Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > smoking bans      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 260
smoking bansPage 16 of 16    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)

3-Nitrobenzanthrone

Perhaps you could clarify the point...?

While this is supportive of banning internal combustion vehicles (at least certain types) from downtown core areas (where vehicle density tends to be highest, concentrating pollutant exposure in these areas), I'm not clear on how this applies to smoking bans...
 EarlzP
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 261
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/20/2011 8:30:54 AM

Smoking Bans...hmm.
Although I'd agree with many here that smoking in a public area is extremely rude and certainly should be discouraged, being forced to tolerate ill mannered smokers is far less of an evil than jacking around with the individuals freedom.. Even when said freedom allows for unpleasant smoke and odor. A people living under an oppressive government smell far worse.
This is waaaaay to slippery of a slope people


So how would you recommend that smoking be discouraged in public places, lets say a person walks into a restuarant and sits down next to you and your familyand then lights up what would you do to discourage that person from smoking, maybe say please put out that cigarette? If not then what would you do?

The people vote for the smoking bans, the "people" vote for the smoking bans are you able to follow me? We the people the ones who elect our governement are the same people who vote to ban smoking in public places, a majority of the people vote for the smoking bans and bans are put into law. There is no slippery slope.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 262
smoking bans
Posted: 2/20/2011 9:19:13 AM

Smoking Bans...hmm.
Although I'd agree with many here that smoking in a public area is extremely rude and certainly should be discouraged, being forced to tolerate ill mannered smokers is far less of an evil than jacking around with the individuals freedom.. Even when said freedom allows for unpleasant smoke and odor. A people living under an oppressive government smell far worse.
This is waaaaay to slippery of a slope people

Is banning bared female breasts in public as slippery a slope...? I don't see the country slipping into oppression and tyranny over that (which does no harm to the health of others)...

What about laws against dumping toxic pollutants into municipal water services (like dumping your motor oil in the storm drain)...? Isn't that also restricting your right to do as you please and are you slipping into tyranny and oppression for it...?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 263
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/20/2011 9:41:04 AM
a majority of the people vote for the smoking bans and bans are put into law.


Would a law that prohibited left-handed people from appearing in any public place between 9 and 5 be valid, just because a majority of the people favored it? That's not enough--a state or local law also has to be reasonably designed to achieve some legitimate government purpose. And the purposes courts have recognized are public health, safety and welfare. They also used to recognize public morals, but now that's usually considered to be part of public welfare.

The obvious basis for laws against smoking in certain places is protecting public health--and that's why the question whether second-hand tobacco smoke is harmful is so important. Sometimes the basis for these laws is far from clear. Why prohibit a person from smoking in a park at 6 AM, for example, when he's the only one there, and the nearest housing is a quarter-mile away?


What about laws against dumping toxic pollutants into municipal water services


That's covered by federal law--the Clean Water Act. The basis for it is that the storm sewers eventually empty into "waters of the United States," which Congress has authority to protect as part of its regulation of interstate commerce. The coastal oceans are also "waters of the U.S."
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 264
smoking bans
Posted: 2/20/2011 12:08:50 PM

What about laws against dumping toxic pollutants into municipal water services


That's covered by federal law--the Clean Water Act. The basis for it is that the storm sewers eventually empty into "waters of the United States," which Congress has authority to protect as part of its regulation of interstate commerce. The coastal oceans are also "waters of the U.S."

WTF...?!?

Nobody asked WHAT STATUTE covers such laws... You would do well to be more thorough in parsing what you are reading (do you understand the meaning of "rhetorical question" ?) before regaling us with answers to non-existent questions...
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 265
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/20/2011 5:00:28 PM
You can be sure I'll take your advice about how to read, parsing, rhetorical questions, etc. for all it's worth. You are the one who compared laws against smoking in public to laws against dumping oil into storm drains. But your analogy doesn't stand up--the risk of violating individual liberty isn't at all the same.

Congress's authority to prohibit that kind of water pollution by federal law is clear--the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. But the Constitution does NOT provide any authority for laws against smoking in public. The only authority for them is the inherent authority states (and in turn their municipal governments) are assumed to have to set policy by making laws.

The Supreme Court has called this authority the "police power" of the states, and since the Civil War, it has been limited by the 14th Amendment's guarantee of due process of law. In practice, that means that if a state or local law deprives someone of liberty, it has to further the public health, safety, or welfare. So, for instance, in the interest of public safety, a state law can deprive drivers of the liberty to move forward for a minute or two by making them wait at red lights.

Laws against smoking in public claim to be justified by the government's interest in public health. If secondhand tobacco smoke is in fact a threat to public health, no problem. But if it is not, these laws violate due process, because they deprive people of liberty for no good reason.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 266
smoking bans
Posted: 2/20/2011 5:39:17 PM

If secondhand tobacco smoke is in fact a threat to public health, no problem. But if it is not, these laws violate due process, because they deprive people of liberty for no good reason.

I didn't realize this was still in question in any significant way. What if we are 90% certain that secondhand smoke is a threat? Is that good enough to justify such a law?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 267
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/20/2011 8:38:43 PM
Is that good enough to justify such a law?


Good question. To respect the separation of powers, courts ordinarily defer to the legislature. What that usually means is that if the government can point to any reasonable basis for a law that's related to protecting public health, safety, or welfare, the law's good.

Since smokers aren't exactly a pet grievance group, I'd be surprised to see many of the anti-smoking laws struck down. I don't smoke, but I don't like state and local governments harassing people who do. There's been sort of a holy crusade against tobacco--and the crusaders seem to see smoking as a vice.


What if the majority of our nations voters passed those into federal law?


Not gonna happen, for two reasons. First, that would target a certain group and deny it the equal protection of the laws, for no valid reason. The 14th Amendment's equal protection guarantee only applies against the states. *But* the Supreme Court reads the 5th Amendment to incorporate that equal protection guarantee and apply it against the federal government too. Second, because of the 5th and 14th Am. due process guarantees, neither federal nor state governments can make what someone *does* a crime. Your thoughts can't be criminalized, and neither can your status--being a Jew, being obese, or being whatever.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 268
smoking bans
Posted: 2/20/2011 9:10:13 PM

But your analogy doesn't stand up--the risk of violating individual liberty isn't at all the same.

But it is... you have no more "right" to smoke in public places than you do to dump your motor oil wherever you please... There is no Constitutional right to this, implicit or by fair implication, there is no fundamental right associated with it, smokers do not fall within "suspect" or "quasi-suspect" classes and public smoking bans fall within the scope of "legitimate interest"...

In practice, that means that if a state or local law deprives someone of liberty, it has to further the public health, safety, or welfare.

Ummm... You might want to reconsider that... Rational Basis requires only "legitimate interests"... it does NOT define specifically what "legitimate interests" actually are and certainly is not defined specifically as "public health, safety, or welfare"...

Laws against smoking in public claim to be justified by the government's interest in public health. If secondhand tobacco smoke is in fact a threat to public health, no problem. But if it is not, these laws violate due process, because they deprive people of liberty for no good reason.

Umm... First, even if "public health" were the stated in the legislation, it would not have to actually be proven true, there is no requirement that the stated contention be provably true, merely rationally plausible (and it would be up to you to prove it wasn't true)... and second, even if it weren't that, there only has to be SOME rationally discernable interest, the stated one does not have to be it (and it would be up to you to prove it didn't serve another "legitimate interest")... and, third, the presumption of Constitutionality which follows such things (those which aren't subject to strict or intermediate scrutiny) assumes them to serve the "legitimate interests" of the state (again, leaving it to you to prove it didn't)...

Sorry, but the 14th isn't "your friend" when it comes to any law that doesn't involve a fundamental right, suspect class or quasi-suspect class... And it will be of no help in fighting public smoking bans for that reason...
 EarlzP
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 269
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/20/2011 9:19:09 PM

Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm all for the ban itself it is the [/rights] of said smokers and nonsmokers alike that Im concerned with.
How would you feel regarding a law that was voted passed that made it illegal to be obese in public? Or how about being Jewish in public? Surely our Jewish population and their voting pool would stand no chance against the majority and her voters.
What if the majority of our nations voters passed those into federal law?


Are you implying that being obese or being Jewish is a health hazard to others?

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet6.html


The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
6 Major Conclusions of the Surgeon General Report
Smoking is the single greatest avoidable cause of disease and death. In this report, The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General, the Surgeon General has concluded that:

Many millions of Americans, both children and adults, are still exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes and workplaces despite substantial progress in tobacco control.
Supporting Evidence

Levels of a chemical called cotinine, a biomarker of secondhand smoke exposure, fell by 70 percent from 1988-91 to 2001-02. In national surveys, however, 43 percent of U.S. nonsmokers still have detectable levels of cotinine.
Almost 60 percent of U.S. children aged 3-11 years—or almost 22 million children—are exposed to secondhand smoke.
Approximately 30 percent of indoor workers in the United States are not covered by smoke-free workplace policies.

Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke.
Supporting Evidence

Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic (cancer-causing), including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic, ammonia, and hydrogen cyanide.
Secondhand smoke has been designated as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has concluded that secondhand smoke is an occupational carcinogen.

Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more severe asthma. Smoking by parents causes respiratory symptoms and slows lung growth in their children.
Supporting Evidence

Children who are exposed to secondhand smoke are inhaling many of the same cancer-causing substances and poisons as smokers. Because their bodies are developing, infants and young children are especially vulnerable to the poisons in secondhand smoke.
Both babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant and babies who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth are more likely to die from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) than babies who are not exposed to cigarette smoke.
Babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant or who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth have weaker lungs than unexposed babies, which increases the risk for many health problems.
Among infants and children, secondhand smoke cause bronchitis and pneumonia, and increases the risk of ear infections.
Secondhand smoke exposure can cause children who already have asthma to experience more frequent and severe attacks.

Exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer.
Supporting Evidence

Concentrations of many cancer-causing and toxic chemicals are higher in secondhand smoke than in the smoke inhaled by smokers.
Breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can have immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and interferes with the normal functioning of the heart, blood, and vascular systems in ways that increase the risk of a heart attack.
Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 - 30 percent.
Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing lung cancer by 20 - 30 percent.

The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
Supporting Evidence

Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of a heart attack.
Secondhand smoke contains many chemicals that can quickly irritate and damage the lining of the airways. Even brief exposure can result in upper airway changes in healthy persons and can lead to more frequent and more asthma attacks in children who already have asthma.

Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke.
Supporting Evidence

Conventional air cleaning systems can remove large particles, but not the smaller particles or the gases found in secondhand smoke.
Routine operation of a heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system can distribute secondhand smoke throughout a building.
The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the preeminent U.S. body on ventilation issues, has concluded that ventilation technology cannot be relied on to control health risks from secondhand smoke exposure.
The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General was prepared by the Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The Report was written by 22 national experts who were selected as primary authors. The Report chapters were reviewed by 40 peer reviewers, and the entire Report was reviewed by 30 independent scientists and by lead scientists within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services. Throughout the review process, the Report was revised to address reviewers’ comments.

Citation
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006.

For more information, please refer to the Resources page. Additional highlight sheets are also available at www.cdc.gov/tobacco.


Last revised: January 4, 2007
 Hozo
Joined: 8/1/2006
Msg: 270
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/21/2011 5:59:22 AM
Wrapping yourself in statistical armour without understanding its composition is somewhat telling of ones selfish intentions.

So, what is true 2nd hand smoke, and are you exposed to it???

Please become enlightened on the definition of 2ND HAND SMOKE.

Merely SMELLING cigarette smoke is not the same thing as 2nd hand smoke...thats only a few parts per million....not much different than the scent in the air of someones freshly shampooed hair or their cologne.

But anti smokers like the above poster dont know the difference. It fits their selfish agenda so to them its one in the same & therin lies the problem.

I am not a cigarette smoker, therefore I can walk into a building, or someones house, etc, & detect the smell of cigarette smoke the same way an anti smoker does. THAT DOESNT MEAN ITS 2ND HAND SMOKE. But to a crusader, it is. It is no different than walking into a donut shoppe and smeling donuts. Using this scenario, I must be dangerously coating my lungs with white flour and powdered sugar.

Its merely an odor. I find it baffling that anti smokers go haywire over it. A smoker's home ALWAYS smells like cigarette smoke, even after theyve been on holiday for a week, but upon entering that same home after being vacant for a week, a non smoker will gag & rant & do all the obvious demeaning displays & gestures. Its hilarious.



The lines have become conveniently blurred by anti-smokers concerning 2nd hand smoke. 2ND HAND SMOKE, & merely just SMELLING SMOKE are 2 completely different things.

Studies done that anti smokers cling to as gospel deal with true recognised 2nd hand smoke statistics.....which is a suspended particulate count of several hundred parts per million of cigarette smoke, over a certain duration of time. It is a long term exposure to a concentrated amount.

True 2nd hand smoke can be seen as a smokey haze in a poorly ventilated room. One needs to be exposed months/years to this several hours a day. That is where the 2nd hand smoke stats come from. Nobody here is exposed to this anymore. If they are, they are the only ones who have a legitmate complaint. Everyone else is a bandwagon jumper. Every other anti smoker is conveniently hijacking it.

This is what I see as one of the problems created by a brainwashing agenda...a non smoker SEES or SMELLS cigarette smoke & equates it with 2ND HAND SMOKE. True 2nd hand smoke is an entity, not simply a scent or unfavourable visual on ones part.

You are dealing with a SCENT. You are magically turning it into 2ND HAND SMOKE.

Sorry, but you are not Jesus performing the miracle at Cana. If you are alarmed at being exposed to 3 parts per million of cigarette smoke, why are you not alarmed at being exposed to 3 parts per million of the hundreds other cancer-causing compound in the air you breathe daily?

This is a perfect example that its less a concern for ones health as it is a knee jerk Pavlov's dog response. When one merely SEES someone else smoking and gets a whiff of smoke SCENT anymore, that triggers a response - not the smoke itself. As you grimace & wave your hand in front of your face in the mere presence of a smoker its obvious to all that there's no thick cloud of smoke present. Its merely a conscious public display in order to show your support for your stance.



 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 271
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/21/2011 7:46:14 AM

it does NOT define specifically what "legitimate interests" actually are and certainly is not defined specifically as "public health, safety, or welfare"...


The states gave certain specified powers to the United States in the Constitution. They also prohibited themselves from doing certain specified things. The 14th Amendment and some other parts of the Constitution--e.g. the Commerce Clause--further limit the states' power.

What the states retain is their inherent police power. They make laws which delegate some of this power to counties, cities, and other municipal governments. These local governments can then adopt ordinances to regulate various activities.

Particularly as applied to these local laws--but also with state laws generally-- the Court for a long time has interpreted the police power as extending to matters of public health, safety, welfare, (and morals.) That means the interests of state and local governments are legitimate only when they concern those things. That's why laws that restrict architectural styles for aesthetic reasons, for example, are questionable.


Sorry, but the 14th isn't "your friend" when it comes to any law that doesn't involve a fundamental right, suspect class or quasi-suspect class... And it will be of no help in fighting public smoking bans for that reason


That's pretty much what I said in #382. Obviously, smokers are not a suspect classification, nor is smoking a fundamental right. The issue is whether a local legislature could reasonably conclude that secondhand tobacco smoke endangers public health. You stated the rules for rational basis review right, but it's not that simple in practice. The Court has a way of relaxing or stiffening that review, depending on the issue, without admitting it.
 EarlzP
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 272
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/21/2011 8:55:28 AM

But anti smokers like the above poster dont know the difference. It fits their selfish agenda so to them its one in the same & therin lies the problem.


I don't need stats to know what second hand smoke does and I am really selfish when it comes to the health of my family, my daughter can not be in a room with a smoker, I get to watch her trying to get her breath and reach for her inhaler, I was once a selfish smoker who believed like you do that my smoking only injured me so I smoked any where and any time I wanted to, now I see the results of my selfish behavior.

You can continue to your support for the "poor" tobacco companies who are being abused by the anti smoking lobby, the "po0r" tobacco companies who lied and denied what the health risks of smoking and second hand are/were for years.

Me, I will continue my selfish crusade as long as I possibly can.


Sorry, but you are not Jesus performing the miracle at Cana. If you are alarmed at being exposed to 3 parts per million of cigarette smoke, why are you not alarmed at being exposed to 3 parts per million of the hundreds other cancer-causing compound in the air you breathe daily?


It's your conclusion based on what are you able to read my mind and know what I am or am not concerned about? You worked in an environment where you were exposed to a health risk has that environment been cleaned up? what are you doing other then attacking the rabid anti smoking lobby that is going to help prevent others from the same exposure you were exposed to?


This is a perfect example that its less a concern for ones health as it is a knee jerk Pavlov's dog response. When one merely SEES someone else smoking and gets a whiff of smoke SCENT anymore, that triggers a response - not the smoke itself. As you grimace & wave your hand in front of your face in the mere presence of a smoker its obvious to all that there's no thick cloud of smoke present. Its merely a conscious public display in order to show your support for your stance.


You must be able to read the minds of so many other people, I am envious of you being able to know what others think and the way they react
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 273
smoking bans
Posted: 2/21/2011 9:12:24 AM
Merely SMELLING cigarette smoke is not the same thing as 2nd hand smoke...thats only a few parts per million....not much different than the scent in the air of someones freshly shampooed hair or their cologne.

But anti smokers like the above poster dont know the difference. It fits their selfish agenda so to them its one in the same & therin lies the problem.

To be fair, unless I missed it, I don't think the poster referred to has taken the stance that "merely smelling" the residual scent is "2nd hand smoke"...

And assuming he is reading the sources he posts (a reasonable assumption) he couldn't help but see this part, which he quoted...

Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke.

And it would also be reasonable to assume he understands that this:

Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke.

Is rather over-stated (as in it is deliberately vague)... In fact, ASHRAE DID note in its paper that isolating smokers and non-smokers DOES protect non-smokers...

2. Smoking Only in Isolated Rooms: Allowing smoking only in separate and isolated rooms, typically dedicated to smoking, can control ETS exposure in non-smoking spaces in the same building. Effective isolation is achievable through airflow and pressure control including location of supply outlets and return and exhaust air inlets to preserve desirable airflow directions at doorways, as well as the use of separate ventilation systems serving the smoking spaces. When using this approach, the design and operation need to address entrainment of exhaust air containing ETS into the non-smoking area’s system through the air intake, windows, and other airflow paths. In addition, the airtightness of the physical barriers between the smoking and nonsmoking areas, as well as of the connecting doorways, requires special attention. Some smoking lounges in airports or office buildings exemplify use of this control approach.

ASHRAE Position Document on Environmental Tobacco Smoke

www.ashrae.org/File%20Library/docLib/Public/20090120_pos_ets.pdf

The deliberateness of this vagueness can be found in these quotes...

Conventional air cleaning systems can remove large particles, but not the smaller particles or the gases found in secondhand smoke.
Routine operation of a heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system can distribute secondhand smoke throughout a building.

Notice the highlighted words... In fact, as noted above, ASHRAE research found that it can be fully controlled, just that it requires an isolated system rather than the ROUTINELY used building ventilation systems(as in its all connected throughout the building) and an isolated space.

The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the preeminent U.S. body on ventilation issues, has concluded that ventilation technology cannot be relied on to control health risks from secondhand smoke exposure.

I'm sure he is able to deduce from this that the info he posted is ONLY referencing smoking in a space that is NOT physically isolated or uses a ventilation system common with the rest of the spaces...

I'm sure he is able to see that this kind of vagueness is actually harmful to his cause by leading people to believe they are being lied to about the issue and that fully accurate and truthful info is certainly better...

I'm sure that he is able to see that informing people that second-hand smoke in public-access buildings CAN be controlled but only at extreme cost beyond the reach of most businesses and generally not realizable in existing structures actually SUPPORTS public smoking bans...
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > smoking bans