should menthol cigarettes be banned

[Ban my account ffs!]

I try to stay out of this debate because I'm really torn.

I am mildly allergic to cigarette smoke (though it bothers me less now than it used to, mainly just aggravating symptoms if I have a cold/other allergies), so I personally enjoy the smoking ban in Minnesota because I can go to the bars without having to reek like an ash tray the next day... and stepping outside with smokers isn't a big deal because we're outside so the smoke dissipates.

But at the same time the smoking ban has hurt some businesses (especially rural bars), so I understand that point... so there has to be a compromise.

How about we allow smoking inside as long as it's a designated "smoking room" that is separate from the rest of the bar with adequate ventilation?  Business owners will want to make them nice as to attract smokers, but the main bar area would be non-smoking.  I also think hotels should be able to have smoking (my county bans it)... the workers are never in the room when the guest is smoking, so who cares about a little stale smoke smell while you're cleaning?

I also think cities should provide ash trays to smokers and enforce littering laws.  Smokers are very guilty of just tossing their cigarette butts wherever the wind takes them leading to litter as well as dangerous forest fires in some areas.

[Ebowed]

No, but I don't understand the (proposed) ban on flavored cigarettes either.

People can make their own decisions about smoking.

[Flying Dog]

think of all of the things parents do to endanger their children.  the state simply can't regulate personal behavior beyond a certain point.  banning tobacco wouldn't work and isn't desirable.

and most restaurants/bars don't ban smoking because it's economically beneficial for them not to.

Actually, many non-partisan reports have shown that a smoking ban slowly decreases business for a short while but eventually rebounds and actually increases business in some cases since 80% of people don't smoke.

[© tweed]

think of all of the things parents do to endanger their children.  the state simply can't regulate personal behavior beyond a certain point.  banning tobacco wouldn't work and isn't desirable.

and most restaurants/bars don't ban smoking because it's economically beneficial for them not to.

Actually, many non-partisan reports have shown that a smoking ban slowly decreases business for a short while but eventually rebounds and actually increases business in some cases since 80% of people don't smoke.

the said businesses wouldn't allow smoking if they didn't think it was beneficial monetarily.

and non-partisan reports also have shown that smoking bans increase drunk driving deaths.

[Flying Dog]

think of all of the things parents do to endanger their children.  the state simply can't regulate personal behavior beyond a certain point.  banning tobacco wouldn't work and isn't desirable.

and most restaurants/bars don't ban smoking because it's economically beneficial for them not to.

Actually, many non-partisan reports have shown that a smoking ban slowly decreases business for a short while but eventually rebounds and actually increases business in some cases since 80% of people don't smoke.

the said businesses wouldn't allow smoking if they didn't think it was beneficial monetarily.

and non-partisan reports also have shown that smoking bans increase drunk driving deaths.

Or so the myth says. That's what Tobacco lobbyists want you to think. In fact, smoking in bars and restaurants affect non-smokers far more than smokers because the non-smokers are forced to take their business elsewhere. 

[© tweed]

I'm not quite sure which of my two statements you are calling a "myth," but neither has anything to do with "tobacco companies."  it's simply how businesses work: they exist to make a profit.  they choose to allow smoking because they believe that is the path to maximizing profit.  this concept has nothing to do with tobacco.

[Ebowed]

because the non-smokers are forced to take their business elsewhere.

Are they?

I'm aware of many nonsmokers who don't particularly mind the presence of cigarette smoke in a bar or restaurant that they happen to be at.  In fact, in bars it often reduces the smells of booze, farts, B.O., etc., none of which are pleasant smells (especially if you don't smoke and can smell those things to begin with )

[Albus Dumbledore]

How about we ban bans on public smoking?

[Flying Dog]

I'm not quite sure which of my two statements you are calling a "myth," but neither has anything to do with "tobacco companies."  it's simply how businesses work: they exist to make a profit.  they choose to allow smoking because they believe that is the path to maximizing profit.  this concept has nothing to do with tobacco.

The first one.

Yes, they believe smoking bans will reduce profits, wrongly. I can point you to many studies that back the concept that banning smoking doesn't hurt business in the long-term, if you want.

[Rob]

I'm tempted to say yes (menthols are dreadful), but no.

[© tweed]

I'm not quite sure which of my two statements you are calling a "myth," but neither has anything to do with "tobacco companies."  it's simply how businesses work: they exist to make a profit.  they choose to allow smoking because they believe that is the path to maximizing profit.  this concept has nothing to do with tobacco.

The first one.

Yes, they believe smoking bans will reduce profits, wrongly. I can point you to many studies that back the concept that banning smoking doesn't hurt business in the long-term, if you want.

you're talking about something else altogether: smoking bans instituted by the government against the choices of individual establishments in an area where the state has not banned smoking.  obviously if an entire county bans smoking, it isn't going to make too much difference, as smokers and non-smokers alike are robbed of their freedom of choice.  but what we're talking about here are individual establishments near you allowing smoking.  they allow smoking because it is profitable for them to do so, or at minimum, they believe so.  it's comical that you profess to know more about running your local Friday's or diner than the owner himself does when you have no access to the data.

[Flying Dog]

I'm not quite sure which of my two statements you are calling a "myth," but neither has anything to do with "tobacco companies."  it's simply how businesses work: they exist to make a profit.  they choose to allow smoking because they believe that is the path to maximizing profit.  this concept has nothing to do with tobacco.

The first one.

Yes, they believe smoking bans will reduce profits, wrongly. I can point you to many studies that back the concept that banning smoking doesn't hurt business in the long-term, if you want.

you're talking about something else altogether: smoking bans instituted by the government against the choices of individual establishments in an area where the state has not banned smoking.  obviously if an entire county bans smoking, it isn't going to make too much difference, as smokers and non-smokers alike are robbed of their freedom of choice.  but what we're talking about here are individual establishments near you allowing smoking.  they allow smoking because it is profitable for them to do so, or at minimum, they believe so.  it's comical that you profess to know more about running your local Friday's or diner than the owner himself does when you have no access to the data.

Yes, I'm talking about community and state-wide like bans on smoking, not individual establishment bans. It makes me laugh when you argue about a smokers "right" to smoke is going to be infringed by a ban on public smoking. However, aren't my rights to health and happiness being infringed by smokers. In Michigan, we have no ban whatsoever. So my choices as an individual are severely limited by smokers.

As for individual establishment bans affecting profits, you may be right on that, however I wasn't even arguing that point, so it's moot.

To tell you the truth, a universal smoking ban isn't even a big issue to me. I am however in favor of a public ban to most extents, which the MI legislature is hopefully going to pass soon. (The bill is tied up in conferance comm)

[© tweed]

It makes me laugh when you argue about a smokers "right" to smoke is going to be infringed by a ban on public smoking. However, aren't my rights to health and happiness being infringed by smokers. In Michigan, we have no ban whatsoever. So my choices as an individual are severely limited by smokers.

no - it's your choice to passionately hate smokers and cigarette smoke, and it isn't the government's job to cater to your tastes, unfortunately for you.  there is also nothing forcing you to enter establishments in which smoking is permitted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

it's nice to see you back off of your main thesis of the thread after you realize it's an indefensibly fascist position to hold.

[Flying Dog]

It makes me laugh when you argue about a smokers "right" to smoke is going to be infringed by a ban on public smoking. However, aren't my rights to health and happiness being infringed by smokers. In Michigan, we have no ban whatsoever. So my choices as an individual are severely limited by smokers.

no - it's your choice to passionately hate smokers and cigarette smoke, and it isn't the government's job to cater to your tastes, unfortunately for you.  there is also nothing forcing you to enter establishments in which smoking is permitted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

it's nice to see you back off of your main thesis of the thread after you realize it's an indefensibly fascist position to hold.

Oh yes, I hate half my family members and friends. God damn them to hell to burn for eternity. There's some more failed sarcasm for you.

Is it the Governments job to cater to the interests of smokers, then? Why is your opinion valued so much higher over mine.

Except the fact that 90% of Bars and Restaurants in MI allow smoking. So my choices are limited to the extreme.

I still hold that view and will likely alway's hold it, I'm just saying it's not up there with health care and the war and such.

[© tweed]

it is the government's job to protect personal freedom and choice.  again, your choices are limited because you CHOOSE to limit them.  the government doesn't have to cater to one man's interests by disenfranchising others arbitrarily.

if I felt it was the government's job to cater to the interests of smokers, as you allege, I wouldn't support allowing business owners to set their own smoking policies.  the opposite of a smoking ban would be the government forcing all establishments to permit smoking.  not the status quo, a concept that you can't quite grasp.

[Flying Dog]

it is the government's job to protect personal freedom and choice.  again, your choices are limited because you CHOOSE to limit them.  the government doesn't have to cater to one man's interests by disenfranchising others arbitrarily.

if I felt it was the government's job to cater to the interests of smokers, as you allege, I wouldn't support allowing business owners to set their own smoking policies.  the opposite of a smoking ban would be the government forcing all establishments to permit smoking.  not the status quo, a concept that you can't quite grasp.

You don't understand. I'm not asking for smokers to be treated as less than citizens. However, what takes place in the public domain is subject to public scrutiny. If an individual’s actions cause undue harm on others, their freedom is “superseded” by the common good of the public. Smoking is a perfect example of this: while everyone has the freedom of choice (to choose whether or not to be a smoker), the action of smoking causes unacceptable and unnecessary harm to others (who have not freely made that same choice) by exposing them to second-hand smoke. It is, therefore, justifiable for the government to place limits on the areas in which this harmful activity can take place, in the interest of public health.

[© tweed]

that's an extremely dangerous mindset to hold.  that is mob rule, pure and simple.  by that logic, we could easily ban automobiles, perhaps tap water, public restrooms, sexual intercourse, etc.

if you don't want to inhale secondhand smoke, don't.  it's that easy.  nobody is forcing you to enter establishments where smoking is permitted.  nobody is forcing you!  you have choice.  you must feel so free.

[Ban my account ffs!]

that's an extremely dangerous mindset to hold.  that is mob rule, pure and simple.  by that logic, we could easily ban automobiles, perhaps tap water, public restrooms, sexual intercourse, etc.

if you don't want to inhale secondhand smoke, don't.  it's that easy.  nobody is forcing you to enter establishments where smoking is permitted.  nobody is forcing you!  you have choice.  you must feel so free.

That's a slippery slope to be running down, Tweed.  You leave yourself open to scrutiny with an argument like that.

[© tweed]

I'd be willing to answer any questions you may have, Snowguy.

[Flying Dog]

that's an extremely dangerous mindset to hold.  that is mob rule, pure and simple.  by that logic, we could easily ban automobiles, perhaps tap water, public restrooms, sexual intercourse, etc.

if you don't want to inhale secondhand smoke, don't.  it's that easy.  nobody is forcing you to enter establishments where smoking is permitted.  nobody is forcing you!  you have choice.  you must feel so free.

Well, the difference is consent. People consent to those things, 2nd hand smokers don't or at least shouldn't have to.

Smoking killed an estimated 100 million people in the 20th century, according to the WHO.
As for your argument about voluntary inhalation:
What about the people who have to put up with smoking at the workplace? What are you going to say to them? "Sorry if your family goes hungry or the heat goes out in your house, I just can't have the rights of smokers infringed."
What about the children who have to live with their parents or sibling that smoke. What choice do they have? Analysis have said that 2nd hand smoke leads to 20-30% higher chance of lung cancer , but it's all about the smokers rights, right?

How about this, just go to a "smokeasy" place. If you don't want to put up with a smoking ban, then just stay home or go there. Nobody is forcing you to go to the establishments that ban smoking.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I think people are confusing bans and public bans.  I think (and I think most agree) I am one of the most pro-drug legalization people on this forum, yet I support public smoking bans.  The reason is because the argument for legalizing drugs is that it is a victimless crime, if you start exposing other people to it second-hand, its no longer victimless.

[© tweed]

Well, the difference is consent. People consent to those things, 2nd hand smokers don't or at least shouldn't have to.

yes, you do consent to it by putting yourself in situations where cigarettes may well be present.  the same way a driver doesn't try to get into car accidents but goes a long way towards increasing his risk by getting behind the wheel.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

so?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

most jobs in which there will be rampant smoking tend to be at bars or restaurants, where a few factors come into play; 1) it's a low-skill job, 2) the worker likely could make a similar wage somewhere else, and 3) these jobs are not the difference between heating your house or freezing to death.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

you know what, this is a good point.  but also take a look at alcohol.  babies get birth defects when their mothers drink, and kids get beaten by their drunken fathers on a nightly basis.  so I think we should ban alcohol too.  oh, wait.  we already tried that, no?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

yes, you do consent to it by putting yourself in situations where cigarettes may well be present.

That's probably one of the worst arguments that this forum has ever seen. Congratulations.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you even know what "consent" means?

Btw, I don't support banning cigarettes. The smokers lobby is as whiny, irritating and disgustingly self-pitying enough as it is.

[© tweed]

it is interesting for you to declare something "the worst argument this forum has ever seen" (paraphrase) when I can't quite remember you ever making an argument.  instead, as is above, you state opinions as if they are facts and infer some sort of knowledge without really saying much of anything.

[Albus Dumbledore]

it is interesting for you to declare something "the worst argument this forum has ever seen" (paraphrase) when I can't quite remember you ever making an argument.  instead, as is above, you state opinions as if they are facts and infer some sort of knowledge without really saying much of anything.