem with smokers being told that they are relegated to a certain room. Fine. That keeps the non-smokers from being "impacted" (although, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the "impact" is negligible indeed). The fact that there IS impact, even if it's negligible, is cause enough to separate the two groups.

I do not believe the founding fathers had anything of the sort in mind when they drafted the documents that laid the foundation for our government, and I think they would likely be appalled at the advances into private life that have and continue to be made.

For me, it's not about smoking, per se, or whether or not it's bad for you.

It's about the principle of the government mucking about in the lives of private citizens.

I'm against it.

You seem to be for it.

We disagree.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Further comments on this statement:

That a choice exists does not mean it must be taken.

I agree with that, 100%.

The interesting thing is...if all laws regulating smoking were to suddenly vanish tomorrow, and the choice would be open to all....there are LOTS of people out there who would not take the choice. The implications in GePap's words are clear. If not for these laws limiting choice, everybody would just take it blindly (note the word "must")...like lemmings, but that's not how it is, and he is well aware.

Further, I would contend that the choice made, for better or worse, is an INDIVIDUAL responsibility, and should not be mandated.

If it IS mandated, then we must conclude that it opens the door for any and all things that meet the same criterion to likewise be banned, at the whim of those in power. Once the prescedent is set, we may as well start passing laws banning stupidity....in which case, we would quickly see a significant portion of the population (many of whom probably consider themselves to be "rounded, urbane human beings") locked up "for their own good."

Not something I'm real keen on.

-=Vel=-

[Sava]

well...

I totally dished out some pwnage in a letter to the editor

I don't know if they will print it... hopefully they will.

I opened my paper this morning and found this. I bolded the important parts.

Time for Naperville to become smoke-free
I want to applaud Joni Hirsch Blackman for taking a stand in favor of Naperville becoming smoke-free in all indoor public places. I applaud her courage, first and foremost, for speaking out on what some say is a "controversial topic."

Let me remove the controversy. All the facts point to one thing — secondhand smoke causes lung cancer and heart disease. According to the National Cancer Institute, 65,000 people die annually due to secondhand smoke. Think about this — 65,000 people is half the population of Naperville!

So here are the facts about secondhand smoke and how it affects adults, children and restaurant workers:

• About 10 to 15 percent of lung cancer patients are nonsmokers. (Women Against Lung Cancer, Orlando, Fla. May, 2005. www.womenagainstlungcancer.org ).

• Secondhand smoke aggravates asthma, allergies, emphysema, COPD and other respiratory ailments.

Several restaurant owners in Naperville have voiced concern about Naperville becoming smoke-free. They are concerned about losing their smoking customers. Again, let's look at the facts.

In a 2004 study by the DuPage County Health Department, it was found that only 17 percent of residents were smokers.

If these restaurants are really concerned about business, why not cater to the majority of the population, the 83 percent who are nonsmokers, who would frequent their restaurants if they were smoke-free?

For some, this is an emotional issue; change is difficult. But in this case, a smoking ban in Naperville's public places is strongly supported by the facts of study after study.

It is time for the nonsmokers of Naperville to come together and begin acting like the majority that they are. It is only through a groundswell of grassroots advocacy by Naperville's residents and employees that this change can become a long-overdue reality.
Debbie Isbell president Smoke-Free Naperville

I sent the following response to the paper. I removed my personal info, of course. Don't want you Poly psychos (LIKE MING OR RAH) showing up on my doorstep.

Dear Naperville Sun,

In her Sept. 6th letter to the editor, Debby Isbell wanted to "look at the facts" in her effort to force Naperville to become smoke-free. Unfortunately, she did not stick to them. Isbell claimed the National Cancer Institute stated 65,000 people die annually due to secondhand smoke. According to a report on their website (http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/10_18.htm), "approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke." And not to say that Isbell has exaggerated the threat of secondhand smoke, but the same National Cancer Institute report also states that "nonsmoker exposure to secondhand smoke declined by more than 70 percent from 1988–1991 to 1999–2000".

Isn't it ironic that many in Naperville are seeking to ban smoking in restaurants, yet many of these same people drive gas guzzling SUV's that emit more dangerous pollution in 5 seconds of operation than an entire pack of cigarettes? An article from the American Cancer Society's website reports that in 1994 a study by C. Arden Pope III, PhD, at Brigham Young University, estimated 50,000 to 100,000 Americans died yearly from the effects of outdoor particulate air pollution. Or how about radon gas? The National Lung Association reports that radon gas causes between 15,000 to 22,000 lung cancer deaths per year. Don't you think we ought to worry about things that really are a threat to us?

I am not a smoker. I find it to be disgusting and repulsive. And like Debby Isbell, I hope one day that Naperville restaurants are smoke-free establishments. But I do not want to see the government pass laws outlawing smoking in private establishments due to pressure from public activists who present arguments based on phony statistics and outlandish claims! (MY FAVORITE LINE IN THE LETTER!!!!! ZOMFGPWNED) Isbell should just be honest and say she doesn't like smoking and wants to the government to legislate her personal tastes. I'll be honest. I think we should ban small children in movie theatres!

We live in a market economy. Restaurants are private businesses. If their customers want a smoke-free environment, it is in their best interests to respond to the market voluntarily. And let's be honest here. Nobody is being held hostage and having smoke blown in their face. I agree with smoking bans in public places. This is a totally different issue. Allowing people to impose their will on private businesses sets a bad precedent. So my advice to the citizens of Naperville is simple, let your dollars do the talking, and restaurant owners will respond to the market accordingly.

Thanks,

Sava

That lady totally made up her statistics. Hopefully the paper will print it and my pwnage of her will be complete!

[Sava]

BTW, according to most cancer sites... under 200k die per year of lung cancer... according to her statistics, between 450k - 650k would be dying per year of lung cancer.

[Guynemer]

Minor nitpick: I don't know if the 65,000 number is true or not (definitely sounds high to me), but the 3,000 number you cite is only lung cancer deaths. There are many other ways secondhand smoke can kill.

While I don't agree with your stance, it is otherwise a very good argument, though the "legislating personal taste" stuff is a bit over the top.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Minor nitpick: I don't know if the 65,000 number is true or not (definitely sounds high to me), but the 3,000 number you cite is only lung cancer deaths. There are many other ways secondhand smoke can kill.

oh I don't doubt it... although I don't quite think the number is large enough to be rather significant to the discussion. Plus I'm too lazy to find such statistics.

While I don't agree with your stance, it is otherwise a very good argument,

thanks!

though the "legislating personal taste" stuff is a bit over the top.

I couldn't resist! And honestly, have you known me to be any other way?

[GePap]

What I find funny is that Ming and Vel have argued that no deaths can be tied to second hand smoke, yet Sava posts a reply in which 3000 deaths are claimed on second hand smoke due to lung cancer alone.....woops.

[rah]

There has been considerable debate of the degree of certainty about what those deaths are attributed too.
It all depends on which side you believe.

[GePap]

I see no reason to dispute the National Cancer Institute. Its not a lobbying arm of any interest group, nuless one wants to label those who want to lower the cancer rate an interest group.

And what is good to note is that anti-smoking laws have had a huge effect in curbing the dangers from second hand smoke.

[rah]

It's human nature not to contest their findings if they agree with what you already believe. But I think if you look deep enough, even they won't claim it with 100% certainty. Terms like high corralation, and high probability are often tossed around.

[Sava]

Originally posted by rah
It's human nature not to contest their findings if they agree with what you already believe. But I think if you look deep enough, even they won't claim it with 100% certainty. Terms like high corralation, and high probability are often tossed around.

I think the 3,000 number makes sense. There are a lot of kids and other people that live with smokers who are exposed to a lot of secondhand smoke who are at risk of lung cancer.

But as for smoking bans in restaurants. I don't believe for a second, that any nonsmoker has ever gotten lung cancer as a result of patronizing restaurants that have smoking sections. The amount of smoke you would need to be exposed to, and the amount of time needed to develop the cancer, is just too great.

Which is why bans like these, on the grounds of "health concerns" are just absurd.

Like I said in the letter. People need to be honest. JUST SAY YOU DON'T LIKE SMOKE AND YOU WANT TO LEGISLATE YOUR PERSONAL TASTES! Don't pretend like you are on a crusade to save people from lung cancer.

[Ming]

Originally posted by GePap
What I find funny is that Ming and Vel have argued that no deaths can be tied to second hand smoke, yet Sava posts a reply in which 3000 deaths are claimed on second hand smoke due to lung cancer alone.....woops.

Claimed and proven are two different things...
Can you find any "PROOF"... woops!