Tobacco smoking: when to allow, and when to forbid?

[Brian-E]

Few people, including hardened smokers, can get away anymore with claiming that smoking is not dangerous both for the smoker and for anyone else who must breathe in their tobacco smoke (passive smoking). But how far should society go in prohibiting smoking? Where do we draw the line between safeguarding public health and allowing smokers the freedom to indulge their habit (to which they may be addicted and unable to stop without physical and psychological trauma)?

Here in The Netherlands last month, the organisation "Clean Air Nederland" announced a campaign to forbid smoking on people's own private balconies and in their private gardens because of the potential problems caused to their neighbours. The organisation is bringing about a lawsuit to attempt to enforce this. And today a prominent doctor has expressed the opinion that smoking by employees during work time should be banned completely, including during break times (at the moment we merely forbid smoking inside buildings where people are at work, and employees can go outside to smoke during breaks). (Source article, in Dutch: http://nos.nl/artikel/2060823-verbie...-het-werk.html .)

And in Britain, a new law in force since yesterday prohibits smoking in private cars if a child is present. (Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/smoking-in-vehicles .)

Are these measures justified, or are they too much of an infringement on smokers' freedom? Where do we draw the line between freedom to smoke and the safeguarding of public health?

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Where do we draw the line between freedom to smoke and the safeguarding of public health?

An interesting question...

My personal rule (as a smoker) is I will never smoke outside of my own space. One should be constrained in public space.

But, if you want to enter my personal space (and at my sufferance, clearly) then you are entering my space. Deal with it.

[petrw1]

warning I am an extremist on this topic...but that attitude (nagging) did help my wife stop smoking after 32 years and she is glad she did.

Reader Discretion is Advised

I would ban it completely ... it serves no useful purpose and IMHO there is no situation where it is harmless or only affects the smoker.

Besides the obvious second-hand smoke affects on by-standers: Just off the top of my head....

DISCLAIMER: I will admit in advance that someone can find an exception to every point below... but I am talking about the rule not the exception. In the same way that I had an Uncle who actually drove better drunk and never had an accident while drunk will convince no one that maybe drunk driving isn't necessarily bad.

1. If you are part of a family unit you are literally burning family money. Granted in many other countries they are cheaper but not free; in Canada a typical(?) pack-a-day smoker costs the family $3,000 or more per year; potentially a little less if you roll your own or buy them in the States or on a Reservation. And that is just the cost of the cigarettes themselves.

2. Your Life Insurance cost is higher or in some cases smoking may lead to medical condition that make it impossible to even get life insurance.

3. Smokers generally have more sick time; more and longer colds. Your family will have to buy more medicine. And if you work by the hour that is more lost family pay.

4. You will likely die younger increasing the odds you will leave your Spouse or Children or Parents sooner; not to mention them likely having to watch you suffer more later in life whether it is Cancer or COPD or Emphysema or Heart or Stroke, etc.

5. If your Country has funded or paid Health Care (Canada does) you are costing the system (i.e. Tax-Payers) more than non-smokers. And taking up so many rooms in hospitals that other people who are sick due to condition they did NOT bring on themselves may be turned away.

6. Most smokers take more and longer work-breaks and if circumstances at work restrict their breaks they will get more irritable to work with due to the need for Nicotine. And even if they smoke outside they still bring it back in their lungs and clothing irritating those with more sensitive allergies.

7. If cigarettes run out unexpectedly as more time passes they will get more desperate to find some. On the first trip with my wife she ran out in Mexico in the evening....not smoking until morning was NOT an option. Most stores were closed and she ended up dragging me into quite a "sketchy" neighborhood to buy them.

8. Litter, litter everywhere. Even when there are ash trays near by why do some many have to simply toss them on the ground or street. I read about a community (not sure where) that did a mass cleanup or their beach and taking the time to categorize and count what was polluting the beach. Cigarette butts were BY FAR the most plentiful garbage they found; that is they did NOT compost on their own.

.... OK enough for now .... I need to get back to work.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by petrw1

5. If your Country has funded or paid Health Care (Canada does) you are costing the system (i.e. Tax-Payers) more than non-smokers. And taking up so many rooms in hospitals that other people who are sick due to condition they did NOT bring on themselves may be turned away.

Actually, smokers tend to die quite quickly. If they've paid into the system, then they're actually contributing to the health care system overall.

But I generally agree with you -- smoking tobacco is a really, really stupid idea.

[only_human]

Corporations use trade deal laws to pressure governments against restraint of trade. It is a point on contention in the TPP trade deal as regards tobacco:
U.S. Proposes Provision on Tobacco in Trade Pact

Tobacco consumption more than doubled from 1970 to 2000 in the developing world, which is now home to more than three-quarters of the world’s smokers.

“Countries want to put a stop to the abuse of the trade system by the tobacco companies,” said Matthew Myers, president of Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, an anti-tobacco advocacy group. “This language sounds like it does that.”

Companies declined to comment on the provision on Thursday, saying it was not final. A group of business trade organizations, including the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said in a statement this week it would oppose “a wide range of product and industry exclusions from core rules.”

The tobacco exception is one of a number of changes that would be made in such trade arbitration panels largely in response to widespread criticisms. On the left and right, critics have complained that the settlement process favors big corporations and threatens the sovereignty of nations to take actions and pass laws safeguarding public health and safety.