Smoker's Rights vs. Everyone Else's Rights

[ChristineES]

Why can't we have more laws and more education? You're mixing things together here. The OP brought up a question. He also said that his solution was to close his window. No one advocated making what that particular smoker did illegal. It's just a tough situation that people were looking for a good solution to.



Yup, no one does.



Sorry, but the slippery slope argument doesn't work here any more than it does regarding same-sex marriage. You could say "Well, first we can't beat our kids, and next thing you know, we won't be able to have kids at all". The point is there are some things people shouldn't be allowed to do. We take them on a case-by-case basis. Making one thing illegal now because it makes sense doesn't mean that we're going to end up with 1984.



I'm sorry for your experience. However, I don't think that's typical. My cousin is special needs, and they rarely deal with social workers. And maybe it's just your particular social worker. Unless your house is in really bad shape, you don't have anything to worry about legally.

But I also don't see what this has to do with anything. There are two options:

1) We can just let parents do whatever they want with their kids without any rules.
2) We can set rules for what parents can do with their kids.

I assume we both support option 2. Then the question is just a matter of what is acceptable and what isn't, what we can tell parents and what we can't. There is already a line drawn. We can't beat our children. We can't subject them to horrible living conditions (at least not when we have other easy options). We can't lock them in the basement or a cage. The reasons for those are that they unnecessarily harm the kids. It's the same reason I can't beat you up and you can't shoot me.

Obviously, we need to keep out of parenting as much as possible, but there is a certain amount of checking up we have to do. All we're saying is that smoking in an enclosed place with children should be added to that list of things you can't do as a parent. Education would also be a good component.

And just to be clear, since I'm not sure it is: I am not advocating making smoking in your own house illegal, unless there are children in there. If that condition is not there, then have at it all you want.

Of course we can't do anything we want with our kids, I never said otherwise. We just can't dictate every little thing for people to do. As I said, it would be best if people did not smoke with their children in the house; there are a lot of things we shouldn't do with children in the house, people shouldn't feed their kids McDonald's everyday, either. I am saying that it takes too many resources that we don't have to go around door to door checking that people aren't doing these things (I know I am being a little extreme in this argument, and I am not saying this has happened or will happened).
The fact remains is that my husband and I did not abuse our special needs sons, we didn't neglect them, we didn't smoke around them (neither of us smoke at all, so this was easy), we didn't leave them alone to burn down the house, we keep the house reasonably clean, yet we still had social workers dropping in unexpected. I have heard atheists say they don't want people coming door to door to proselytize, and I say that social workers dropping in unexpected is very much the same thing as a religion coming to your home and proselytizing.
I know it seems contrary, but I do understand what you are saying. But I just can't advocate a nanny state. If there is a reason to come over, that someone is abusing their child is OK, but otherwise, it is against our privacy.

 

[Magic Man]

Of course we can't do anything we want with our kids, I never said otherwise. We just can't dictate every little thing for people to do.

OK, this is a start. Now, of course we can't dictate every little thing. But can't we dictate that parents can't do things that unnecessarily harm their children which are easily avoided?

As I said, it would be best if people did not smoke with their children in the house; there are a lot of things we shouldn't do with children in the house, people shouldn't feed their kids McDonald's everyday, either. I am saying that it takes too many resources that we don't have to go around door to door checking that people aren't doing these things (I know I am being a little extreme in this argument, and I am not saying this has happened or will happened).

I'm not advocating going door to door. Do we go door to door to make sure parents aren't beating their kids? All I'm saying is that smoking in the house with kids should be on the no-no list like beating your kids. We obviously won't catch all parents who do this, just like we don't catch all parents who beat their kids. And I'm not necessarily talking about jail time for the parents. If discovered, it could be a fine or a warning or something.

The fact remains is that my husband and I did not abuse our special needs sons, we didn't neglect them, we didn't smoke around them (neither of us smoke at all, so this was easy), we didn't leave them alone to burn down the house, we keep the house reasonably clean, yet we still had social workers dropping in unexpected. I have heard atheists say they don't want people coming door to door to proselytize, and I say that social workers dropping in unexpected is very much the same thing as a religion coming to your home and proselytizing.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the current discussion, though. But it does help me realize why you're so opinionated on this. You've had a bad experience with social workers and the system. However, you're mushing two separate issues together. Your issue is with the method of checking on parents and their children. I'm not advocating any particular method. I'm advocating adding something to the list of things we don't let parents do. Deciding what we should disallow for parents and deciding how we should go about enforcing those rules are two different things. You could agree that smoking in the house with kids should be on the no-no list, but also agree that the method for checking such things should be different from the one you've experienced.

I know it seems contrary, but I do understand what you are saying. But I just can't advocate a nanny state. If there is a reason to come over, that someone is abusing their child is OK, but otherwise, it is against our privacy.[/quote]

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Twist number one.

That's not an answer. Care to give one?

Twist number two.

Apartment renters do not own their own homes. The property owner owns the home. I say that property owners should be able to make that call.

Landlords waive many of the rights to their properties when they rent them out for compensation. In general, with their rent, tenants are purchasing the freedom to do the sorts of things that are part of reasonably living in their home.

Are you trying to imply that smoking in one's home (because even a rented home is the tenant's home) is not a reasonable part of living in one's home?

I'm not trying to shoehorn you into a position you're not taking; I'm just trying to fully understand your position.

You are honestly saying that someone smoking OUTSIDE on their own property (their backyard) is right up there with someone playing loud music late at night???

If it can be smelled in the house next door, yes.

Wow. Tell you what - I'll take the late night smokers next door over loud thumping music that keeps me awake at 2 am anytime. I seriously doubt that the smokers will keep me awake. Or give me lung cancer from across two yards.

And if that's your personal preference, that's fine. But are you arguing that it's unreasonable for me to find cigarette smoke more of an inconvenience than loud music? Because I do.

So you think it's reasonable to make it illegal for a truck driver, who OWNS his own truck, and who drives it ALONE, to smoke inside his own vehicle?

If you actually read my last post, you would've known that my mind isn't made up at this point.

Twist number three. Honestly, not even worthy of an answer, it's so ridiculous. Of course I believe that some regulations of workplace hazards are necessary. I also believe that if workers don't mind working in a smoking environment, they should be allowed to make that choice.

Ah - so you just want a limited form of occupational health and safety regulation.

What other rules do you think should be eliminated? How do you draw your line between which safety restrictions are appropriate and which aren't?

- Risk? Because there are plenty of workplace health and safety rules that restrict and prohibit hazards that are less risky than second-hand smoke.

- Cost? Because there are some absolutely crazy costs associated with OHS rules in many industries... many times the revenue your brother (it was your brother, right?) lost with the elimination of smoking.

So... what informs your decision-making that leads you to conclude that the safety measures that keep your husband safe at his job are okay, but the ones that cost your brother money aren't? I'd hope that there's some rational basis for your position, but so far I can only see one: self-interest.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

Penguin,
You still haven't established that second-hand smoke is inherently more dangerous than other trappings of modern society. Until such time, you're making bald assertions and I hope you'd have the intellectual honesty to disclose such.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Penguin,
You still haven't established that second-hand smoke is inherently more dangerous than other trappings of modern society. Until such time, you're making bald assertions and I hope you'd have the intellectual honesty to disclose such.

I don't know why you keep going back to this, because it's largely irrelevant. We don't need to demonstrate that cigarette smoke is the worst hazard out there before we move to restrict it. All we need to demonstrate that it is a significant hazard, which has been done.

In fact, I'd say that your argument is fundamentally illogical, since it's based on a form of the tu quoque fallacy.

 

[Magic Man]

Penguin,
You still haven't established that second-hand smoke is inherently more dangerous than other trappings of modern society. Until such time, you're making bald assertions and I hope you'd have the intellectual honesty to disclose such.

What other "trappings"? Do you mean car exhaust and such? If so, that kind of thing is much more necessary than smoking, and generally, people don't drive their cars in buildings.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

I don't know why you keep going back to this, because it's largely irrelevant. We don't need to demonstrate that cigarette smoke is the worst hazard out there before we move to restrict it. All we need to demonstrate that it is a significant hazard, which has been done.

In fact, I'd say that your argument is fundamentally illogical, since it's based on a form of the tu quoque fallacy.

All arguments are based on some kind of BS fallacy, but I digress. You truly haven't indicated that smoking, in itself is a significant hazard. I'd like you to begin to do so.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

What other "trappings"? Do you mean car exhaust and such? If so, that kind of thing is much more necessary than smoking, and generally, people don't drive their cars in buildings.

I'd actually argue that a personal automobile is no more necessary than a pack of Marlboros, and although people don't drive their cars into buildings, the vehicles release toxic gases that find their way into every building, often as hazardous levels.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

All arguments are based on some kind of BS fallacy, but I digress.

Actually, that's another example of the tu quoque fallacy, so you're being perfectly consistent with your earlier argument.

You truly haven't indicated that smoking, in itself is a significant hazard. I'd like you to begin to do so.

You're joking, right?

 

[Gemini]

I don't really like the fact that I smoke, either. However, right now I have no license. Maybe I should sue drivers for polluting the air my children breathe? I don't like the stench of fat people, so being fat should be illegal. As for the dangers of second hand smoke, I don't believe you're too concerned about that. The World is filthy. Why single that out? Perhaps if I'm blowing smoke in your child's face or locking him in a room with me while I chain smoke, he'll have a one in fifty thousand ( or some astronomical) chance of developing lung cancer. With cars and factories pumping out such massive amounts of toxic filth, I really don't believe second hand smoke coming through your window in the morning makes you fear for your health. You don't like smoke, smokers, and anything involving smoking as it disgusts you, understandably. Fat chicks with revealing clothes disgust me too, and I would rather never see it, but this is America, land of the free to do some things.

 

[Magic Man]

I'd actually argue that a personal automobile is no more necessary than a pack of Marlboros

You could argue it, but it would be pretty damn tough. I could possibly get to work 25 miles away without a personal car, but not using any kind of machine that produced exhaust would really hurt my cause. As necessary as food and water? No. More necessary than cigarettes? By far. I kind of need my job to have the necessities, and I kind of need a way to get to my job. Without using a motorized vehicle, the trip one way would be over 2 hours.

and although people don't drive their cars into buildings, the vehicles release toxic gases that find their way into every building, often as hazardous levels.

And? The same way people smoking outside can still have their smoke travel inside (like in the OP).

 

[Magic Man]

I don't really like the fact that I smoke, either. However, right now I have no license. Maybe I should sue drivers for polluting the air my children breathe?

Only if you find an suitable alternative to automobiles.

I don't like the stench of fat people, so being fat should be illegal.

Nope. Not comparable.

As for the dangers of second hand smoke, I don't believe you're too
concerned about that. The World is filthy. Why single that out?

Because it's one that is easily handled. What would be harder for most people: to stop driving their car altogether, or to only smoke outside and not around other people? The difference between not smoking in a building where it could affect others and not using an automobile at all is immense. One is not asking much. The other is asking a huge amount.

 

[Gemini]

Oh I agree about smoking inside. I was referring to people who can't stand it coming in through their windows or a rogue wave caught in the wind. My point about automobiles is that the amount of pollution given off in a single day is far more toxic than most forms of second hand smoke. If you're hotboxing with a kid in a room, a car, smoking right next to him, yes, that's horrible. Smelling it now and then cause I'm smoking 10 yards away seems a bit like nit-picking, is all. The fat person comment was in regard to what I perceived as a kind of discrimination against smokers that I think we've all witnessed, even if they do it in a reasonable manner.

 

[Gemini]

As for it being reasonably handled, Bill Hicks said that if he didn't get to light up, there would be second-hand bullets headed your way,'cause he's that tense. Won't endorse or condemn that statement, but the man was hilarious.

 

[Magic Man]

Oh I agree about smoking inside. I was referring to people who can't stand it coming in through their windows or a rogue wave caught in the wind.

As you can see in this thread, though, people aren't advocating banning smoking outside. The case in the OP was handled by the OPer closing his window.

My point about automobiles is that the amount of pollution given off in a single day is far more toxic than most forms of second hand smoke. If you're hotboxing with a kid in a room, a car, smoking right next to him, yes, that's horrible. Smelling it now and then cause I'm smoking 10 yards away seems a bit like nit-picking, is all.

Cars' exhaust is bad as well, but you're generally not close enough to a car's exhaust pipe to get the full effect of it, whereas with smoking inside, you are. As far as smelling it 10 yards away, that's more of a consideration thing. I don't think anyone here is advocating banning smoking everywhere.

The fat person comment was in regard to what I perceived as a kind of discrimination against smokers that I think we've all witnessed, even if they do it in a reasonable manner.

It's not a discrimination against smokers. It's a discrimination against smoking. Smoking is not appropriate in some situations.

 

[Gemini]

Well I was replying to an earlier comment that makes most of what I said irrelevant. I agree there's a responsible way to smoke. There is a fairly common prejudice against smokers simply for the fact that they smoke, but you would most likely concede to that, which would render everything I said irrelevant. The Bill Hicks quote was worth a look though, right? Carlin fans often appreciate Hicks as well, both use a lot of dark humor and similar social commentary. Carlins assertion that you don't have to shower every day isn't quite universal, though. I have sensitive skin.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I'd actually argue that a personal automobile is no more necessary than a pack of Marlboros,

The only reason you'd argue that is because you're in NYC. You could live and die without ever owning a personal automobile and get along just fine. My father lived in Brooklyn... never got his driver's license until he was 25... and I don't know when he got his first car.

When you live anywhere else in this country that doesn't have a public transit system like NYC's MTA, a personal automobile is absolutely necessary. We get our license at 16 and a car by 18, if not sooner.

Cigarettes on the other hand are utterly useless and completely unnecessary.

 

[dust1n]

Why should I have to? It's my right to open my windows and have fresh air.
He could put out his cigarette.

I don't remember the right to fresh air!

 

[dust1n]

Because someone else is polluting her air? :S

Who owns the air?

 

[dust1n]

Find somewhere else to smoke. Or don't smoke at all.

There's a legal principle called riparian rights: basically, it's the idea that a person upstream isn't allowed to adversely affect water quantity or quality downstream. I think a similar right should be in place for air.

Bottom line for me: if something, e.g. smoking, interferes with a person's quiet enjoyment of their own property, then the consent of that person should be required.

Yeah, well I will 'respect' that riparian right, after every single person has stopped affecting my air. My water, too. Until people complain the real **** that it's pumped into the air and affect effect's everyone, I feel little sympathy for non-smokers (unless their is an actual medical condition, e.g. allergic reactions).