Smoking outlawed in public places in LA

[oatmeal fetish....]

Someone please tell me they are for this. Flyntz? Ocean? One of you has to think this is a good idea.

...aeg?

(p.s. so I can argue with you)

[Larry Flyntz]

I don't know the details of what constitutes a "public place." Are we talking about restaurants or, say, the street?

Either way, I would oppose the ban, actually. But I might be willing to play devil's advocate if there is a reasonable argument to be made.

[oatmeal fetish....]

The street. The only place you're allowed to smoke is on your own private property.

Not bars, nor smoking sections of resteraunts, nor in the middle of a fucking park.

[Larry Flyntz]

I think that's ridiculous. While I am by no means an advocate of smokers' rights, I think non-smokers need to suck it up a bit. I mean, I want to enjoy a smoke-free meal as much as the next non-smoker, but I think conventional restaurant separation techniques work fine in that area.

As far as bars go, smoking is a part of the bar culture. I usually refrain from saying tradition should determine law, but in this case, it seems ridiculous to take smoking out of bars.

And the streets? It seems the argument put forth by non-smokers would be that they have a right to walk down the street without smelling smoke? But, that's ridiculous, because that could lead to a fart ban in public places. I don't want to smell farts when I'm walking down the street, so we should criminalize farting! Sure!

The problem with this issue is that it can be framed so many ways. "My right to breathe clean, healthy air vs. your right to engage in a disgusting, addictive, unhealthy activity." Hmm, who will win out? Or, "My right to avoid nasty smells vs. your right to personal autonomy." You'd win out in this case. Or "my right to enjoy leisure activities in peace vs. your right to enjoy leisure activities in peace." Obviously, unclear.

I really do hate walking behind smokers, but that doesn't mean I think smoking ought to be banned. After all, I also hate walking behind hippies who don't shower, and people who wear too much cologne or perfume, and people with bowel problems. But, we can't ban bad smells. They're a part of everyday life. So, I think the whole "non-smokers deserve peace" argument is terrible.

However, states have what is known as the "police power," or the power to legislate for the health, welfare, and morals of a society. Smoking is a health issue. There's no getting around that. But then again, Oreos are a health issue, too. Again, it's hard to draw a line. The government certainly has an interest in preventing people from smoking and making sure other people don't inhale second-hand smoke, but I don't know if it's a big enough issue to warrant such a ban. I can see both sides of the argument here, but as of now, I side with the smokers.

[oatmeal fetish....]

As much shit as I'm gonna get for saying this, I'm gonna go ahead and say it anyway.

There is no scientific proof that second hand smoke is dangerous.

There have been numberous studies that have concluded that it is - however, several of these have since been proven to be bias (I'll find a source on this is anyone REALLY wants me to, but please take my word for it) and several more studies have been done which conclude that it is in fact not unhealthy for you. Since no officially conclusive evidence has been found, and science doesn't work by proving negatives, there is no argument that second hand smoke is bad for you.

Unfortunatly, the government does like to pass laws that suggest that they know whats better for people than they do, i.e. - requirements of wearing seatbelts, drug use, ect, which I am afraid this is about.

However, the reasoning is then left on the foot of "smoking is unpleasant for people around the smokers" - a justification that has lead to the government telling private businesses what they can and cannot do within their own operations (bars in LA are no longer allowed to allow smokers, despite how the owner feels). I am assuming these are the same people who would support a law requiring everyone to shower at least once a day under the penalty of heavy fines. Absurd, I know, yet somehow this law still got passed. I remain baffled.

[Larry Flyntz]

Unfortunatly, the government does like to pass laws that suggest that they know whats better for people than they do, i.e. - requirements of wearing seatbelts, drug use, ect, which I am afraid this is about.

This is more what I was suggesting. The government has an interest in protecting your health. In the same way it can ban all sorts of drugs, it seems it would have the power to ban cigarettes as well.

I have a hard time believing, however, that second hand smoke is not unhealthy. Sure, it isn't as unhealthy as first-hand smoke (I guess that's what you'd call it), but you're still inhaling smoke. That can't be good for the lungs. But then again, I'm no scientist.

[oatmeal fetish....]

Obviously its probably not good for your lungs, but the argument is that you cough for a second (if that) and there is absolutely no actual damage done. It'd be equivalant to say, sitting next to a campfire.

However, all of that is sort of amoot point, as it is not the job of scientists to prove that second hand smoking is not unhealthy, but rather that it is. Until they do so, we cannot just assume willy nilly that it is causing damage to people around smokers.

[Larry Flyntz]

I think the burden of proof can go either way. I see your point, but both sides have legitimate liberty interests, so I don't know where the burden of proof should be placed.

[oatmeal fetish....]

No, burden of proof goes with the side who is trying to make a claim. Proving a negative is one of those things that you just don't do in science. Otherwise anyone can go around making all sorts of outrageous claims - it is not the case that others have to prove these claims wrong in order to dismiss them.

[aeg5014]

I think its outrageous for people to ban smoking from public places. NJ, NY, CA and possibly Philly are banning smoking indoors from any public establishment except for Casino's. Now lets disregard the exception issue here, and get down to the truth.

People Smoke.

You can't possibly stop people from doing so and it is perfectly legal. And if there is smoke at the place you want to go thats just a consequence that you need to put up with.

You can't change the world because something bothers you. Next thing they'll be saying you can't smoke in your own house. I'll expose my children to a pack of second hand smoke everyday if I want to. No one will that right away from me.  :grin:


(Its nice to be back)

[Larry Flyntz]

No, burden of proof goes with the side who is trying to make a claim. Proving a negative is one of those things that you just don't do in science. Otherwise anyone can go around making all sorts of outrageous claims - it is not the case that others have to prove these claims wrong in order to dismiss them.

The Supreme Court would disagree with you in a lot of cases. They often place the burden of proof on the person against whom is making the claim. For instance, let's say I'm black and make the claim that the government is discriminating against me for being black. They are required to prove that they are not discriminating against me or they are discriminating against me for some other reason.

That's not really relevant here, but my point is that the burden of proof is not always placed on the person making the claim. So, that's why I'm unsure where to place the burden of proof.

We have to consider the difference between "unhealthy" and "not healthy." Unhealthy means it is bad for your health. Not healthy means it is not good for your health. It sounded like you admitted that second-hand smoke is not healthy. Maybe I misread. But, anyway, that might be enough to legitimize the state's police power. They have the power to promote health and welfare. It fits.

If viewed in one light, the issue becomes this: "smoke in the air vs. no smoke in the air." Under the police power, states can definitely take action in such a situation.

You can't possibly stop people from doing so

Yes you can! LA just did. How can you say it is impossible when laws are popping up all over the place?

And if there is smoke at the place you want to go thats just a consequence that you need to put up with.

Or maybe the "No Smoking" signs are just something that you need to put up with.

You can't change the world because something bothers you.

Umm... Yes, yes you can. It's called voting. People do it all the time. If you are unhappy with the Republicans, and their policies bother you, you can vote for Democrats. That's what democracy is all about: changing the world so that it doesn't bother you. This was a duly enacted law, it seems. Democracy in action!

Your argument seems to rest on the idea that smoking is some sort of fundamental right like freedom of speech or something. I'd be amazed if you can find some right to smoke in the Constitution. Also, you say it is legal, but hey, maybe it shouldn't be. Your argument is circular: "We should allow smoking because it is legal." In other words "Smoking should be legal because it is legal." I think the state has enough legitimate interest in promoting life through its police power to ban smoking completely. They've banned other drugs; I don't see what makes tobacco so much different.

[aeg5014]

Allow me to Elaborate.

"You can't possibly stop people from doing so"

People are going to smoke. There is not enough law enforcement or incentives to regulate the non-smoking ban. You could hardly stop that in a town of 20 people nonetheless thousands upon thousands. Its a nice idea, but not realistic.

aeg5014 wrote:
And if there is smoke at the place you want to go thats just a consequence that you need to put up with.


Or maybe the "No Smoking" signs are just something that you need to put up with.

Smoking is addictive. An avid smoker cannot go more than a few hours without violent repurcussions. However, a nonsmoker can come across smoke and never get addicted, and come across minor repurcussions. You can deal with smelling smoke. Its not the worst thing and people can't argue that is unhealthy and/or not healthy because there are very few people in top physical shape, do not eat at McDonalds, and eat all their vegetables.

Yeah, they manage to get a law which no one will abide by that holds no major consequence, and is absolutely frivolous and infringes on people's rights passed. Thats really changing the world.

And this law is completely infringing on peoples right. Its saying you can't do what you want to do. Especially, when there is no victim or crime. You can't control the oxygen in the air nor filter the toxins in it. Its like suing me because I had the cold and you caught it as well. You want to limit the risk of getting the cold (or inhaling second hand smoke) stay away from me.

 Its saying that you are allowed to do a perfectly legal thing but there is no place where you can do it. Seems like since they know they'll never get cigarettes made illegal, their circling the pond on this one.

I'm sure you can find something in the consitution about infringing on one's rights.   [/quote]

[Larry Flyntz]

Crackheads might get pretty violent without crack. Maybe we should let them smoke it so they don't upset anyone. After all, it doesn't really do me any harm to have someone a few tables over smoking crack...

Your treatment of "rights" has no legal grounding whatsoever. You use that term extremely haphazardly as if smoking was the same as voting or speaking your mind. First off, you have not proved that smoking is a right to begin with. Just because something is currently legal does not mean it is some sort of fundamental right. Second, even if it was a right, government can always take away your rights if they have compelling interests. Cleaner, healthier air is certainly a compelling interest to take away your right to smoke which does not exist.

"Especially, when there is no victim..." But there is! You can't do what you want to do because I would have to breathe your smoke-filled air if you could do what you want to do. We non-smokers are the victims.

"You can't control the oxygen in the air nor filter the toxins in it." So, government environmental protection efforts don't exist? We don't try to reduce emissions from power plants and cars and stuff? That's all make believe? The fact of the matter is that the government can and does control the oxygen in the air, at least to some extent. This is a logical extension of such efforts.

"Its saying that you are allowed to do a perfectly legal thing but there is no place where you can do it." Well, fuck, masturbation is legal. Should I be able to jerk off at the diner? Or is it reasonable that masturbation is limited to the home? Same with walking around naked, which really doesn't harm anyone, per se. It just makes them uncomfortable, like me coughing from the smoke-filled air. But, we should just toughen up, right? We can't always be comfortable, right?

[oatmeal fetish....]

The Supreme Court would disagree with you in a lot of cases. They often place the burden of proof on the person against whom is making the claim. For instance, let's say I'm black and make the claim that the government is discriminating against me for being black. They are required to prove that they are not discriminating against me or they are discriminating against me for some other reason.

Not true. I'm not sure you understand what I mena by proving the negative. The black person couldn't just base a case around his own testimony that he was being discriminated against without any evidence to back it up - such a case would be dismissed unless details were provided as to how the descrimination took place and whathaveyou (evidence that it happened). I.e. A black person couldn't go to the supreme court and say he was being discriminated against and then expect his company or whatever to provide for all the ways in which he was not being discriminated. By providing the details of his discrimination he provides evidence that it did happen - proving the positive. I couldn't just take my school to court with a single claim that I was being discriminated against because of being irish and then expect them to provide a list in all the ways in which I was not.

To put it more in context, it is unreasonable for me to say that there is an untraceable chemical in bottled water that gives people cancer and then force water companies to prove that there isn't or else just assume that there is. Because there is no conclusive evidence that second hand smoke is bad for you (to rephrase, no one knows what effect second hand smoke has on people, unheathy, or otherwise, therefore we cannot just assume that it is bad), this is exactly what has been done, only to tobacco companies instead of water companies.

[aeg5014]

The reason drugs are illegal because those drugs are extremely addictive and it is fairly expensive (it also alters the mind, in which people lose control) and a lot of people whom do these type of drugs are poor and will rob and steal for money to get these drugs. While cigarettes are addictive, there not so addictive or expensive as not to be able to go enough time without being able to scrounge up enough cash on your own, legally.

As for filtering toxins, I was referring to the air you personally breath. You're lungs don't have a great capacity to filter good air from bad air, and if this was a major issue with smoking its clearly the most frivolous and ineffective way of conquering it. While have less cigarette smoke in air will effect the air but not by much, hardly anything. People who make this claim should never drive a car or by products made in plants, because those are the real causes and major causes that have major influences on the air. So that entire argument of cigarette smoke harming the air is null, because it would would be like attacking a bystander of a crime while the criminal is getting away.

Well if you non-smokers are victims for breathing in second-hand smoke, we smokers are victims for not allowing us to smoke. Either way someone is upset. And breathing in second-hand smoke is a slight disruption hardly enough to consider yourself a victim. At least thats my opinion, the law may have another opinion.

And you should just toughen up. And you can't be comfortable all the time. Its unrealistic for you to be in a safe haven all the time. I don't like people who walk slow, so should we ban them from doing so? It makes me uncomfortable so therefore it should be changed, right? But that'll never fly because I could always move, just like you could when you see someone smoking. Also, fat people make me uncomfortable. They should lose weight (not only for their benefit) but because I find myself staring at them, thinking of an early death for me, and all the possible repurcussions of being overweight. Its not a nice thought, so all of them should be legally enforced to lose weight, right?

[oatmeal fetish....]

We have to consider the difference between "unhealthy" and "not healthy." Unhealthy means it is bad for your health. Not healthy means it is not good for your health. It sounded like you admitted that second-hand smoke is not healthy. Maybe I misread. But, anyway, that might be enough to legitimize the state's police power. They have the power to promote health and welfare. It fits.

Sure, I'll admit that second hand smoke is probably not healthy. Neither is watching tv. Or sitting down. Whats your point? While a state has the power to promote health and welfare they by no means have the power to ban things that do not contribute directly towards a person's health purely for that reason.

Also aeg's arguments are making my side look bad. I'm not reading them and neither should you. Sorry aeg.

[Larry Flyntz]

And you can't be comfortable all the time.

Neither can you. But you want to smoke when you want to smoke, which makes you comfortable. The argument is the same on both sides.

I agree with you that my "air quality" argument is pretty lame when considering outdoor smoking, but I think it is relevant indoors. In an inclosed, perhaps not well ventilated space, a couple of smokers can lower the air quality. Plus, going outside for a few minutes or simply waiting to smoke isn't a huge inconvenience for smokers. After all, you're at a restaurant for what, two hours or so? I think you can handle that length of time without a smoke.

Your argument that druggies will harm people and what not for illegal drugs would suggest that we should make them legal so that they won't hurt anybody. I really don't see your point.

I think a lot hinges on the health costs of second-hand smoke. Breathing in second-hand smoke, in my opinion, is not just a comfort issue. It is a health issue. Read #3 on this list... http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS

I think we can trust the National Cancer Institute. I would like to see some sources that suggest there are no health risks.

Don't worry, Ethan, I'm not letting aeg's arguments lower my opinion of your arguments.

Let me explain my discrimination example. If the black guy is singled out because of race, the government must prove that they had a compelling interst in doing so or that they did not single him out because of race. Let's say a black guy tried to enter a restaurant, and the manager refuses to let him in. He can make the claim that they refused to let him in because of race, and the manager would have to explain that he was not singled out because of race, but rather because he wasn't wearing shoes or something. I know it's not the best example, but I'm just trying to show that the burden of proof is not always on the side raising the claim.

[aeg5014]

hahahahahahahaha  

[oatmeal fetish....]

As much as I hate to cite wikipedia, this is the simplest explanation I could find on the internet without delving through lots of pages of beurocratic jargon (which unfortunatly I have done before in order to verify that this stuff is correct - please take my word on it, or look up the individual cases yourself if you really don't believe me).

On the 3,000 deaths thing -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_hand_smoke

"Some controversy has attended efforts to estimate the specific risk of lung cancer related to passive smoking. In 1993, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a report [12] estimating that 3,000 lung cancer related deaths in the U.S. were caused by passive smoking every year. The Congressional Research Service issued a report that cast strong doubts on the veracity of the study.[citation needed]

Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds and groups representing growers, distributors and marketers took legal action, claiming that the EPA manipulated scientific studies and ignored accepted scientific and statistical practices. In 1998 United States District Court Judge William Osteen, a former tobacco lobbyist, vacated this study, declaring it null and void in a 92-page decision, that found that the EPA had manipulated results and violated scientific norms in order to achieve its pre-determined conclusion that passive smoke was harmful. Osteen's decision was overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in 2002 on the technical grounds that the report was not a reviewable agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, and the EPA classification of tobacco was ultimately left intact. Because the substantive disputer was never resolved, the findings in Osteen's report are still used to argue that the issue of ETS is driven by politics rather than science, and that research on passive smoking is largely junk science.[13][14]"

I realize that the report was overturned, but not because of the information that it contained, but rather on "technical grounds" - a bunch of weird adminstrative rules and such found in the APA which you can try to understand yourself -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act

[Rhino......................]

The reason drugs are illegal because those drugs are extremely addictive and it is fairly expensive (it also alters the mind, in which people lose control) and a lot of people whom do these type of drugs are poor and will rob and steal for money to get these drugs.

Opinion, not fact: Drugs are illegal because of a nasty old habit the government has of making sure whitey stays on top. It has very little to do with protecting the citizens and very much to do with keeping the poor poor. I'm not saying more black people do drugs than white people, as I don't really believe that, but the government seems to think that, and as long as it's a crime to buy and use drugs, there will be one more reason to place those users in jail. The illegality also makes drugs more expensive and more difficult to acquire, so yes, people will steal out of desperation. Taking drugs doesn't make you steal; people steal for drugs for the most part because they are illegal.

Any actual consideration for a rational reason why drugs shouldn't be illegal won't happen, because the reasons the government gives for why they are illegal aren't the real reasons. It's still fun to argue why they should be legal though, because it makes the laws even sillier and the racism more blatant.