G Money wrote: > The benefits of going "smoke free" are unquestionable. Whether it merits the > type of government crackdown that we are seeing these days.....is still > debatable. > I don't really view it as a "crackdown", but as a culmination of years of research and education where the general public has discovered that smoking is not actually good for you as was initially claimed earlier in the century - but that it's bad for you. Very very very bad. This has also occurred with substances such as lead paint and asbestos which were once widely used but then discontinued once their danger was discovered. The two big differences there were that neither lead paint nor asbestos were 1) addictive 2) backed by an army of lobbyists. > The best argument for the government mandated smoking bans centers around > the health issues involved with second hand smoke, particularly for > employees of the establishment. > I completely agree. > I still think a compromise is preferable an all-or-nothing approach. > > Cameron, what do you think of the idea of allowing certain, narrowly defined > businesses to remain as smoking establishments? Or is it unacceptable to > allow smokers ANY place to gather in a public location? > I might, but it would have to be very narrow. I would be okay with something like the smoking terrariums you see in many airports. And I would want to have access to all of the facilities in the establishment such as the bathroom, bar, restaurant, or entryway without having to pass through that smoking area.
Really though, since we both agree that at it's core it's a public health issue, we should be comparing it to other things that are public health issues and NOT other "personal freedoms" like the right to bear arms (for example). As a health issue it falls into the same category as the ban on lead paint and asbestos, but it also is similar to things like the health inspections that food establishments have to undergo. There are certain laws that require things like food being prepared at a specific temperature and handled in a specific way. Are those laws infringing on the establishment or it's patron's personal freedoms? Maybe a little bit, but it's in the public's best interest that those laws exist, and I would be surprised to find many people who'd oppose them. To me it's very clear cut that it's a public health issue and not a personal right issue, but I did mention the right to bear arms, so let's take a second and walk down that road too. In the USA you do have the right to own a gun. You have the right to own alot of guns, just like you have the right to own alot of cigarettes. However, you *are* restricted in how you can use a gun. Except for very specific places, you cannot fire it- in a public place for example, because it's dangerous. With *very* few exceptions, you also cannot fire it at someone, because it may kill them. I do think that smoking is similar in this way. Just like firing a gun around other people is dangerous, there is a certain risk associated with smoking around someone else. Of course, smoking around others is a less established danger then firing a gun around others. My point really is that for those who wish to bring up the issue of personal freedoms we should be comparing smoking to other freedoms that have the potential to endanger members of the general public. Most "freedoms" in that category are controlled in some manner. Having said all that though - it really *is* a health issue at it's core and not one of personal freedoms. -Cameron ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:249548 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
