Electronic Cigarettes - No Joke!

[TheNiche]

While we're at it... we should just eateries and drinkeries voluntarily comply with city health code ordnances in the preparation and care for food, optional permit compliance, etc. Patrons will vote with their feet if there are reported cases of excessive food posionings, deaths, slime in the ice machine, etc. Who needs rules that are to the benefit of public health anyway?

The difference is that patrons can clearly see where an establishment allows or disallows smoking, whereas the patrons cannot clearly see where the establishment takes appropriate health measures such as you described in comparison.

[AtticaFlinch]

It's a public health issue.

Oh, here we go...

So, are we then to disallow any and all activities that stand a chance of doing us mental or physical harm?

I use this as an example only (and in no way do I think this should be done), but considering gay male sex has a higher rate of transmitting STDs than straight sex or lesbian sex, should we therefore outlaw homosexuality? It's a public health issue and all...

[N Judah]

So, are we then to disallow any and all activities that stand a chance of doing us mental or physical harm?

I think that's accurate. I've seen people thrown out of bars/"clubs" for talking trash, being loud, screaming, being "too drunk" etc. Having said that it usually takes quite a bit to get kicked out of a place.

[AtticaFlinch]

I think that's accurate. I've seen people thrown out of bars/"clubs" for talking trash, being loud, screaming, being "too drunk" etc. Having said that it usually takes quite a bit to get kicked out of a place.

But, that's left to the bar management's discretion.

That was my point. behavior is one of those things the government shouldn't try to regulate. I'm against the drug war for the exact some reasons. People will do what people will do, and it's up to us to take responsibility for our own health. Mine is not the suggestion that smoker's rights are more important than those of non-smokers, but rather the decision to regulate the goings-on in a bar should be determined by the bar owner, and not the city government.

Edit: Odd, I've tried to capitalize the first letter of the second sentence in the second paragraph several times with the edit feature, and it never took.

[BryanS]

Oh, here we go...

So, are we then to disallow any and all activities that stand a chance of doing us mental or physical harm?

I use this as an example only (and in no way do I think this should be done), but considering gay male sex has a higher rate of transmitting STDs than straight sex or lesbian sex, should we therefore outlaw homosexuality? It's a public health issue and all...

What a load of horse crap.

People can do/engage in any activities they want. As harmful as they may be.

But when you harm others... that's the problem.

Smoke all you want. Engage in all the risky intercourse you want.

But you shouldn't put others at risk, due to your decisions.

Second-hand smoke is known to be harmful. There's no practical way to avoid second-hand smoke in public places, unless smoking is done out doors or in aquariums/quarantine areas like in the ATL airport. Smoking and non-smoking sections don't work.

And along the lines of sexual activity... I kinda agree with you, but I wouldn't outlaw a practice or target a specific group of people. Two people who have no STDs cannot transmit STDs, regardless of what they do. Instead, I would implement a registry and require all persons, regardless of their sexual orientation or martial status, to take a battery of STD tests, every six months, and have those results posted/searchable on the Internet. Just like HCAD - but for STDs. As a matter of protecting public health. Knowledge is power. People may claim they have a right to medical privacy... Screw that. Post the information.

[kylejack]

Everybody chooses what "public places" they go to. If you don't like the health effects of a certain policy at a private business, don't go there.

[Hanuman]

Everybody chooses what "public places" they go to. If you don't like the health effects of a certain policy at a private business, don't go there.

Yes, I think we all agree on this. In my case, the management failed to act. The person that demanded we leave, was a customer - and I do have an objection to that. He should have complained to the management, and let them ask me nicely to not use the electronic cigarette in their business. I would have complied, and all would have continued an evening of fun. I'm assuming he has had a bad experience with real smoking that causes anxiety responses in the form of an outburst. We would have rather dealt with the manager.

[TheNiche]

Second-hand smoke is known to be harmful. There's no practical way to avoid second-hand smoke in public places, unless smoking is done out doors or in aquariums/quarantine areas like in the ATL airport. Smoking and non-smoking sections don't work.

The key issue is how we should define a public place. I think that we'd all agree that an airport or a government building is a public place and that a ban on smoking in those sorts of places is reasonable enough. But is a privately-owned bar a public place? The Houston ordinance says 'yes'. I happen to disagree. I say that if you don't like that smoking is permitted in a particular bar, go to one where smoking isn't permitted or where there are overpowered ventilation systems so that it doesn't matter.

And along the lines of sexual activity... I kinda agree with you, but I wouldn't outlaw a practice or target a specific group of people. Two people who have no STDs cannot transmit STDs, regardless of what they do. Instead, I would implement a registry and require all persons, regardless of their sexual orientation or martial status, to take a battery of STD tests, every six months, and have those results posted/searchable on the Internet. Just like HCAD - but for STDs. As a matter of protecting public health. Knowledge is power. People may claim they have a right to medical privacy... Screw that. Post the information.

The success of your proposal would be contingent on whether the number of transmitted diseases prevented by people using this database exceeded the number of new cases brought about by people who ended up having unprotected intercourse with a false negative on the list. Such rigorous measures might also foster a more lax social attitude towards risky intercourse in general.

Egregious violations of the fourth amendment aside, however, I think that there probably is something to the idea of government-mandated medical checkups. If we require it for our cars, why not for our bodies?

[barracuda]

And along the lines of sexual activity... I kinda agree with you, but I wouldn't outlaw a practice or target a specific group of people. Two people who have no STDs cannot transmit STDs, regardless of what they do. Instead, I would implement a registry and require all persons, regardless of their sexual orientation or martial status, to take a battery of STD tests, every six months, and have those results posted/searchable on the Internet. Just like HCAD - but for STDs. As a matter of protecting public health. Knowledge is power. People may claim they have a right to medical privacy... Screw that. Post the information.

Good luck with that.

[AtticaFlinch]

What a load of horse crap.

People can do/engage in any activities they want. As harmful as they may be.

But when you harm others... that's the problem.

Smoke all you want. Engage in all the risky intercourse you want.

But you shouldn't put others at risk, due to your decisions.

Second-hand smoke is known to be harmful. There's no practical way to avoid second-hand smoke in public places, unless smoking is done out doors or in aquariums/quarantine areas like in the ATL airport. Smoking and non-smoking sections don't work.

I had to delete that last part. I just had to. I'm not even going to bother to respond to it, as I seriously doubt you even meant it. The part I will respond to is about the supposed deleterious effects of second hand smoke. I say the effects are overblown, and second hand smoke, in small doses, in no more devastating to the human body than is Aspartame - and we aren't exactly banning diet sodas. And now, especially considering the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling strengthening the concept of a corporation as an entity as viable as a living breathing person, any choice made in a boardroom that can potentially harm mine or anyone else's health should be subject to the same rigorous scrutiny you've applied to tobacco use. That's a snake eating it's own tail though. That process will eventually lead to every possible thing on Earth getting banned. I contend the health issue is a canard. I think many people are just annoyed by it so they've contrived (or at least amplified) the danger. In other words, the boy's cried wolf to his own selfish ends - he gets more enjoyment in a smokeless bar so he ruins the experience for everyone. And that, Bryan, is why I have no problem with bar owners (or restauranteurs) deciding for themselves what's appropriate for their establishments. They shouldn't be required to accommodate smokers any more than they should non-smokers. After all, I'd hate for smokers' rights to smoke to impede non-smokers' rights to be free of smoke. If a non-smoker doesn't want to be around smoke, he or she can go to a bar where smoking is disallowed. It's almost too simple. What I'd like to know is why that can't work, not what C Everett Koop told you through the television when you were in middle school.

Egregious violations of the fourth amendment aside, however, I think that there probably is something to the idea of government-mandated medical checkups. If we require it for our cars, why not for our bodies?

Then we get into the argument of who should pay for it all, and that is a subject for another thread.

[BryanS]

The key issue is how we should define a public place. I think that we'd all agree that an airport or a government building is a public place and that a ban on smoking in those sorts of places is reasonable enough. But is a privately-owned bar a public place? The Houston ordinance says 'yes'. I happen to disagree. I say that if you don't like that smoking is permitted in a particular bar, go to one where smoking isn't permitted or where there are overpowered ventilation systems so that it doesn't matter.

The success of your proposal would be contingent on whether the number of transmitted diseases prevented by people using this database exceeded the number of new cases brought about by people who ended up having unprotected intercourse with a false negative on the list. Such rigorous measures might also foster a more lax social attitude towards risky intercourse in general.

Egregious violations of the fourth amendment aside, however, I think that there probably is something to the idea of government-mandated medical checkups. If we require it for our cars, why not for our bodies?

All that I am going for is consistency in our reasoning of protecting public health in a public place (which include private business providing public service). If you are a privately-owned bar/restaurant, who does not desire to serve the general public, you should not be required to protect customers from ANY hazards in your establishment. Smoking is OK, and you can prepare and sell food according to any standard you want. Just like having a dinner party at your house. I don't see how one can advocate not controlling one hazard (second-hand smoke) while equally advocating maintaining controls on other hazards, food preparation/sanitation - in public spaces, as we understand them.

And many of the bars I have been to... can easily provide service to all members of the public, smoking and non-smoking, and control second hand smoke. They have patio areas. It seems to be working just fine. Don't have a patio area? Fine. Take your establishment "private" and do whatever you want (however that would work. "Membership" fees? Who knows.)

On the other matter... the STD registry. Thinking about it some more... I would make it completely voluntary. With a catch. If you do agree to test and publicly disclose results, under your own free will... the government will give you a $500 STD testing tax credit for each time you test. Don't like the tax credit idea? Make it a cash, direct deposit into your bank account. You get more results with honey than vinegar. Every six months. Considering that it can cost anywhere from $10,000 to $18,000 a year for HIV medications... per person... surely some formula/incentive can be worked out to get more people to test, to alter their behavior, to reduce disease/cost of care, to save lives. Knowledge is power. Anyway... that's a another thread.

[BryanS]

I had to delete that last part. I just had to. I'm not even going to bother to respond to it, as I seriously doubt you even meant it. The part I will respond to is about the supposed deleterious effects of second hand smoke. I say the effects are overblown, and second hand smoke, in small doses, in no more devastating to the human body than is Aspartame - and we aren't exactly banning diet sodas.

Please provide a link to a credible scientific that supports this position. It's about exposure. If I am a non-smoker, working in a smoking-permitted establishment, I am being exposed to a continuous hazard, against my will. In small doses... which add up. Like real data/research that points to a global warming hazard.... there is a significant amount of real data/research that points to second-hand smoke being a hazard. Are you going to deny the existence of that data/research? You may say the effects are overblown, but what about the experts? If you deny their research, on this topic, then surely the experts must be wrong who claim global warming is a problem. Are you prepared to abandon your global warming position, in the name of smoker's rights? You'd have to, in order to be consistent.

And now, especially considering the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling strengthening the concept of a corporation as an entity as viable as a living breathing person, any choice made in a boardroom that can potentially harm mine or anyone else's health should be subject to the same rigorous scrutiny you've applied to tobacco use. That's a snake eating it's own tail though.

Corporations are responsible for their products, including liability. So if they make an unsafe/hazardous product - they can rightfully be sued. Ever hear of tobacco lawsuits? Lead paint in Chinese toys? It's the American way of life to sue anybody for anything.

That process will eventually lead to every possible thing on Earth getting banned.

That's quite a stretch. I don't think so.

I contend the health issue is a canard. I think many people are just annoyed by it so they've contrived (or at least amplified) the danger. In other words, the boy's cried wolf to his own selfish ends - he gets more enjoyment in a smokeless bar so he ruins the experience for everyone.

Except that bars don't have to be smokeless. That's what patios are for. If establishments are required to adhere to standards to protect public health, they must adhere to all those standards, not a selective few. You can adequately control the hazard of second hand smoke; require people who do smoke, do so out doors - at a public place. 8.5 x 11 "Smoking Section" signs... don't control the hazard.

And that, Bryan, is why I have no problem with bar owners (or restaurants) deciding for themselves what's appropriate for their establishments. They shouldn't be required to accommodate smokers any more than they should non-smokers. After all, I'd hate for smokers' rights to smoke to impede non-smokers' rights to be free of smoke. If a non-smoker doesn't want to be around smoke, he or she can go to a bar where smoking is disallowed. It's almost too simple. What I'd like to know is why that can't work, not what C Everett Koop told you through the television when you were in middle school.

Those bar owners have decided what is appropriate for their establishments. They've established policies that say it is OK to smoke outside. They can accommodate everyone. What is wrong with accommodating every member of the public, regardless of their smoking status? And throwing all that out... why would it be OK to smoke in a bar or restuarnt... and not on an airplane? By your logic, harms of second hand smoke are overblown... therefore, smoking should be allowed everywhere... Is that what you are advocating?

[RedScare]

I'm really glad I do not live in a world designed and regulated by Bryan. The amount of government oppression he espouses is overwhelming.

[Hanuman]

Who would like to use this word first on this forum (Reusablabber ) You now have my permission...

[TheNiche]

I'm really glad I do not live in a world designed and regulated by Bryan. The amount of government oppression he espouses is overwhelming.

No kidding. I started to formulate counterpoints...but damn, the way he explains it, there's no need. The counterpoints are just there, already embedded.

I mean, seriously...is there anything more conflictd than a gay, moralistic control-freak?

[kylejack]

While I am morally opposed to city-wide smoking bans, I've got to say that it sure is nice to come home from the bar not smelling like smoke.

[AtticaFlinch]

Please provide a link to a credible scientific that supports this position. It's about exposure. If I am a non-smoker, working in a smoking-permitted establishment, I am being exposed to a continuous hazard, against my will. In small doses... which add up. Like real data/research that points to a global warming hazard.... there is a significant amount of real data/research that points to second-hand smoke being a hazard. Are you going to deny the existence of that data/research? You may say the effects are overblown, but what about the experts? If you deny their research, on this topic, then surely the experts must be wrong who claim global warming is a problem. Are you prepared to abandon your global warming position, in the name of smoker's rights? You'd have to, in order to be consistent.

Seriously, because I think the effects of second-hand smoke have been overblown, you think I have to give up my thoughts on climate change? One's a scientific fact being debated politically. The other is a political truth being debated scientifically. See if you can figure out the difference. I don't doubt an excess of smoke can cause problems any more than I doubt an excess of anything can lead to health problems. On a long enough timeline, anything can kill you. Again, once you set the precendent of disallowing one thing just because it's bad for you, you open the floodgates to begin banning everything. Do you not see that same danger in your stance on the Supreme Court's pro-corporate ruling? Are you prepared to give that stance up because you also support the cigarette ban?

Good god, to think the chemical reaction residue left from the burning of a plant would cause so much consternation. Are we to outlaw camp fires and fireplaces too? How about overcooked food? Wherever there's smoke, there's another life lost to cancer! Gimme a break.

[AtticaFlinch]

By your logic, harms of second hand smoke are overblown... therefore, smoking should be allowed everywhere... Is that what you are advocating?

I very clearly did not advocate that. How did you get that from what I wrote?

[N Judah]

The good thing is that ordinances like these go city-by-city. So if you don't like the way things are done in Houston you are, as always, free to go live somewhere else.

[RedScare]

The good thing is that ordinances like these go city-by-city. So if you don't like the way things are done in Houston you are, as always, free to go live somewhere else.

Ah, the 'Love It or Leave It' stand. Always good to see this in the debate.

[N Judah]

Ah, the 'Love It or Leave It' stand. Always good to see this in the debate.

Why not? Government collectivizes sentiment through laws. They do it all the time. Taxes, freeways, roads, zoning, no zoning, health regulations, mandatory schooling, car insurance, you name it, they've made a law about it. If it makes you unhappy, go somewhere else where you'll be happier. Great, you like the laws that you like, and you don't like the laws that you don't like. And from that starting point you can always extrapolate just the right set of "principles" that could get you the things you feel you have always deserved while at the same time using state-sponsored violence (or the threat thereof) to forcibly remove that which you decide you don't want. I say it's worth a try, and I wish you all the best.

[AtticaFlinch]

Ah, the 'Love It or Leave It' stand. Always good to see this in the debate.

But, by their very own logic it was unnecessary to make Houston smoke-free as there were places already available for them to live. Great! We'll return Houston to the way it was and all the anti-smoking zealots can go live in California.

Why not? Government collectivizes sentiment through laws. They do it all the time. Taxes, freeways, roads, zoning, no zoning, health regulations, mandatory schooling, car insurance, you name it, they've made a law about it. If it makes you unhappy, go somewhere else where you'll be happier. Great, you like the laws that you like, and you don't like the laws that you don't like. And from that starting point you can always extrapolate just the right set of "principles" that could get you the things you feel you have always deserved while at the same time using state-sponsored violence (or the threat thereof) to forcibly remove that which you decide you don't want. I say it's worth a try, and I wish you all the best.

Didn't see this...

The above applies.

[kylejack]

If the Jews didn't like the Nazi policy of extermination they should have just moved somewhere else.

(sometimes its fun to invoke Godwin just for the hell of it.)

[AtticaFlinch]

If the Jews didn't like the Nazi policy of extermination they should have just moved somewhere else.

(sometimes its fun to invoke Godwin just for the hell of it.)

Yeah, and if the Jews didn't like the general anti-Jewish sentiment in Europe following WWII, they could have just left and formed their own country.

Nobody would mind.

[N Judah]

The sentiment was collectivized, and Houston became smoke-free. Do what you will to get it going the other way, but it's not necessary to invent some kind of faux-principled double standard.

I think you were temporarily blinded by RedScare's intentional mischaracterization of my position. It's not "Love it or leave it" it's more like "Put up or shut up" (but not quite). When the good outweighs the bad, stick around. Believe me, even if they bring back smoking in bars, Houston still has a lot to offer.

[AtticaFlinch]

The sentiment was collectivized, and Houston became smoke-free. Do what you will to get it going the other way, but it's not necessary to invent some kind of faux-principled double standard.

Double principle? No, really. Had smoking proponents used the same logic you just used, smoking would never have been banned. What it seems to me that you're saying is, "The law is the law, and since the law is made by the government, and since the government is made by the people, the people as a whole have decided that the smoking ban is not only a good idea, but a just idea." Did I misinterpret?

I think you were temporarily blinded by RedScare's intentional mischaracterization of my position. It's not "Love it or leave it" it's more like "Put up or shut up" (but not quite). When the good outweighs the bad, stick around. Believe me, even if they bring back smoking in bars, Houston still has a lot to offer.

I'm pretty sure I wasn't blinded by any level of mischaracterization as that's pretty much exactly what you said. Perhaps you can clarify the subtle nuances that have escaped me and probably a number of other people as well.

The good thing is that ordinances like these go city-by-city. So if you don't like the way things are done in Houston you are, as always, free to go live somewhere else.

[N Judah]

Of course you are, as always, free to go live somewhere else. But that doesn't preclude being able to change the laws here. If it's that important to you, is it worth the effort? Moreover, I would be surprised if public sentiment has changed since these ordinances were implemented.

[AtticaFlinch]

Of course you are, as always, free to go live somewhere else. But that doesn't preclude being able to change the laws here. If it's that important to you, is it worth the effort? Moreover, I would be surprised if public sentiment has changed since these ordinances were implemented.

That's beside the point and doesn't address any of the legitimate concerns. However, I will respond to it. Is it worth the effort? Sure, all bad laws are worth repealing, but like with Prohibition, there's a time and a place. With smokers and smoking being the villains du jour, and with the anti-smoking crusaders voices currently so loud and so rabidly bloodthirsty, now is not that time. In ten or twenty years, either we'll become so reliant upon the government to dictate for us every decision we make, or we'll wake up and realize we've allowed the government to mandate the outcome of every decision we make and that such a thing is unnecessary as we're all adults and should be able to make our own decisions about matters of personal health and responsibility. It's up to us which direction we take, but frankly I'm aghast so many people are willing to give up personal freedom in the name of convenience.

[N Judah]

It's up to us which direction we take, but frankly I'm aghast so many people are willing to give up personal freedom in the name of convenience.

And it took no smoking in bars to bring you to this realization? Are there any instances of government intervention which you favor?

[AtticaFlinch]

And it took no smoking in bars to bring you to this realization?

What gave you that idea? I can be shocked continually by the lunacy of the American mindset more than once, can't I? I wasn't aware there was a limit.

Are there any instances of government intervention which you favor?

Yes, plenty, though not a one of those is contingent upon weakly interpreted (or interpreted with bias) scientific reports or the imposition of personal prejudices. Most especially the personal prejudices. The ugly side of living in a free democracy should be that we occasionally have to put up with behavior we don't like or agree with, not that might makes right. The tyranny of the majority is not infallible.

Edit: Tried to be clearer with regard to the scientific reports sentence. I truly believe the evidence is overwhelming that smoking and second hand smoke is bad for health. The correllation between smoking and cancer, emphysema and a host of other illnesses is undeniable. What I do not buy is that smoke in small, manageable amounts is inherently dangerous. And, as such, it's not in the government's purview to make rules about what individual business owners should be deciding about its use in their establishments, most especially the city government. If the city government's going to make decisions about my health, they need to ante up some of the five grand I spend annually on insuring my family. As an aside, if the federal government would have worked out a health plan where they provided the coverage, I would have seen no problem with them limiting benefits to smokers (or cliffdivers for that matter).