The Case for Bans on Smoking

[snopes]

The growing numbers of bans on smoking in restaurants, bars and workplaces, intended to protect nonsmokers against second-hand-tobacco smoke, are turning into potent weapons in the battle to prevent heart attacks.

In one of the largest analyses to date of the dangers of passive smoking, researchers found that smoke-free laws reduced the rate of heart attacks by an average of 17% after one year in communities where the bans had been adopted. The benefit increased with time: After three years, the rate had dropped about 26%. The biggest declines in heart attacks were seen among non-smokers and people between the ages of 40 and 60 years.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...442513660.html

[stagemanager0610]

The smoking ban is just starting to affect Wisconsin. My BF lives in IL and commutes to see me, and every time we go out, he's always surprised that we get offered either smoking or non-smoking.

I'm glad that smoking is being kept out restaurants and workplaces, but since I know a large number of smokers, I feel a bit bad that they won't be allowed to smoke in bars.

[Eddylizard]

As a smoker, I really don't find the ban on smoking in pubs to be a hardship. Most pubs seem to have set up external smoking areas which are as protected from the elements as the law permits (any smoking structure must have a certain number of open sides - I'm not sure how many) an it only takes less than five minutes to pop outside and smoke a ciggie.

Admittedly if you are a chain smoker, or prefer cigars or a pipe it might be more inconvenient, but then you could always take your drink with you. If you're having a meal in the pub, then suck it up - I've never met anyone who smoked who couldn't go an hour without.

[Andrew of Ware]

Within a year of the smoking ban in all public places in England starting in July 2007, heart attacks in England fell by 10%. This is more than anticipated. The rate of fall among non-smokers was higher than among smokers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8267523.stm

[Tarquin Farquart]

Originally Posted by Eddylizard

As a smoker, I really don't find the ban on smoking in pubs to be a hardship. Most pubs seem to have set up external smoking areas which are as protected from the elements as the law permits (any smoking structure must have a certain number of open sides - I'm not sure how many) an it only takes less than five minutes to pop outside and smoke a ciggie.

I'm not a smoker, but some smokers I've spoken to say they quite like going outside (as long as the weather is good) as there's a lot of banter and camaraderie.

[TripleAAA]

As a smoker I don't mind going outside. I actually prefer it, since smoke in an enclosed room is awful.

As a teetotaler (I don't like the feeling alcohol gives me), I am getting sick of smokers and cigarettes getting higher taxes and bad rap, when alcohol can be just as bad for you, can cause annoyances in the form of idiot drunks being loud, and can cause accidents and deaths when drunks drive, yet I don't see any bans on booze.

[Eddylizard]

It's an intersting point you have there TripleAAA.

The smoking ban is in place/being introduced/being considered (depending on where g-you live) because AFAIK it is considered (and I don't want to open up a debate on whether the evidence is strong enough) to be harmful to non-smokers in the room. Regardless, for a non-smoker it can be quite unpleasant to be in a smoke filled room - I don't think that is in dispute.

I don't mind going outside because why shoul the group of non-smoking diners in the table across from me have to suffer? Let's be honest, even when we could smoke in restaurants and pubs and so on, if they had a smoking and a non-smoking area, the smoke can't read the signs and stop there.

However as to your point about, I'm simply not able to fully think it through enough to come to a conclusion. In a place where smoking is freely permitted, a non-smoker upon entering the premises can't really avoid it.

However now we get onto the real difficult issue I think you are talking about. On a simplistic level no-one ever got second hand alcohol intake from being in a place where alcohol was being served.

As you point out though, there is a second hand effect from badly behaved drunks and drunk drivers. Presently we tackle this (at least here) primarily through education and stigmatisation (I could find the TV and cinema ads if you really want) showing, and perh the bad things that could potentially happen if you drink too much, or drive after drinking, and secondarily through actual policing. Though around here I see a police traffic patrol car about every two years or so.

It's not a total ban on smoking, not in the same way prohibition was a total ban on alcohol (and a failure). You can smoke in your house, you can smoke on the street - you just cannot smoke inside a pub, restaurant or public building.

The closest I could come to an analogy to your position is if you were not permitted to consume alcohol in a bar or restaurant, yet you could freely, as now buy alcohol at a store for home consumption.

[wanderwoman]

Originally Posted by TripleAAA

As a smoker I don't mind going outside. I actually prefer it, since smoke in an enclosed room is awful.

As a teetotaler (I don't like the feeling alcohol gives me), I am getting sick of smokers and cigarettes getting higher taxes and bad rap, when alcohol can be just as bad for you, can cause annoyances in the form of idiot drunks being loud, and can cause accidents and deaths when drunks drive, yet I don't see any bans on booze.

It's been tried, though. It didn't work very well and had lots of unintended consequences.

[Bettie Page Turner]

Originally Posted by TripleAAA

As a teetotaler (I don't like the feeling alcohol gives me), I am getting sick of smokers and cigarettes getting higher taxes and bad rap, when alcohol can be just as bad for you, can cause annoyances in the form of idiot drunks being loud, and can cause accidents and deaths when drunks drive, yet I don't see any bans on booze.

But you do see bans on using alcohol in ways that impose on others. Using alcohol in a way that puts others at risk, such as drunk and disorderly conduct or drunk driving, are against the law, and thus banned. It is possible to use alcohol in a public place without putting others at risk, but extremely difficult to use tobacco without exposing others to risk.

And as a drinker and nonsmoker, I'd be perfectly willing to pay higher taxes for my enjoyable but nonessential wine and beer.

[Johnny Slick]

Originally Posted by TripleAAA

As a teetotaler (I don't like the feeling alcohol gives me), I am getting sick of smokers and cigarettes getting higher taxes and bad rap, when alcohol can be just as bad for you, can cause annoyances in the form of idiot drunks being loud, and can cause accidents and deaths when drunks drive, yet I don't see any bans on booze.

If there was a kind of booze that you spit into the air and made everybody else get a little drunk every time you decided to imbibe, I would agree with your point and would want to get it out of public areas as well.

[Logoboros]

Originally Posted by TripleAAA

...yet I don't see any bans on booze.

Well, we still have dry counties in the US. There are laws that prevent you from consuming alcohol in certain public places.

In fact, I'd hazard a guess that there are more legal restrictions on alcohol consumption than there are on smoking.

--Logoboros

ETA: Also, you can be arrested for public intoxication (and being loud and drunk is one easy way to get arrested for that), but I can't think of any equivalent law for smokers.

[Not_Done_Living]

I do not smoke in my home -- (2nd hand smoke residue that lingers in the air may harm my children)
I am nto smot allowed to smoke in my car (2nd hand smoke residue that lingers in the air may harm my children)
I am not allowed to smoke in parks (2nd hand smoke residue that lingers in the air may harm my children).
And today, my next door neighbor asked me not to smoke in my back yard.
Of all the addictions, this is the one thing i have tried to quit that i cannot. If i had ANY other addiction the Gov't would pay for the treatment (alcohol all the way up to illicit drugs). I would quit if i could... have tried before.. but oh well..

[Eddylizard]

Originally Posted by Not_Done_Living

I do not smoke in my home -- (2nd hand smoke residue that lingers in the air may harm my children)

Good.

I am nto smot allowed to smoke in my car (2nd hand smoke residue that lingers in the air may harm my children)

Yes you are allowed to. It is good that you have made the decision not to, but you are at liberty so to do. The only thing the authorities insist on is that you dispose of the butt in a responsible way.

I am not allowed to smoke in parks (2nd hand smoke residue that lingers in the air may harm my children).

Yes you are. See above.

And today, my next door neighbor asked me not to smoke in my back yard.

I'll concede that is out of order.

Of all the addictions, this is the one thing i have tried to quit that i cannot. If i had ANY other addiction the Gov't would pay for the treatment (alcohol all the way up to illicit drugs). I would quit if i could... have tried before.. but oh well..

In my neck of the woods at least, it's far easier to get on a Government sponsored stop-smoking programme than a Government sponsored drugs or alcohol programme. I waited over a year for alcohol rehab, but I could get on the stop smoking programme tomorrow if I wanted. (One thing at a time huh). Detox and rehab for drug and alcohol abusers is frighteningly expensive compared to the quit smoking stuff.

[MidgardDragon]

The case against: We're grown ups. We can decide what goes in and out of our bodies, and SURPRISINGLY ENOUGH we can make that tough choice to *gasp* not step into the bar that allows smoking. But nevermind that, let's just let the government control that. Funny we don't trust them enough (apparently) to run healthcare so we let millions go without, but we're all for them telling us what to do in our free time. Pretty damn hilarious.

[Christie]

His team found that heart attack rates across Europe and North America started to drop immediately following implementation of anti-smoking laws, reaching 17% after one year, then continuing to decline over time, with a 36% drop three years after enacting the restrictions.

Good to know! I've been so focused on appreciating, after all these years, now being able to go out to bars and restaurants and not come home stinking of tobaco that I didn't stop to realise there were benefits to the smoking ban that went beyond fresh air.

[Not_Done_Living]

Originally Posted by Eddylizard

Good.

http://www.slaw.ca/2009/01/21/ontari...ldren-present/

The only time i am IN the car is when i am with the kids (work from home!)
When i was sitting in the car (alone) smoking (in the winter) the kids would complain the next morning. So i stopped. I love my kids. Don't want to piss them off


As for Parks..

http://www.torontoobserver.ca/2009/0...toronto-parks/

[Tarquin Farquart]

Originally Posted by TripleAAA

As a teetotaler (I don't like the feeling alcohol gives me), I am getting sick of smokers and cigarettes getting higher taxes and bad rap, when alcohol can be just as bad for you, can cause annoyances in the form of idiot drunks being loud, and can cause accidents and deaths when drunks drive, yet I don't see any bans on booze.

It is possible to get drunk and not be loud or decide to drive, it is not possible for someone to be smoking next to me and me not to inhale some smoke.

[Eddylizard]

I would go as far as to say that dining out has become a much more pleasant experience with the smoking ban in place. Yes even as a smoker. For non-smokers I can only imagine their benefit is even greater than mine. Again I'm talking purely about aesthetics not health benefits.

Tarquin Farquart I'm not sure. Some people just don't seem to be able to handle their alcohol. Intoxication can be a strange thing. I was always a sleepy drunk, others seem to go off their heads for some reason.

Driving - yes plan ahead. Don't take the car to the pub, and however g-you manage to get home, you won't be driving. Even so, I guess some people get 'suckered in' (wrong term, need a better one) and drive their mates to the pub intending initially not to have a night on the lash, but do so anyway. Peer pressure? Abilene Syndrome?

Being loud - it is in the personalities of some people after a few bevvies, and I'm at a loss to explain why.

[Twankydillo]

The problem with comparing smoking to drinking is that they're too different kettles of fish - and both of them do tend to have restrictions but in different ways. Just as you're not supposed to smoke inside public properties, you're not supposed to drink on the streets. Or while driving. There already are places where you shouldn't drink just as there are places you shouldn't smoke.

I sometimes get the impression that people feel that a restriction on smoking is comparable to a blanket ban on drinking.

[Tarquin Farquart]

Originally Posted by Eddylizard

Tarquin Farquart I'm not sure. Some people just don't seem to be able to handle their alcohol. Intoxication can be a strange thing. I was always a sleepy drunk, others seem to go off their heads for some reason.

Driving - yes plan ahead. Don't take the car to the pub, and however g-you manage to get home, you won't be driving. Even so, I guess some people get 'suckered in' (wrong term, need a better one) and drive their mates to the pub intending initially not to have a night on the lash, but do so anyway. Peer pressure? Abilene Syndrome?

Being loud - it is in the personalities of some people after a few bevvies, and I'm at a loss to explain why.

There are drunken idiots, true, but it is hard to legislate for them.