Smoking Bans

Hi Straggler,It's definitely good to point out that some sort of dividing line needs to be set between what is and is not allowed, while still respecting the rights of parents to (mostly) raise their children as they see fit. I would say that childhood obesity should be addressed legally. Not necessarily to the point of giving mandatory dietary restrictions (since not every child's body will be identical), but to the point of mandating that parents make a reasonable effort to avoid and combat obesity int heir children. Perhaps a mandatory trip to the doctor's office for a dietary assessment if school officials notice that a child is of an unhealthy weight, followed by ensuring that the parent(s) follow up on the doctor's instructions in a reasonable attempt to cambat obesity.The absence of a law that follows a similar line of reasoning does not invalidate that line of reasoning. It simply means that perhaps the law should address childhood obesity as well. Television watching does not seem to be linked to a real health risk - or at least not one that I'm aware of. I would think that combating childhood obesity by a mechanism of reporting weight issues followed by mandatory compliance with the orders of a doctor if and when weight becomes a problem is a more reasonable solution, as it minimized intrusion into the privacy of the family while still addressing the issue, all while remaining relatively enforceable. Isn't neglect typically charged after the fact anyway simply due to the impossibility of enforcement in every circumstance?Certainly if you were posting on EvC while you young child wandered over to the kitchen sink and drank Drain-o while you weren't paying attention and because you didn't child-proof dangerous chemicals, you'd be charged with neglect anyway.Addressing safety issues through reasonable means like these seems to be a more appropriate response than mandating a specific calorie intake, or number of hours of daily exercise. They already are illegal - that's the point. It's already illegal to take actions that would reasonably lead to harming a child - in the US it's typically called "child endangerment." The question is simply whether such things as tobacco smoke (or obesity caused by parental negligence) qualify as "harmful to a child" to a reasonable person. The passage of public smoking bans recently as well as all of the scientific studies done on the effects of secondhand smoke (and obesity) leads me to believe that more and more reasonable people are seeing these things as harmful, and thus applicable.

I would suspect that, to some degree, they are all harmful. There's a new(?) brand of cigarettes that claim to be "all natural". I smoked one and it was smoother, but I assume harmful nonetheless. Were you a smoker before? I heard this from former smokers a lot. Honestly I do too, except for the occasional cigar after dinner in a steak house. - (that allows it).

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

One of many reasons I plan not to have children. But yes, I think that allowing your child to become obese to the point where the child is likely to suffer medical problems when the obesity could have been avoided through reasonable action on the part of the parent qualifies as negligence. I do not claim that smoking in the home should be illegal "under any circumstances."I only claim that there are some circumstances under which smoking should be illegal. I include smoking in public establishments and smoking in the presence of a child while in an enclosed space among those circumstances.If we don't allow children under 18 to smoke, why would we allow their parents to smoke for them, which is in essence what secondhand smoke involves? To a point, I agree. But I think that recognizing that smoking around children or negligently allowing obesity are in fact forms of child endangerment is part of that process. That's why I advocate the "reasonable person" standard that already applies - we need not institute absolute rules along the lines of "you may not smoke within 20 feet of a child" or "you may not feed your child mroe than x calories per day." Instead, we can acknowledge that secondhand smoke and obesity are both harmful to children, and ask whether a reasonable person would have been knowledgeable of the harm and been able to take reasonable actions to avoid it. In the case of smoking near children, I would suggest that a reasonable person would simply smoke outside, or designate a specific room of the house for smoking an not allow children to enter. I think that the major concern is the actual likelihood of the potential danger and the existence of a reasonable solution to avoid the danger. Keeping dangerous cleaning chemicals unsealed and unlocked which failing to supervise a young child has a relatively high potential for disaster, and is very easily identified and rectified by a reasonable person. In the case of smoking, the likelihood of harm is high over a long period of exposure, and is easily avoidable by a reasonable person (ie, just go outside to smoke, or keep a no-children-allowed smoking room). In the case of obesity, the likelihood of harm is relatively high over a long period of time, but is less easily avoidable under some circumstances than simply going outside when smoking.In all cases we're talking about subjective judgment calls from "reasonable people," but this doesn't seem to be an area that lends itself to hard, objective weight limits or smoking zones. Also, it seems to work well in other areas of the law.

The inevitable problem with such lines is that they are necessarily arbitrary to some extent. Reason and rationality can define the boundaries to some degree but the exact location of the line will ultimately be a matter of personal opinion. Opinion depending on the relative importance one places on 'freedom' and 'individual responsibility' as opposed to the collective need to limit such freedoms in the interests of "society" and those individuals in society who do not have the capacity to forge their own destiny (i.e. dependent children in this case)We all agree that a line is required. But my point is that there is no entirely rational position that this 'line' must logically inhabit.Based on both our previous contributions on EvC I suspect that you and I would broadly agree on the rough position of such a line in most examples........... And I would agree to a large extent.Perhaps we could make such regular checkups compulsory for all children and include lung analysis (if such a thing is medically possible) to determine whether or not children are being adversely affcted by smoking parents?Would this cross the line of "personal freedom" in your opinion? I think many would deem that it does. No. Fair point. I am taking an example derived from mass media hysteria rather than evidenced research. Bad example on my part. Why wait until there is a definite problem? If prevention is superior to treatment then why not regular compulsory medical checks for all kids to seek indications of potential problems and to tackle the root causes of such problems before there is an actual problem?Isn't this a superior answer in purely rational and medical terms?Whilst it may be more rational and medically superior is it right?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Sorry this was unclear on my part. I was not suggesting that you think smoking in the home should be illegal under all circumstances.Rather I meant that legally prohibiting smoking in the privacy of ones home in general, including those circumstances where children are present, is both arguably impractical and undesirable from a privacy/freedom point of view.See my post to your other response for answers to the child obesity comparison etc.

Sort of...I don't really consider a bar that allows smoking to be "filled with toxic fumes", but your point came across. That's actually a really good argument, thank you. I disagree on the bolded part. Second-hand smoke does not pose an immediate risk like dirty glasses (or gas leasks) do. But its not clear to me that allowing smoking is as dangerous as dirty glassware and I don't know where the governments authority begins and ends on these things, so I'm not entirely convinced that the government is well within its authority to regulate smoking.And even if I found out that they are, I still have an issue with the way the law here is in Illinois that someone can't even open a bar that allows smoking if they want to. There should be public places where people are allowed to smoke inside, IMHO. The current law doesn't allow for them in any way.

Me too.In Oklahoma, you can smoke in the bars but you can't smoke in the restaurants. For facilities that sell both alcohol and food, if they sell more alcohol than food then you can smoke in them but if they sell more food than alcohol then you cannot smoke in them.I just think it sucks that no bar at all can allow smoking here in (The People's Republic of) Illinois.There was a "cigar bar" in town that pretty much had to close down because of the smoking ban. Its a shame.

That's how it is here in Idaho as well. However, I get the feeling that the exemption for bars will end soon. I was speaking to a friend of mine who is in the know and there is an agenda to get rid of all exemptions for public places (a la Illinois) and this will soon extend to cars with minors, and then possibly to homes with minors. It's a desensitization programs, so to speak. Take away a little every couple of years instead of all at once.Personally, I like to smoke when I go to the bars. At least in the summer you can go outside where there are no restrictions, not to mention the improved ambience. I fully agree with the arguments for the ban and I have no real argument against them. A worker's right to a healthy work environment should trump the priveleges of patrons. However, it just feels like a right is being taken away (even though it's not). I will get over it, but it does suck.

Actually, it's because the smell makes me sick that I've never had the desire to even try any of them.

Here's the problem. Once you have cited something as being a risk to an employee you can't make exceptions. If you did then you would be knowingly exposing employees to known health hazards. You can really open yourself up to lawsuits, or at least it would seem so.As for smoking in public places, I bet there is a way. If you could create an air tight room where employees were not allowed to enter, and entrance was voluntary, then it might work. Also, if you formed a club that did not allow the public to enter without membership you might be able to work around it.

Yes, it does. The risk is lower than that of contracting a disease, and will happen with more on a delay between exposure and the consequences, meaning a single exposure to secondhand smoke is not going to give you lung cancer tomorrow, while a dirty drinking glass can potentially have you throwing up in the morning. However, unlike dirty glassware, the risks from secondhand smoke are cumulative. If you go a day or three after drinking from a dirty glass without getting sick, you're probably fine, and each time you're exposed your chance to become ill is independant of the previous chances. Risks from secondhand smoke increase with each exposure - the more you're exposed to it, the more you're likely to suffer consequences.We have identified tobacco smoke as a carcinogen, to the point where we restrict its sale and usage to those over the age of 18 and put warings on the label to the effect of "if you use this product, you will very likely eventually get cancer or heart disease." Clearly we have identified cigarette smoke as posing "immediate risk" to those who inhale it. While the right to privacy allows you to inhale smoke if you so choose, by smoking around others you are violating their right to privacy by forcing them to inhale a carcinogen. Smoking in a wide-open space (like, say, outside) minimizes exposure to other people because the smoke dissipates. Smoking in an enclosed area (like, say, a bar) is little different from using spray-paint in an enclosed space - we have warnings on those products for a reason, too. The comparison doesn't need to be direct. Tobacco smoke simply needs to be a public health risk that is easily avoided with reasonable precautions - and it is.Is cigarette smoke dangerous?If you answer yes, and you aknowledge that smoking affects those around the smoker as well as the smoker him/herself (and mroeso in an enclosed space), then you're aknowledging that smoking poses a public health risk.If you deny that it's dangerous, I'd ask why you beleive we have identified cigarette smokign as a major cause of lung cancer and heart disease, to the point where we restrict its sale and put warnings on the label. I'm not a lawyer either, but this statement merely suggests that we shouldn't bother discussing the matter since none of us are qualified. This isn;t a court of law, it's a debate board.Do you aknowledge that the government has the authority to restrict substances that are deemed harmful to the public?I would hope so, considering that the government exercizes such authority every day, from regulating restaurants through health codes to removing children from hazardous living conditions.The question is not whether the government has the authority. It does. If you believe otherwise, ask your local policeman for a list of other things you aren't allowed to do even on your own property and to your own person due to posing a public health risk. What issue, CS? You haven't provided any sort of reasoning beyond "IMHO." Your humble opinion means absolutely nothing by itself without some argument to back it up. So far, your argument seems to rest one or both of the following:

quote:

---

1) private property is private, and the government shouldn't be allowed to regulate whether I allow smoking in my property or not

​

2) I like smoking in bars, and I don't want to need to stop

---

1) is clearly invalidated by the fact that the government does possess the authority to restrict what you can and cannot do on your personal property if it poses a public health risk, as they do with restricting alcohol sale (not just with the drinking age but alseo with licensing, zoning, etc), health standards in restaurants, etc.2) is irrelevant because it's your personal preference, and involves no actual reason. I can counter it with a simple contrary opinion, and we'd have no way to determine which of us is right.

But alcohol is an interesting example. We restrict it's sale to minors (like cigarettes), we restrict where it can be consumed (like cigarettes in the case of smoking bans), we recognize that drinking leads to health problems (like cigarettes, though of a different sort), but while we restrict the sale of alcohol to minors (in most cases, though not all) we allow parents to let their children drink as long as it's on their own property. If alcohol is the precedent we're using, it would stand to reason that a parent could let a minor smoke, whether through first hand or second hand smoke, on their own property.I'm not saying it's right, but that it follows legal precedent.

Brownies, bro!!!

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Yes. Yes. May be. I think there should be laws against corporate campaigns aimed at kids. Not too long ago, the cigarette industry targeted young people through ads and commercials. I still remember some of these ads. Haha, you're talking to a health freak.I don't know if you are aware of this, but you are slowly slippery sloping from what an issue of what kinds of health risks IMPOSED on the children by parents to what kinds of health habits we should IMPOSE on the children themselves. Again, I don't know if you're doing this on purpose, but it seems like you're baiting me. Don't know. Common sense. And these practices are illegal. Yet, we have meth cooks and meth labs all over the place. But it is black and white open and shut case.Simple question. Do you or do you not agree that children, particularly babies and toddlers, shouldn't be forced to breathe in cigarette smoke? Seems pretty black and white to me.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Whose common sense? Yours? Mine? Somebody elses? Is it?What counts as a "child"? Why?
What counts as the "home"? Why?
What counts as "common sense"? Why? Answer the questions above and we will see how simple the question really is.Answer the questions above and we will see how much you and I actually disagree.We might also be able to ascertain how difficult or possible this agreement (or otherwise) is possible to transcribe into meaningful laws.As previously stated I remain open to argument on this.......