Smoking bans

[Pilkington]

Under a communist system, would smoking bans, like the ones that we see popping up here and there in various countries, be an issue?

[theblackmask]

The thing about smoking bans is that they are based on the fact that the "tobacco" we smoke now can hardly be called that. There is so much filler and chemical shit in cigarettes that the unhealthiness of smoking is greatly increased. Ideally, the tobacco we smoke in a future society will be so much less harmful that smoking won't need to be banned in places.

[Pilkington]

The thing about smoking bans is that they are based on the fact that the "tobacco" we smoke now can hardly be called that. There is so much filler and chemical shit in cigarettes that the unhealthiness of smoking is greatly increased. Ideally, the tobacco we smoke in a future society will be so much less harmful that smoking won't need to be banned in places.

But given that the tobacco around now is what it is, do you think it's right or wrong to ban smoking in pubs and such?

[danyboy27]

The thing about smoking bans is that they are based on the fact that the "tobacco" we smoke now can hardly be called that. There is so much filler and chemical shit in cigarettes that the unhealthiness of smoking is greatly increased. Ideally, the tobacco we smoke in a future society will be so much less harmful that smoking won't need to be banned in places.

it would still be verry harmful, inhaling smoke is usually a verry bad thing for the respiratory system.

[Pretty Flaco]

yeah fuck your smoking. go smoke somewhere else asshole

[thesadmafioso]

So far as I know, there isn't really an established consensus on how to handle smoking in a communistic society, and with good reason I suppose. Decrees on smoking should be quite far down on our list of political priories, given the presence of more pressing issues.

Interesting bit of historical precedent though, Lenin despised smoking. He would always force house guests in his apartment to smoke outside, even if it were well bellow zero on that given day. He also forced a train full of smokers to refrain from doing so for the better portion of a train ride from Switzerland to Russia in one amusing instance.

[CommieTroll]

Wish I never started the horrible habit, I don't see why there wouldn't be smoking bans in a Marxist society, but how will we smoke our cigars after the revolution?:laugh:

[Ose]

In a commmunist society, since social issues would be managed by the members of society as a whole, local communities could get together and designate an indoor public space as smoke-free by consensus. The absence of a universal state-enforced ban would mean that both smokers and haters would be well catered for in terms of bars, restaurants etc.

[Rusty Shackleford]

how would the issue be handled? Well have to see how communism does things before we can get to that question.

Possibly by councils in their 'jurisdiction.'

who knows really though. Humanity has never gotten beyond just the beginnings of socialism. To try and figure out how to operate a society long before it is even relevant is idealism. Communism develops out of socialism.

[theblackmask]

it would still be verry harmful, inhaling smoke is usually a verry bad thing for the respiratory system.

Inhaling smoke is not necessarily a bad thing. Sure, in large amounts, such as a pack a day, but you have to take into account that today's cigarettes are chemically engineered to be more addictive. I would imagine that in the future, people would smoke less and the smoke would be less harmful, thereby eliminating the need for banning smoking.

People would, of course, still be able to request that guest smoke outside, and things like that, but with changes in cigarettes, I see the idea of smoking bans as something that really wouldn't be an issue.

[Ingraham Effingham]

it would still be verry harmful, inhaling smoke is usually a verry bad thing for the respiratory system.

http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20060523/pot-smoking-not-linked-to-lung-cancer

[danyboy27]

Inhaling smoke is not necessarily a bad thing. Sure, in large amounts, such as a pack a day, but you have to take into account that today's cigarettes are chemically engineered to be more addictive. I would imagine that in the future, people would smoke less and the smoke would be less harmful, thereby eliminating the need for banning smoking.

People would, of course, still be able to request that guest smoke outside, and things like that, but with changes in cigarettes, I see the idea of smoking bans as something that really wouldn't be an issue.

Nicotine is a natural substance present in the tobacco plant, there is no need to add more chemical to make it more addictive.

and yes, inhaling smoke is ALWAYS a bad thing for your health.

Smoking ban make sense at the workplace, in hospital, school and other public building for various reasons like hygiene and the respect of those who are not smoking, not to mention health issues for the non-smoker has well.

One thing that can be done to accomodate both is to have special area like a cigar lounge where smoker could go and smoke cig/drug has much has they want.

the current approach of various governement is dirrected at forcing the smoker to stop, that why they want people to smoke outside so they feel like shit and quit.

Personally, i couldnt care less if somebody decide to smoke until he cough blood, i just dont want to die has well beccause of him/her.

[Nox]

In public indoor areas where children would be, it shouldn't be allowed. It doesn't matter how much crap is mixed in with it, it's still harmful

[danyboy27]

http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20060523/pot-smoking-not-linked-to-lung-cancer

i didnt said smoking give cancer, i said smoking are bad for the lung.
and beside, this kind of research is bullshit, i could do the same kind of research regarding the risk of having cancer and eating bologna.

[brigadista]

i love smoking -its my addiction - but

im not going to impose it on anyone who is working in a place i go therefore i have no problem smoking outside or socially away from non smokers

[Princess Luna]

I find the idea of banning smoking in public buildings like bars and restaurants is ridiculous, if a place wants to allow smoking than they should put some form of warning to let people know smoking is allowed, and if you have a problem then you can go somewhere else. Buts it's insane Hookah bars are banned in some cities because of public smoking laws, if you go to a hookah bar and complain about second hand smoke you are the definition of a asshole.

[danyboy27]

I find the idea of banning smoking in public buildings like bars and restuarants is ridiculous, if a place wants to allow smoking than they should put some form of warning to let people know smoking is allowed, and if you have a problem then you can go somewhere else. Buts it's insane Hookah bars are banned in some cities because of public smoking laws, if you go to a hookah bar and complain about second hand smoke you are the definition of a asshole.

and yet cigar lounges are still open in many countries.

a big stupid to ban hookah bar.

[Bardo]

I think it would be a good idea to ban smoking inside public establishments. I said this as a smoker, and I'll continue to say so as a non-smoker.

The outdoor smoking bans are just ridiculous though.

[MattShizzle]

Even outdoor are good if it's within so far of a building - so those entering and exiting aren't subject to smoke.

[Dr Mindbender]

Smokers who smoke around others in non designated spots are selfish fuckers.

[Pilkington]

Smokers who smoke around others in non designated spots are selfish fuckers.

I regularly go to pubs where the owner lets people smoke despite the smoking ban. There are always non smokers as well as smokers and everybody is happy with the arrangement. There really isn't a problem as far as anyone there is concerned. It's actually far better than how the majority of pubs are now, and the social atmosphere is noticeably better.

[scarletghoul]

Its an urban myth. My friends and i tried smoking them in high school (well, the skins anyway) and it doesnt get you high at all. Just a waste of a good tropical fruit.

edit: woops misread the thread title

[Bardo]

Even outdoor are good if it's within so far of a building - so those entering and exiting aren't subject to smoke.

How much smoke are you really going to be subjected to outside? I can see how if there were a few thousand smokers huddled outside of a building somewhere the smoke may be a bit bothersome. But only an asshole would complain about a few smokers outside of a building. In my humble opinion ofcourse :)

[brigadista]

I find the idea of banning smoking in public buildings like bars and restaurants is ridiculous, if a place wants to allow smoking than they should put some form of warning to let people know smoking is allowed, and if you have a problem then you can go somewhere else. Buts it's insane Hookah bars are banned in some cities because of public smoking laws, if you go to a hookah bar and complain about second hand smoke you are the definition of a asshole.

So you think its ok that those working in the places you mention are subjected to smoke regardless ???

[MattShizzle]

How much smoke are you really going to be subjected to outside? I can see how if there were a few thousand smokers huddled outside of a building somewhere the smoke may be a bit bothersome. But only an asshole would complain about a few smokers outside of a building. In my humble opinion ofcourse :)
Some of us actually get physically ill from even 1 or 2 people smoking nearby. Yes, including myself.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Some of us actually get physically ill from even 1 or 2 people smoking nearby. Yes, including myself.

Seriously.

If people have to smoke there should be some designated areas where they can do it with others who do without being a pest to those who don't. When people are "happy" with staying in a smoky environment in some restaurant or pub, it's not necessarily because they like it or are happy with it, it's just that they might be too nice too say anything about it.

I have those arseholes in other flats in my building who constantly smoke on their balconies, rendering it impossible to leave the balcony door open for more than an hour (at most!) during the day, and this is quite unbearable during hot summers. They sit and smoke on their balconies day, night, summer, winter; it's both ignorant and selfish.

[Princess Luna]

So you think its ok that those working in the places you mention are subjected to smoke regardless ???
Yes, because unless A.) You live with a chain smoker B.) You have immune problems or C.) Someone is shotgunning the smoke into your face, than brief exposer to second hand smoke is harmless. If waiter comes up to comes up to take your order while you are smoking a cigarette, anything she/he might breathe in , during the 10 seconds she/he was near you would be quickly taken care of by his/her immune system. Oh and for the record i don't smoke and hate the smell, but that's my problem and not the person who is smoking.

[theblackmask]

Some of us actually get physically ill from even 1 or 2 people smoking nearby. Yes, including myself.

Are you sure this is because of the tobacco being smoked, or because of the chemical additives?

[Bardo]

I'm sure it doesnt matter, the tobacco plant contains many carcinogens by itself.

But getting physically ill while two people smoke a few feet away from you outdoors is a little much for me to grasp. I can understand the smoking on the balcony and the wind blowing it all back indoors, but falling victim to the unbearable smoke of one or two cigarettes while passing someone on the street sounds a bit exaggerated. How much more ventilation would you need?

[brigadista]

Yes, because unless A.) You live with a chain smoker B.) You have immune problems or C.) Someone is shotgunning the smoke into your face, than brief exposer to second hand smoke is harmless. If waiter comes up to comes up to take your order while you are smoking a cigarette, anything she/he might breathe in , during the 10 seconds she/he was near you would be quickly taken care of by his/her immune system. Oh and for the record i don't smoke and hate the smell, but that's my problem and not the person who is smoking.

you are not taking into account that if everyone is smoking the place gets very smoky all the time and I think that the workers in the place should have protection from the smoke -its a health and safety issue

[MattShizzle]

Also, the immune system has nothing to do with it. It only kills living organisms that are harmful.

[Dogs On Acid]

Invest in a smoke filtering system instead of banning people.
Allow smokers and non-smokers to linger together.
??????
Profit!

[28350]

An interesting position:

The point Bordiga was trying to make here was that not even in full socialism would individuals be able to consume whatever they might feel they wanted to; they would only be able to consume whatever society had decided should be available for individual consumption. Thus, to use an example Bordiga gave, people would only be able to smoke cigarettes if socialist society decided to produce them (which Bordiga thought unlikely); or people would only be able to visit the moon if socialist society decided to devote resources to provide facilities for all who wanted to go there.

[punisa]

If there will be a ban on smoking under communism, then I don't want to be a communist no more :lol:

[theblackmask]

An interesting position:

What if someone simply decided to plant some tobacco in the ground and make their own cigarettes? It doesn't take means of production to do that.

[Vanguard1917]

It's fantastic that a grown man or woman can now potentially be arrested for having a cigarette in a pub. Communism will uphold this immense gain for the working class.

[Klaatu]

Inhaling smoke is not necessarily a bad thing.

How can you justify this? :confused:

[Mac]

I think that in a fully developed, moneyless, communist society the smoking industry will decrease, as people will not be motivated by the amount of money.

[Klaatu]

I think in a post-capitalist society, there will actually be less usage of tobacco, alcohol and drugs (except marijuana) because there will be no one around to manufacture them. Well alcohol might exist, but would not be as freely available, as it might be hard to make money on it?

As far as tobacco is concerned, you would have to grow it yourself, or if someone did grow it, it might be in perpetual short supply (hence fewer addictions, along with a big increase in the public health)

[brigadista]

i'm against bans but for consideration of others

[RNL]

An interesting position:

The point Bordiga was trying to make here was that not even in full socialism would individuals be able to consume whatever they might feel they wanted to; they would only be able to consume whatever society had decided should be available for individual consumption. Thus, to use an example Bordiga gave, people would only be able to smoke cigarettes if socialist society decided to produce them (which Bordiga thought unlikely); or people would only be able to visit the moon if socialist society decided to devote resources to provide facilities for all who wanted to go there.
I was just about to say this. How likely is it that there would be a democratic consensus on producing such a toxic cancer-agent on an industrial scale?

The same sort of principle, I'd imagine, would lead to a much higher quality of food production.

[Crux]

I know it has been pointed out before, but it deserves being said again. Why I am in favour of smoking bans in pubs and indoor public spaces is primarily for the benefit of the employees. Smoking is dangerous. Being subject to massive amounts of second-hand smoke everyday of your job even more so. As a smoker myself I might find it convenient to be able to smoke indoors, but I don't put my convenience over other people's health. And let's not forget people who suffer allergies to tobacco smoke. Why should they not have equal access?

[Rss]

Invest in a smoke filtering system instead of banning people.
Allow smokers and non-smokers to linger together.
??????
Profit!

I don't want to wear a gas mask just because some self-righteous pricks insist on poisoning the air with their damn cancer rolls. Separate smoking rooms are more sensible.

[Crux]

On a less serious note, gas mask's are cool though.

[Rss]

On a less serious note, gas mask's are cool though.

I agree. I especially like soviet model GP-5, black rubber.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

A more sensible arrangement would be to have smoking be permitted depending on the nature of the establishment and its typical clients. Which is why it hasn't happened.

Or how about this; have some establishments explicitly cater to smokers. If the owner and sole employee of a small bar wants to allow their customers to smoke, why shouldn't they?

[Dogs On Acid]

I don't want to wear a gas mask just because some self-righteous pricks insist on poisoning the air with their damn cancer rolls. Separate smoking rooms are more sensible.

What? I said a smoke filtering system for the room, not for your face :lol:

[Rss]

What? I said a smoke filtering system for the room, not for your face :lol:

How would that work? Some sort of extremely powerful fan system like those in fighting vehicles to vent out fumes?

[Dogs On Acid]

How would that work? Some sort of extremely powerful fan system like those in fighting vehicles to vent out fumes?

No man be real. Many Bars and Nightclubs already have it, just look it up. It makes both parties happy.

[Rss]

No man be real. Many Bars and Nightclubs already have it, just look it up. It makes both parties happy.

That's news to me, haven't been in a single establishment with that kind of system. Most bars here are smokeless.

[Vanguard1917]

Or how about this; have some establishments explicitly cater to smokers. If the owner and sole employee of a small bar wants to allow their customers to smoke, why shouldn't they?

The 'passive smoking' line of argument of the anti-tobacco zealots was always entirely disingenuous anyway. How would that line explain the sin taxes, the Orwellian 'health labels', the proposed bans in parks and other outdoor spaces, the constant lecturing and moralising about smokers' health, the complete refusal to consider any alternatives that would permit individual freedom for smokers as well as promote clean air for those that want it (improved ventilation systems, having bars that cater to smokers alongside bars that do not)?

The real motivation was not protecting non-smokers, but to increase state powers over ordinary people supposedly incapable of making decisions concerning the most mundane aspects of their everday lives.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The 'passive smoking' line of argument of the anti-tobacco zealots was always entirely disingenuous anyway. How would that line explain the sin taxes, the Orwellian 'health labels', the proposed bans in parks and other outdoor spaces, the constant lecturing and moralising about smokers' health, the complete refusal to consider any alternatives that would permit individual freedom for smokers as well as promote clean air for those that want it (improved ventilation systems, having bars that cater to smokers alongside bars that do not)?

The real motivation was not protecting non-smokers, but to increase state powers over ordinary people supposedly incapable of making decisions concerning the most mundane aspects of their everday lives.

Are people allowed to use stuff like vapourisers and electronic cigarettes?

[Crux]

The 'passive smoking' line of argument of the anti-tobacco zealots was always entirely disingenuous anyway. How would that line explain the sin taxes, the Orwellian 'health labels', the proposed bans in parks and other outdoor spaces, the constant lecturing and moralising about smokers' health, the complete refusal to consider any alternatives that would permit individual freedom for smokers as well as promote clean air for those that want it (improved ventilation systems, having bars that cater to smokers alongside bars that do not)?

The real motivation was not protecting non-smokers, but to increase state powers over ordinary people supposedly incapable of making decisions concerning the most mundane aspects of their everday lives.
Smoking kills. Nothing "orwelian" about it.

[Vanguard1917]

Smoking kills. Nothing "orwelian" about it.

Smoking can kill (the majority of people who smoke will not die as result of it). As can skiing, rock climbing or drinking alcohol... Should we support legislation against those things too?



Are people allowed to use stuff like vapourisers and electronic cigarettes?


I guess so. Why do you ask?

[Crux]

Smoking can kill (the majority of people who smoke will not die as result of it). As can skiing, rock climbing or drinking alcohol... Should we support legislation against those things too?



I guess so. Why do you ask?
the tobacco industry is far far more harmful than the skiing industry. You're only deluding yourself. And no I don't want to ban smoking, where did you get that idea from?

[Vanguard1917]

the tobacco industry is far far more harmful than the skiing industry. You're only deluding yourself. And no I don't want to ban smoking, where did you get that idea from?

The question boils down to whether we believe that people are fit to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to smoke -- or drink beer, or go skiing.

[RNL]

It also entails the question of whether industrial production of an addictive cancer-agent would continue in a society in which production is planned to meet social need. If not, then the question of people being fit to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to smoke is moot.

[Klaatu]

The 'passive smoking' line of argument of the anti-tobacco zealots was always entirely disingenuous anyway.

I will believe you when you can disprove the thousand or so studies which have found SHS to be harmful to health.



The real motivation was not protecting non-smokers, but to increase state powers over ordinary people supposedly incapable of making decisions concerning the most mundane aspects of their everday lives.

Now that's disingenuous. You claim tobacco scientific research to be disingenuous, yet go on to make a disingenuous argument yourself.:rolleyes:

[ColinAYB]

I work for the city parks here, and on my break I occasionally go sit down at a bench to smoke a cigarette or three. Now, if someone is already sitting at this bench, I'll ask their permission to light up, or else just find somewhere else to smoke. But this ridiculous shit where non-smokers go somewhere where there is clearly going to be smoking and complain about it is beyond me. If you dislike a situation, don't enter it in the first place.

[Princess Luna]

Everybody knows smoking causes cancer and is bad you, thanks impart to the fact most people are subjected to a endless stream of anti-smoking propaganda all through elementry and high-school and the fact it says it on the fucking carton. and yet even with that knowlage people are still willing to smoke. Of course this is unacceptable to the anti-smoking crowd, so they go and whine to politicians (who see a easy way to get more votes) to put big scary labels with grotesque pictures on cigarette cartons, ban smoking in public, and raise taxes on cigarettes so much people can't afford them. Of course when this fails to create a "smoke-free world" the anti-smokers will of course demand that tobacco be outlawed completely.
how do i know this? because the same kind of shit happened with drugs and alcohol and we all know how oh-so-well that did/is working to reduce comsumption of those substances. But shhhh don't tell this to the anti-smokers who are drooling over the idea of police kicking in people's doors for tobacco possession, all in the name of health of course!

[Crux]

The question boils down to whether we believe that people are fit to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to smoke -- or drink beer, or go skiing.
I agree that people should be able to decide for themselfes whetever or not they are subject to smoke, which is why i think it should be restricted in public spaces and where employees might be subject to unwanted smoke. Having specific smoking areas is fine by me. Brb going to take a smoke.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I agree that people should be able to decide for themselfes whetever or not they are subject to smoke, which is why i think it should be restricted in public spaces and where employees might be subject to unwanted smoke. Having specific smoking areas is fine by me. Brb going to take a smoke.

The thing is, if I remember correctly, the UK version of the ban prohibits even special areas in seperate rooms with ventilation. Besides, it's not as if establishments were prevented from being totally non-smoking even before the bans were put in place. Most fast food resturaunts became non-smoking well before then.