oxygen in common

It’s safe to say that I have mixed feelings about the smoking ban, and I’m not real inclined to want to punish or persecute people for *their* personal vices, lest they turn around and try to do the same to me…

So I’m not interested in arguing with your larger thesis so much as pointing out the major problem with your ‘slippery slope’ argument:
Next thing you know, you’ll all be wanting to ban alcohol (bad for you), red meat (bad for you), refined sugar (bad for you), salt (bad for you), and everything else that causes a MINIMAL amount of harm.

There’s a very clear and glaring difference between these things and cigarette smoke– what you put into YOUR body (or put your body into, for that matter) that’s harmful to YOU, is not necessarily directly harmful to ME. Cigarette smoke is an exception to this. If you light up while you’re occupying the same twenty square feet or so of airspace that I am, then what you’re putting into your body you are also putting into *mine*. It’s unavoidable. That is what puts it into a class by itself. I don’t have to eat off the same plate as you, I don’t have to drink out of the same glass, but I -don’t- have a choice about which oxygen molecules I inhale and which tar and nicotine molecules I don’t.

Certainly, I have a choice (most of the time) about the places that I go to, but sometimes those choices revolve around factors that go beyond ‘smoking’ and ‘non-smoking’. And the difference is that a smoker can go to a non-smoking venue and, aside perhaps from a self-inflicted (by ‘choice’ of course) nicotine fit, will suffer no harm. A non-smoker cannot do the same. So there is another kind of ‘tyranny’ at work there.

Please don’t tell me the issue of second-hand smoke and health issues is not ‘proven’… I know better from first-hand, direct real-world experience. I wish that I were not as sensitive as I am to the damn stuff, because apart from the issue of shared oxygen, I *do* consider it a personal choice that should not be nanny-regulated. If they could come up with a cigarette that kept the smoke completely contained in a one or two-foot radius around the smoker’s head, I would just keep a little distance and say “smoke ‘em if ya got ‘em!”

Until that time comes, I don’t believe it’s as cut-and-dried as your thesis would like to imply. I don’t like the idea of trying to regulate other people’s personal habits. My personal experience has been that most of the truly interesting women I have met are or have been smokers (figure it’s one of those rebellion/non-conformist rites of passage things). But I also have a real problem with the idea that I can’t go to places that I would like to go to just because there’s a significant minority of people there who are choosing to make the air inside toxic to me.

This is not a concern that I have when you or someone like you is eating red meat, over-salting your food, drinking too much wine, sleeping with loose women (or men) or other potentially harmful vices. You’re not hurting -me-.

It’s a variation of the classic ‘tragedy of the commons’ problem… and there isn’t an ideal solution to it yet. People have other reasons for coming together besides smoking/non-smoking, and then it becomes a question of whether those who do, have the right to choose to make the atmosphere toxic for those of us who don’t. “Hey, who breathed up the last of the good air?”

There are better answers than an across-the-board ban on smoking in *all* businesses, I grant you that. But it’s not as simple as you want to paint it.

Re: oxygen in common

Btw, good response.

I added a little bit of information above (which was unrelated to the premise of your post) just bc I had missed a few things before.

hmmm-thats all fine-but then I suppose you are ok with the idea of me pissing all over people in a bar? You have the choice not to go into that bar
To me, thats exactly what smokers are doing-the equivelant of pissing all over me. The only reason they get away with it is because for years its been acceptable.
Oh-and please do take into account that the big tobacco companies have been funding the research rubbishing second hand smoking studies for years-so most of the ‘evidence’ that it does no harm comes from them (vested interest anybody?).
IF and only IF smoking was a habit that only affected the person doing it then I would be fine with it. I have no problem with people snorting coke for example (it doesn’t affect me at all). But since I have to put up with smokers in every single place of entertainment and eatery in my area I have no real choice at all other than to stay at home. That second hand smoke is not just a health risk re cancer btw-it aggravates my allergies and sinus problems, leading to quite considerable discomfort, and the smoke gets in clothes etc requiring me to a)wash everything I wore the moment I get home and b)wash myself the moment I get home.

Sorry if I get uptight on this issue-its been the bane of my life all my adult years-I can’t go out anywhere and enjoy a decent social life without ending up in pain, wheezing and short of breath from bronchial problems I had as a child with terrible sinus headaches bought 100% by smokers. Even without the passive smoking/cancer debate its a health risk for me thats imposed on me without my consent by other people. In comparison-though it sounds appalling and rude-someone pissing on me would actually be healthier and more sociable of them (as it has few actual health risks, its just nasty, while smoking is nasty and has definate health risks for millions of people, including myself).

Where I live the only form of entertainment nearby are pubs and restaurants-all of which currently allow smoking. Even if they have non-smoking sections (not all do)-smoke tends to drift, so the concept is actually rather inane unless the smoking sections are sealed off (uk airports have taken to doing that-it looks really funny, and the smokers look sad, but it seems to work). We are supposedly getting a complete ban in places that serve food soon in the UK though I will believe it when it happens.

Regarding the research, its been in several UK newspapers of late (the Independent is the main-probably one of our more reputable papers, but alas you have to pay to access their news archive) that the big cigarette companies have been teaming with Exxon Mobile to swap phony research-on a you scartch my back I will scratch yours basis, Exxon has been funding research aimed at rubbishing smoking dangers, while Phillip Reed has been doing the same for climate change. They have effectively paid for research to find the results they want (hardly scientific) and then promoted them to try and rubbish legit independent studies that show the dangers. Partly because we have a more independent media here in the UK less prone to political and corporate control than the USA such things tend to get out.
Remember-for many years the cigarette companies denied that smoking had any harmful effects at all and they still tend to try and downplay them even though the evidence is 100% water tight that smoking is harmful (and can you seriously believ that any business that is slowly killing its customers, even if they seem to be ok with that-though remmeber they ARE addicted-is actually going to act in any moral way? Creating dubious ‘science’ to back their cause (and profits) is right up their street.

No-I have to say it-I am 100% behind smoking bans. If anyone tries to say its all about choice-I agree-MY ability to choose is just as important as anyone elses, and I wont let anyone say any different. If people want to kill themselves with a nasty habit that fine by me-so long as it isnt done in public and affecting my own health as well.