Crankylilprof doesn't get it. Her premise seems to be that you can't legislate bad behavior.
I disagree completely. I live in a place where smoking is banned in public places. I NEVER see anyone smoking in public places. That is the direct result of legislation. In fact it is a breath of fresh air to go into a restaurant and have a nice meal and leave without having to have a laundry basket full of stinky, smelly cloths.
The argument that you can't legislate it is simply not true. But that's not even my point. Smoking in public is not an issue of rights for smokers. It is an issue of public health. And public health trumps an individuals right to infest a nonsmoker with their toxic spew every single time.
Since I have a right not to be harmed by a smokers actions, my right of way in a public setting trumps the smoker. And that's why I believe a federal ban on smoking in public is the best possible option. It levels the playing field from city to city, state to state.
To allow smokers to infest nonsmokers in public is to assume that second hand smoke does not cause harm. And that is simply not true. A reader pointed me to NYT regarding Third Hand Smoke. I'll let that statement speak for itself. There is no better explanation on why smoking in public places should be banned nationwide. Now and forever.
Now that I think about it, we should just ban smokers from going out in public. And give them Chantix, free Chantix if they're poor)
Addendum:
Originally discussed here as Killing Off The Cardiologists and Saving America At The Same Time
Absolutely. As long as idiots who douse themselves in gallons of AXE body funk, obnoxious perfumes, smelly hairsprays and eye-watering body lotions are prevented from going out in public, as well.
ReplyDeleteWe should put a Federal ban in place, because we should be sensitive to people with asthma, breathing issues like COPD, and environmental allergies. They might need breathing treatments, steroids and other drugs to deal with the effects of inhaling such chemicals.
If we banned them, it would save health care dollars!
we get it happy but just remember hate the sin not the sinner...ban away but do stop with the not so subtle aspersions on people who smoke...i have a bad habit make atttempts to quit unsuccessfully and respect other people's spaces.you're starting to sound like carry nation weilding the axe
ReplyDelete"Carrie Nation," indeed.
ReplyDeleteHappy has (very determinedly) avoided responding to the simple fact that the last time such a Federal ban was enacted -- i.e., Prohibition -- it failed utterly.
cranky. You are trying to argue a point that doesn't exist. I didn't say anything about banning smoking. I said banning smoking in public places. That is very different from banning smoking.
ReplyDeleteAnd you keep claiming that banning smoking in public places wont work. it does work. There is no argument. Where do you keep coming up with the position that these laws don't work?
A city ban on smoking in public places is most certainly not working here in Philly, where I live. There's no political will to enforce the law -- even for the money -- and the cops themselves will light up on city streets. Bars? Technically the ban may be in effect, but the enforcement isn't there.
ReplyDeletePeople smoke outside of office buildings and on the open street. Are you going to hire several hundred more cops per municipality to enforce your social construct...or is it going to be another set of useless, largely unenforceable laws on the books?
Less government intrusion, is what's needed, not more.
it works where I live. Maybe all the smoke is going to every one's head in Philly
ReplyDeleteI find it VERY "nannyish" to tell personal business owners which clientele they can and cannot have anywhere on their property. If a bar/restaurant owner wants to have a smoking area, then whose to say he or she cannot? After all, it is his pocketbook that will suffer, righty-o? Isn't that the "American way" and the "free market" model of which you so often speak?
ReplyDeleteThere is a very valid reason we have very separate city and state governments. I find the general idea that so many people seem to hold these days that the feds should micromanage our every waking day amazingly scary. Even if it is under the guise of "public health," and "for the children."
I rotated at a TB hospital during my residency. By law, the patients who were still infective had to remain in their tiny little negative-pressure room or be outside in open air (where TB can't survive UV light). This was often for 6 weeks of their lives or more. This wasn't to make them better faster...it was to protect the public. It is a law. And it works. Which is why TB is rare in the US but rampant in other countries - even though many countries still use the BCG vaccine. I wondered how America got away with confining someone who had an illness that they didn't ask for and then I realized, it is the best PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY. I think that is Happy's point. Sometimes public health policy does mean loss of individual rights for the good of the nation. Oh, and I agree it is a nanny-state - too bad we have come to that.
ReplyDeleteround 'em up and put 'em in determent camps...it worked with the japanese during world war 2....yes public policy should trump individual rights in the interest of "threats"....i'm sure the indians would agree also
ReplyDeleteI kind of like the ring of that. smoking derment camps.
ReplyDeleteIt that similar to The Biggest Loser?
TBL is voluntary, not mandatory. That said, I'm for a federal ban of massively obese people eating at public establishments. They can gorge themselves at home. It hurts my eyes and makes me want to have more than my weekly sundae. I'm vulnerable to that temptation, and I need the feds to help control my appetite. Screw the business owners and the people they employ.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, Happy, you can be the first to develop and coin the BMI quick-test at each and every restaurant and fast food door! Look at that entreprenurial opportunity there. Think, you can get out of the ponzi scheme that is MNB and be just like Steve Jobs!
Damn, that's exciting. Better get moving or I'm gonna beat you to it. Ohh..I know, we'll use an ankle bracelet just like felons. Just think, every physician and hospitalist will be required by TJC to lock 'em on at an initial encounter. Sweet.
happy my lame attempt at sarcasm failed...give me your cell number like you did your insurance agent and we'll be like aa buddies...i'll quit now if ican call you at all hours when temptation arises.
ReplyDeleteI am all for legislating dangerous behaviour. Now, can we please make personal automobiles illegal? Let people ride buses, whose trained drivers are less likely to run over cyclists like me.
ReplyDeleteDear Dr. Happy, I think I hear you volunteer to lead by example on this!
Felix, the non-smoker.
Really cranky? I've lived in Philly both pre and post ban and I can say with certainty that at the establishments I frequent, whereas prior to the ban I smelled like an ashtray upon exit, I can say that almost never happens now. In fact, I have only seen ONE person smoking at a restaurant since the ban was enacted.
ReplyDeleteOutside the hospital is a different story, though I'm not sure smoking on the street was actually made illegal. I thought the law only applied to smoking in restaurants and bars, not to smoking in public in general.
smoking in street is similar to be a drunk driver, you got license to kill, a long term one in case of smoking. cranky sorry but you cant compare perfumes,smelly hairsprays and eye-watering body lotions with cigarretes in NO WAY, do you even know what cigarretes had? is not just nicotine, nicotine is just one toxin in a pile of more than 100 toxins, its just funny to even argue this.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm the guy that sent Happy the 3rd hand smoking article...
ReplyDeleteNew York City has had a very successful public smoking ban including in bars.
I've been told first hand that very cold outdoor weather helps people to quit smoking when these public smoking bans are in effect.
Most adults do want to quit and have tried many times to quit and so anything that helps them to quit is really helping these smokers that wish to be helped.
In Israel, 10,000+ people die per year from smoke and second hand smoke which compares with 20,000 that have died in all of the wars and from terror in Israel since the state was founded in 1948.
There are several good articles on smoking bans, etc in wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban
At the risk of giving anti-anti-smokers fodder....Hitler was very anti-smoking because he wanted to protect his master race. Pregnant women were not allowed to smoke...Nazis had good epidemiological studies by the late 30's, years ahead of US and Britain which had studies in the mid-50's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_Germany
David MD
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/914931.html
ReplyDeleteGazans complain of cigarette shortage due to Israeli sanctions
In Akram Abu Ghaben's hole-in-the wall grocery, cigarettes are no longer sold by the pack.
Skyrocketing prices - a result of Israel's economic sanctions on Gaza following the Hamas takeover in June - have pushed cigarettes out of the reach of many smokers.
In a tension-filled place where a pack of Marlboros is a badge of manliness and smoking is common, even in hospitals and elevators, many are now forced to face their addiction.
Advertisement
Some have quit, while others are reluctantly cutting back, cursing Israel for keeping most cigarettes out and the Hamas government for clamping high taxes on whatever gets through.
Mahmoud Zahar, a stern Hamas ideologue and physician, said he's not moved by the smokers' complaints.
"We are very happy about their suffering, said Zahar, pointing to the obvious health and financial benefits of the cigarette shortage."
A pack of Lucky Strike has gone from NIS 10 [about $2.50] in June to NIS 25 [about $6.25]. That's far more than what most Gazans can afford after 19 months of international sanctions against Hamas; about two-thirds of Gaza's 1.4 million people live on less than $2 a day.
Abdel Basset Hajaj, 50, who has been smoking since age 12, quit his two-pack-a-day habit altogether this week. The burly security officer said he had toyed with the idea for years, and that the price hike gave him the final push.
For doctors and mosque preachers, the cigarette shortage is a blessing.
Hazem Sarraj, 57, a Gaza City eye doctor and lay preacher, said he has been telling his flock for years that smoking is haram, or forbidden by Islam, because it's a health hazard.
However, he said he had not made much impact until a recent sermon, when he reminded his listeners that for the price of a pack of cigarettes they could buy 200 pieces of pita bread.
They shook my hand afterward, he said. A lot of them decided to quit
cigarettes.
__
Since the above article was written, Hamas opened up many weapons and commercial smuggling tunnels and has resupplied the Gazans with smokes (and Viagra) but with a heavy tax which they use to fund their terror...
Israel has now bombed the tunnels so the price of smokes will be going up again...and hopefully save lots of Gazans from smoking...despite Hamas's wishes to the contrary...
-------
Regarding the Gaza battle I would like you to know that Israel is doing what it can to minimize casualties....
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230456505080&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
The GPS-guided GBU-39 is said to be one of the most accurate bombs in the world. The 113-kg. bomb has the same penetration capabilities as a normal 900-kg. bomb, although it has only 22.7 kg. of explosives.
Palestinians reported that they received phone calls to their cellular phones and landlines from the IDF. The phone call, the Palestinians said, conveyed a recorded message ordering the immediate evacuation of homes that were next to Hamas infrastructure or being used by the terrorist organization.
http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/dershowitz/entry/israel_s_actions_are_lawful
In one recent incident, Israeli intelligence learned that a particular house was being used to manufacture and store rockets. It was a clear military target since their rockets were being fired at Israeli civilians. But the house was also being lived in by a family. So the Israeli military phoned the house, informed the owner that it was a military target, and gave him thirty minutes to leave with his family before the house was attacked. The owner called Hamas, which immediately sent dozens of mothers carrying babies to stand on the roof of the house.
Thank goodness Israel was aware of the Hamas move endangering the mothers and their babies....
David MD
Anon at 3:16 - Yes, public health has to trump individual rights in the interest of public safety. The examples you site, and other notorious examples including the Nazis, were based on religion and ethnicity, not on health. Patients with infective TB need to be quarantined regardless of your race, gender, religion, nationality, etc. Otherwise, we have an outbreak of multi-drug resistant TB on our hands. That's what public health is all about.
ReplyDeleteI don't think you can really compare smoking to driving either. Driving has a purpose. It gets us from point A to point B. While buses and bikes are great alternatives, it is not always best to use them (i.e. 2 am, pouring rain, 3 kids and some groceries, etc.) Smoking, on the other hand, serves no purpose but to hurt people. People are free to hurt themselves, but I do not want it hurting me and I do not want my tax dollars going to pay for the smokers 5th COPD admission this year. I'll pay for the poor little lady who took care of herself her whole life and ended up with breast cancer instead. The resources are limited, we need to spends them more wisely.
I for one am grateful for the ban on smoking in public places. Because of that I can eat in a restaurant and enjoy my meal whereas when I go to Europe where no such ban is in place, I have to be subjected to toxic fumes of smokers who don't give a damn about others. I can go to work and not have to risk my health because of smokers who don't give a damn about the torture their habit inflicts on others as they used to in the past.
ReplyDeleteMy mother, on the other hand, used to work in an office (in an engineering company, not a bar) before such a ban was in place for a number of years. Actually, the ban was introduced while she still was employed, but most of her co-workers as well as her boss ignored it. Because she needed the job, she went to work every day. She now has lung cancer even though she has NEVER smoked herself and neither had her husband or her father or anybody in her family. Had her exposure to second hand smoke caused her lung cancer? Maybe not, but I cannot help but wonder if my mother would still get lung cancer had there been a smoking ban in place when she worked.
hate the sin not the sinner...ban away but do stop with the not so subtle aspersions on people who smoke...
People who smoke poison those around them and don't give a damn about it. How many non-smokers got ill and died because of their neighbors or co-workers who smoked? It may be irrational, but to me they are as bad as drunk drivers who kill.