any smoking roadgeeks?

[Brandon]

Franklin County, Ky. recently enacted a smoking ban so restrictive that it prohibits smoking in individual hotel rooms. All the hotels are entirely smoke-free now.

This makes a lot of sense.  One of the biggest causes of fires is lit cigarettes that people left on carpet, blankets, or furniture.  By banning smoking in hotel rooms, you remove one of the biggest fire hazards out there.

[J N Winkler]

I think blanket smoking bans are silly for reasons I detailed above.  I can understand not smoking in a hospital, but why ban it in a bar, if the bar owner thinks that allowing it would bring him better business?

In Kansas similar reasoning led to casinos (which, outside Indian reservations, are operated under concessions granted and supervised by the state) getting a carve-out from the statewide ban on smoking in public enclosed spaces.  The one time I visited the Kansas Star casino near Wichita (purely as an exercise in anthropological observation, since at the time I had just five dollars in my wallet), the cigarette smoke drove me out in short order.

[Scott5114]

Casinos are generally one of the few remaining smoker-friendly classes of businesses out there. This probably has something to do with the fact that Indian casinos claim sovereign immunity against state and municipal smoking bans, and non-Indian casinos claim it's unfair to require them to ban smoking if they have to compete with Indian casinos' smoking. Either that or it's viewed that if you're committing one vice you may as well be allowed to commit them all. And that nobody really needs to go to a casino, so if they don't want to be in a smoky environment they can choose to not play.

Working at a casino, I personally wish they didn't have the smoking exemption. The smoke in the air is annoying, yes, and I have worries about long term health damage due to the prolonged exposure to the smoke, but really, the big problem is the ashes. There is forever a shortage of ashtrays because the drop team (the minimum-wage team that harvests the cash from the machines in the small hours of the morning) is careless and breaks them, so people just ash everywhere–in between the slot machines, in the built-in cupholders on some machines, on the carpet (it's a wonder we haven't had the carpet catch fire). Ashes are constantly getting into the machines and clogging up fans and filters, leading to them overheating. Many of the chairs have cigarette burns in the fabric. Some of the machines, called slant-tops, have an access door that opens by raising up like a car hood; whenever you open one of these it usually rains down ashes and spent cigarettes on your head if you aren't careful.

A statistic I have heard is that only one fifth (20%) of the US population smokes. If that's the case, why not have smoking bans in public areas? 20% of the populace shouldn't be able to trample on the rights of the remaining 80%.

[empirestate]

A statistic I have heard is that only one fifth (20%) of the US population smokes. If that's the case, why not have smoking bans in public areas? 20% of the populace shouldn't be able to trample on the rights of the remaining 80%.

While that may be so, it's also true in reverse, so it tends to be a dead end of an argument on either side (of any debate, not just the one at hand).

[hbelkins]

I don't have any problems with marijuana being used for medicinal purposes, if there really are medicinal purposes for it*. I wrote a research paper on the subject as a freshman in college in 1979 and got some interesting comments from my professor, as the topic wasn't as hot as it is now. It would be the reverse of illicit prescription drugs being used for intoxication purposes. (How anyone figured out that they could, or should, crush a pain pill and either snort it or dissolve it in water and shoot it up is beyond me.)

I, however, would not use it even for medicinal purposes. Like I said, the idea of sucking hot gases into my lungs just does not appeal to me.

I also have no problems with the use of hemp for industrial purposes.*

*It seems, however, that in too many cases the advocates for medical marijuana or industrial hemp are trying to backdoor total legalization of marijuana. We had a perennial candidate for governor who first ran on a platform of total legalization, then in subsequent races he backed off that and supported either medical use or industrial hemp or both. His earlier support for total legalization made his later positions suspect.

[J N Winkler]

I, however, would not use it even for medicinal purposes. Like I said, the idea of sucking hot gases into my lungs just does not appeal to me.

How about pot brownies?  For medicinal purposes only, of course.

[empirestate]

I, however, would not use it even for medicinal purposes. Like I said, the idea of sucking hot gases into my lungs just does not appeal to me.

Would you be OK with using it medicinally in brownie form then?

EDIT: Damn, I knew there was a reason I shouldn't ignore the "new reply has been posted" warning! 

[Brandon]

I, however, would not use it even for medicinal purposes. Like I said, the idea of sucking hot gases into my lungs just does not appeal to me.

How about pot brownies?  For medicinal purposes only, of course.

Brownies...

Now put your clothes back on white boy.

[Grzrd]

How about pot brownies?  For medicinal purposes only, of course.

Brownies...
Now put your clothes back on white boy.

Even brownies present the problem of processed food, refined sugar, etc., which leads to a natural alternative (from the I-35 Question thread):

What's your deal?

welcome to the enchanted forest of NE2.

He's got some delicious mushrooms

I don't mean to imply anything.

[Duke87]

If it were legal to industrially process, you could easily get THC/cannabis oil in the form of pills, IVs, etc. No need to smoke anything.

[kphoger]

A statistic I have heard is that only one fifth (20%) of the US population smokes. If that's the case, why not have smoking bans in public areas? 20% of the populace shouldn't be able to trample on the rights of the remaining 80%.

I don't smoke, but I also don't consider it a "right" of mine to not inhale second-hand smoke.

[bugo]

A statistic I have heard is that only one fifth (20%) of the US population smokes. If that's the case, why not have smoking bans in public areas? 20% of the populace shouldn't be able to trample on the rights of the remaining 80%.

I don't smoke, but I also don't consider it a "right" of mine to not inhale second-hand smoke.

You must not think much of your rights then.  Do you think it's not your right for companies to pollute the air?

[agentsteel53]

You must not think much of your rights then.  Do you think it's not your right for companies to pollute the air?

secondhand smoke is pretty easy to avoid. 

[kphoger]

Do you think it's not your right for companies to pollute the air?

I'm trying to decipher this.....

Yes, I would say that companies polluting or not polluting the air is not a matter of my rights.  Which would be why companies pollute the air.  As do cars.  And lawnmowers.  And barbecue pits.  And people smoking cigarettes.

[bugo]

If you don't have the right to breathe clean air, then you have no rights.  It's the most basic right of all.

[J N Winkler]

Yes, I would say that companies polluting or not polluting the air is not a matter of my rights.  Which would be why companies pollute the air.  As do cars.  And lawnmowers.  And barbecue pits.  And people smoking cigarettes.

If companies put enough pollutants in the air to damage your health, then that infringes on your right to life.  This is why the pollution that is permitted is regulated within limits that are judged safe for health.

[Dr Frankenstein]

My parents smoked so much at one point when I was a child that I got fed up with all that second-hand smoke, and now the idea of smoking, no matter the substance, totally disgusts me.

And they say "Children See, Children Do."

[vdeane]

Do you think it's not your right for companies to pollute the air?

I'm trying to decipher this.....

Yes, I would say that companies polluting or not polluting the air is not a matter of my rights.  Which would be why companies pollute the air.  As do cars.  And lawnmowers.  And barbecue pits.  And people smoking cigarettes.

Whenever you feel it's wrong for something to be regulated because your acting in defiance of regulations wouldn't harm everyone, think about what would happen if everyone did that.  Because if you remove the regulations, everyone will.  And that would be a problem.

[kphoger]

If companies put enough pollutants in the air to damage your health, then that infringes on your right to life.  This is why the pollution that is permitted is regulated within limits that are judged safe for health.

If you don't have the right to breathe clean air, then you have no rights.  It's the most basic right of all.

Meh, I don't see it as infringing on my rights at all.  Let's not equate the right to life with the right to perfect health.

Whenever you feel it's wrong for something to be regulated because your acting in defiance of regulations wouldn't harm everyone, think about what would happen if everyone did that.  Because if you remove the regulations, everyone will.  And that would be a problem.

I wasn't suggesting that environmental protection laws be abolished.  I was saying that there are all sorts of things out there that pollute the air and make it less than perfect for my health.  I don't see that as infringing on my rights.  Wood-burning stoves are bad for people with asthma, but that doesn't mean they should be banned (even though they are in some places, and are regulated in many more).



Anyway, we're getting off-topic here and into politics.

[bugo]

Meh, I don't see it as infringing on my rights at all.  Let's not equate the right to life with the right to perfect health.

What do you consider a right?  Is clean water not a right?  Do you not believe in any rights whatsoever?

If you lit up a cigarette in my house I would ask you to put it out.  Once.  Then you would have a major problem on your hands.

If you don't have a problem with pollution sometime when I have bad gas can I come into your house and rip a bunch of SBD bunker blasts? 

[J N Winkler]

Meh, I don't see it as infringing on my rights at all.  Let's not equate the right to life with the right to perfect health.

But the right to life arguably includes the right not to have your health damaged by man-made causes any more than it is by natural causes.  Think of it in this way:  you have a life expectancy of so many years.  Man-made air pollution reduces this life expectancy by a certain number of years, and translates into a difference between your natural life expectancy and the adjusted life expectancy when you are not going to be alive.  How is this not a violation of your right to life?

Besides the problem that different rights come into conflict in certain circumstances, there is also a fundamental problem in confining the debate over pollution and its regulation to the question of who has the right to do what.  Negative externalities by definition cannot be resolved except through arbitrage of rights by an authoritative third party (since they are "external" to economic transactions with willing participants).  This arbitrage typically results in benefits to the community as a whole (a social surplus) above and beyond what can be achieved by allowing one party or the other unfettered exercise of his rights.  Why should we forgo these surpluses by rejecting the principle that rights should be subject to arbitrage?

[hbelkins]

BBQ pit smoke is by definition not pollution.

[Road Hog]

I quit smoking 11 years ago and am glad I did.

[allniter89]

I quit smoking 11 years ago and am glad I did.

Congratulations Road Hog, 11 years for me too, 12/5/2001 @420=last ciggy 

[nexus73]

I have smoked since I was 14 and I am currently 57.  Tobacco has always been enjoyable for me.  When young I also smoked pipes and cigars as well as cigarettes.  We would roll our own sometimes, using Borkum Riff.  Camel Filter Wides are my smoke of choice.

My father died of cancer in 1999.  He suffered a lot in the last few weeks, mostly due to the effects of the cancer treatment.  He had begun to smoke when he was 14.  I'd say he got a huge ratio in his favor for enjoyment of tobacco vs the final ending.

Last I looked, everyone here on this planet dies.  I had a grandma who smoked a few cigarettes a day.  She lived until she was 97 and the last six years were spent in a nursing home, where she was a prisoner of her own body thanks to back surgery.  Nothing cigarette-related killed her.  Yet she was miserable for far longer than my father was.  So much for good health...LOL!

Ya'll do as you do.  I'll do as I do.  I will give you respect for your smoke free places so long as you respect my smoking spaces and don't go all frickin' nazi on me with your puritan values and raise my taxes as well as infringe on my personal freedoms.  Don't cross the line with me and we won't be crossing swords, capiche?

Rick