The Ethics of Smoking

[Irishman]

In an effort to sidestep the usual "God" debate, I was wondering what you guys thought baout this.

Background:

In Michigan (where I attend University), there is currently a bill waiting to be passed (and has been passed in other states) which would ban smoking in all indoor places which the general public has access. This includes bars, nightclubs and any other closed space. The bill does not ban smoking on balconies, private homes etc.

Arguments:

Now I have heared many opponents of the bill cite the loss of rights and freedoms. They recognize that smoking (including second hand smoke) causes cancer and that it is dangerous, yet they say that it is their right to do this. They often compare it to eating a Royale with cheese, it'll kill ya.

I find this approach rather narcissistic. The issue is that eating a Royale only harms onself, not others.

I am in support of the ban because I feel that one has no right to put me at risk of lung cancer because it is 'their right'. Not to mention the waitresses and such who are constantly in contact with the unfiltered smoke (which is more harmful than the filtered smoke, which is inhaled by smokers.)

What are your thoughts, can one extend a moral rule (a non-theistic sense of morality-that we simply should not harm others) which says one should not smoke around others period. Is this a just law? Is is immoral to smoke around others (non-smokers) in a crowd? How about around children, in a home or in a car?

It seems that it is hard to justify smoking around others as it undeniably can cause serious health issues, even death.

[HopliteElite]

I think smoking should be banned from any building that is not privately owned, such as government buildings, state universities, etc... but when it comes to privately owned building I do not think the government should tell private owners of restaurants and bars that they cannot allow smoking in their own establishment, that they pay to operate. I think it should be up to the owner of an establishment whether he/she wants to allow smoking or make special areas for smokers.

A consumer that does not smoke can always find an establishment that makes accommodations for smokers or does not allow for smoking. It is a stripping of both smokers' rights and establishment owners' rights to ban smoking from even privately owned retaurants, bars, nightclubs etc...

[Amorphos]

1. adolf hitler... was first leader to ban smoking. not because they knew it caused cancer [as they didn’t], but because he didn’t like it!

2. second hand smoke... only causes cancer in extreme cases. for example, Roy Castle, a non smoker who died of lung cancer, himself said it was probably because he regularly played in smoke filled jazz clubs - and he played trumpets etc which demand deep inhilations.

2.b. why not say that extractor fans must be installed in places like pubs and clubs.
...and or that some pubs can be for smokers and must be staffed by smokers!

what is the problem with the latter [2b]? is this science or nazi-ism? [in the wider sense]

better still feking ban the goddam things! [cigarettes] this coming from a smoker! where the law is duplicitous it merely shows itself to have no ethical value . the whole thing is ridiculous either ban them or legalise them.

[Bovril]

1. adolf hitler... was first leader to ban smoking. not because they knew it caused cancer [as they didn’t], but because he didn’t like it!

Actually, James I of England banned smoking in his court because he hated the smell.


I think this issue is really interesting because it relates to a fundemental social question, i.e. 'to what extent should publicly used space be publicly controlled?'.

I'm a socialist, and as such my answer is 'to a great extent'. I believe society is best served when its members have the right to dictate the conditions under which they live, and private interests are limitted in dictating those conditions.

So on the issue of smoking, I'm strongly in favour of having smoke free work places, bars, restaurants, etc. but don't have a problem with specific smoking areas within such establishments.

[Ummagumma]

They have banned smoking in public places here for a few months now. I smoke, but it hasn't really bothered me that much. I still smoke in my own house, when I am not, standing outside for 5 minutes is no real strain.
One odd side effect I and others have noticed though. Clubs and bars no longer (obviously) smell of smoke. They smell of sweat and stale alcohol.

[kev-o]

My state of Florida has a law just like what it being proposed here. I think smoking should be taken outside where you can let it waff away and not into the poor people who have to inhale the ****.

Smoking should be outlawed anyway, because people are making a profit off of your addiction to it.

[Thanatos]

Smoking should be outlawed anyway, because people are making a profit off of your addiction to it.

Um, it's your own damn fault that you're taking it.

[Rush Limbaugh]

I find this approach rather narcissistic. The issue is that eating a Royale only harms onself, not others.

Not if we have to pay for your healthcare. You see where this is going? How much government do we want?

I think smoking should be banned from any building that is not privately owned, such as government buildings, state universities, etc... but when it comes to privately owned building I do not think the government should tell private owners of restaurants and bars that they cannot allow smoking in their own establishment, that they pay to operate. I think it should be up to the owner of an establishment whether he/she wants to allow smoking or make special areas for smokers.

Exactly. No one is forced to go or work there.

[Spurius]

Smoking should be outlawed anyway, because people are making a profit off of your addiction to it.

Same goes for alcohol (and I hope you won't claim that's not addictive - I will inundate you with links until you beg for mercy ).

[GrnEyedDvl]

My state of Florida has a law just like what it being proposed here. I think smoking should be taken outside where you can let it waff away and not into the poor people who have to inhale the ****.

Smoking should be outlawed anyway, because people are making a profit off of your addiction to it.

People are making a profit off your addiction to Coke/Pepsi, bubble gum, the internet, alcohole, etc etc. Thats your fault not theirs.

As someone else said, in a privately owned building, the building owner should be the one to make that decision. If you dont want to go there, then dont, if you dont want to work there, then dont.

Something else you guys should know/consider. These bans arent entirely about smoking, its another way for the state to raise revenue. Huh? Thats right.

Last year here in CO they passed the same statewide ban, it failed in the general election so the state legislature went ahead and did it for us. Now one of this years propositions is...you guessed it...An exemption from the smoking ban for the minimal fee of $2000 annually.

[Bovril]

Same goes for excercise (which can be psychologically addictive), but I'm not sure we should be banning gyms.

[Ramashan]

Here's my only take on this as a non-smoking beer lover. Before the laws were put into place, if I didn't want to be around cigarette smoke in a bar I had to either build a bar in my house or not go out, period.

There was not a single establishment that did not allow smoking. So, I guess it was my choice, I could either deal with smoke of others or not go out. But, why should I be forced to make a sacrifice because of anothers actions. If you think about it, I am not doing anything that's offensive to anyone by sitting at a bar and drinking. By suddenly lighting up, I'm forcing others to now make a choice and possibly have to leave.

Yes, its a private establishment, but if we follow the same logic of no government control, we can then say that the gov has no right certifying a restaurant as being clean enough to properly serve food.

You can't just open a bar, you need a license, I don't see any problems with people adding smoking to list of things they need a license for.

[kev-o]

Same goes for excercise (which can be psychologically addictive), but I'm not sure we should be banning gyms.

Same goes for gambling, sex, masterbation, video games, WoW, surfing the net and so on.

Same goes for alcohol (and I hope you won't claim that's not addictive - I will inundate you with links until you beg for mercy ).

Equate one bottle of beer to one cigerette and see what is more addicting.
You have a much high percentage of getting addicted to your first five cigerretes than your first five bottles of beer.

Anything can be addicting. Ciggerettes were designed to be addicitng. That is what the nicotine is for.

[Spurius]

Equate one bottle of beer to one cigerette and see what is more addicting.

You clearly don't speak from experience. Almost noone liked their first cigarette.
It makes you cough and light in the head and nauseous. Usually social pressure makes you persevere more than anything else. Maybe nr 10 actually begins to taste like something.

Same with heroin btw. Can make you very sick the first times. Yet people persevere even when they have to throw up from it. It's only after a few hits you really get the taste.

Crazy but true.

[chilon]

It makes you cough and light in the head and nauseous. Usually social pressure makes you persevere more than anything else.

I would say its "desire for a buzz" far, far more than "social pressure".

Same with heroin btw. Can make you very sick the first times. Yet people persevere even when they have to throw up from it. It's only after a few hits you really get the taste.

Crazy but true.

You can smoke heroin and not get sick the first time.

[Spurius]

I would say its "desire for a buzz" far, far more than "social pressure".

You can smoke heroin and not get sick the first time.

The desire for a buzz is maybe theoretically present, but I really think the first couple of times most people seriously wonder if it's worth the trouble.

But they want to look cool. That remains. That's social pressure.

----

You *can* smoke heroin the first times and not get sick. Indeed - sign of the TRUE addict, really. Your metabolism is one of the rare cases where you probably have some lower than normal amount of body-endorphins, so the opiates 'fill that niche' immediately. For those people it's like coming home.

Same as with the hereditary alcoholic, in a sense. For him/her those first 5 beers are far more risky than for someone else.

[basics]

For sure smoking is a strange habit but not as strange as all those who discarded their fags for hard drugs during the time of free love. I used to be one of the majority and now one of the hardpressed minority because of my smoking that began when around ten years of age and I am now 65.

Twice I have given up to see my weight jump from 11 stone to around 15/16 stone and now since I cannot play sports any more I remain a 16 stone smoker. However now that we live in a world where smoking is unpopular I live with it, not that I like it, I live with it. Saying that my youngest has started the habit and I don't like that.

But then this generation never saw a world where the nonsmoker was almost nonexistent, nor did they see the multitudes of heroes just before dying take one last gasp of a fag before closing their eyes forever. For goodness sake these guys had just rescued a wagontrain or a platoon from extinction and that last cigarette made the scene unforgettable.

Now we are surrounded by smelly bodies of the non smoking kind as seen by advertising in the media where before the smell of a good cigarette covered much of that up. I mean what's the world coming to?

[chilon]

You *can* smoke heroin the first times and not get sick. Indeed - sign of the TRUE addict, really. Your metabolism is one of the rare cases where you probably have some lower than normal amount of body-endorphins, so the opiates 'fill that niche' immediately. For those people it's like coming home.

Personally I wouldn't associate people with a certain bio-chemistry that makes them unlikely to get sick when smoking heroin for the first time with "true addcit" since there are people with such metabolisms who try heroin but never become addicted or regular users. People with those types of metabolisms do not necessarily get addicted whereas people with addictive personalities (people whom I myself consider "TRUE addicts") can get addicted to gambling or sex or any number of weird fetishes.

[Spurius]

@Bovril

But that's not an unhealthy habit by itself, and in principle comes for free.

I think that they gave up defining 'drugs' since you'd have to include even normal tapwater as a substance that 'has a profound impact on your metabolism'. Also there, drinking 70 liters of it in one go, will kill you.

[Bovril]

@Spurius

I was merely pointing out how ridiculous it is to ban things on the grounds that they are addictive.