smoking!!!!!

[Sephiroth]

I can't argue against your experiences, and I wouldn't want to.


So perhaps you both have a point? Perhaps it isn't the case that it is as typical as Wiglaf says; but perhaps it happens more than your experiences suggest, too?



As someone who has never even been to California, I'm not really qualified to make a judgement on that.

[Vladd67]

OK Seph
Cannabis and mental health

Mental health of teenagers who use cannabis: Results of an Australian survey -- REY et al. 180 (3): 216 -- The British Journal of Psychiatry

Cannabis and mental health

[Sephiroth]

All of that may or may not be true, Vladd, but it does not affect any of my arguments. I wasn't arguing that cannabis should be legal, and the point remains that it is no more dangerous (and probably less dangerous) than alcohol.



So why is one illegal and the other celebrated?

[Teresa Edgerton]

Well, we tried banning alcohol in this country, Sephiroth, and the result was a spectacular failure. It seems that that particular genie is so completely out of the bottle that there's no putting it back again.

The smoking in public places ban, on the other hand, has been tried in several places, and has proved to be quite effective in doing what it sets out to do. (It's only a failure if you regard it as an attempt to stop people from smoking at all, which it isn't.)

In these things, I think it's a matter of putting your efforts where you think they will do the most good. Do what you can today.


The laws in this country against marijuana accomplish this much: They don't stop everyone from smoking it but they discourage a lot of people. Which is one reason, I suppose, why the dangers from a medical point of view are not as well known -- because for a long time there wasn't a large enough sampling to establish the health risks. I wish the law were more effective, but at least it accomplishes something -- the idea that kids could buy it in grocery stores with a fake ID if it were legalized is not an appealing one to me.

On the other hand, I am entirely in favor of marijuana being prescribed for medical purposes. Of course it has its dangerous side effects, but so do most medicines. And I think that compassion should outweigh all the other arguments that have (so far) been advanced.

[Wiglaf]

The attitude I describe against smokers is most pronounced in academic/educational settings. Teenagers are the most likely to go over to the remote smoking area to hang out and complain about smoke. Colleges and Universities are the most likely to eliminate smoking from parking lots. For the few years that there were outdoor smoking areas, they seemed to have often been placed in such a way as to disturb non-smokers to a greater degree than the previous situation. As far as public health goes, there seems to be little taught against drug use or their second hand smoke. I find it doubtful that tabacco smoke goes through appartment walls and that marijuana and methamphetamine smoke do not.
By the way smoking is banned: indoors(except residences), at outdoor public gatherings, public college campuses, parks, beaches, within 20?ft of bus stops, and in vehicles if a child is in it. If you go further, such as a ban in public housing where the poor live, then ban it instead of playing games. However, there should be the same concern over second hand smoke from illegal substances, burning neighborhoods, and oil-burning cars with faulty emissions equipment.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by Wiglaf

The attitude I describe against smokers is most pronounced in academic/educational settings. Teenagers are the most likely to go over to the remote smoking area to hang out and complain about smoke.

But a lot of people that age are just rude, Wiglaf, they don't need an excuse. If it wasn't one thing it would be another. (And I would imagine that the fact you are older makes you an appealing target.)

However, there should be the same concern over second hand smoke from illegal substances, burning neighborhoods, and oil-burning cars with faulty emissions equipment.

Since first hand smoke from illegal substances is already a concern, worrying about second hand smoke seems a bit superfluous. And efforts are being made to prevent people from driving cars with faulty emissions equipment. It's not like these things are being ignored.

[Wybren]

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

Do you regard requiring people to take their cigarettes outside where the smoke won't make other people sick as punishment? From my point of view, it's simply making sure that they do what simple consideration for the rights and comfort of the people around them would have dictated in the first place.

Naturally I don't know what the situation has been in Australia, but when the laws about smoking in restaurants, bars, hotels, etc. went into effect here, no one was talking about punishment or trying to stop anyone from smoking, it was simply a health issue, an acknowledgement of the fact that people who don't choose to take up that habit should not have to take up the health risks (or become hermits).

And I imagine that any government program meant to help smokers quit would be regarded by most smokers as government meddling and a far worse instance of "the nanny" state than any ban on smoking in public places. We've already seen how pleased one father is that the schools are encouraging his children not to take up the habit themselves.

I don't think that requiring people to smoke in an area which will cause the least harm to anyone is a punishment, but I am sure that many of the people that smoke feel that way. What I was trying to get at is that Smoking is as much as a addiction as any other and until more support is offered and means of quitting is made less expensive the laws are just serving to alienate the people that smoke. But as I said earlier this could be applied to many other problems in society, it is all well and good to to say "this is bad don't do it" but unless support and means of change are offered in a positive manor people are unlikely to change behaviours.

[Wiglaf]

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

But a lot of people that age are just rude, Wiglaf, they don't need an excuse. If it wasn't one thing it would be another. (And I would imagine that the fact you are older makes you an appealing target.)

Yet, marijuana smoking is glamorized, has no comparable program of education against its use, and is smoked in appartments all over but with out ads about how your neighbor is killing you with their second hand smoke. Also, have know noticed that unlike illict drugs, the education against cigarettes focuses not upon the ill effects of use but upon how those who smoke are killing you? Reckless driving can kill a bystander more quickly; why is there no education against that? Also, shouldn't smoking something illegal and subjecting others to its secondhand smoke carry a larger fine than smoking something legal in an illegal location as the first example breaks two rules and the second instance only one?

[Ursa major]

There are a number of reasons why the authorities might publicise the effects on the wider public.

• One is to circumvent arguments about personal freedom (i.e. you may wish to smoke yourself into an early grave or whatever, but there's a suggestion that you cannot expect to inflict the effect on others).

• Another is to build up a feeling of disapproval of a behaviour in the population as a whole. While laws are fine in themselves, they are not nearly as powerful as general public disdain for an activity; for one thing, the public is everywhere - even with CCTV, the police are not.

[Wiglaf]

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

Since first hand smoke from illegal substances is already a concern, worrying about second hand smoke seems a bit superfluous. And efforts are being made to prevent people from driving cars with faulty emissions equipment. It's not like these things are being ignored.

The effort put into the campaigns are on a totally different level. The campaign against illegal substances has been virtually non-existant since the 80's. To my knowledge, there has never been a campaign in schools or in advertisements to increase awareness about breaking air pollution emissions laws. It is not about health but rather who is a minority of voters; implementing programs to reduce alcohol, marijauana, reckless driving, and gross air pollutors would affect too many voters in a way that they would find unpleasant.

[Wybren]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

All of that may or may not be true, Vladd, but it does not affect any of my arguments. I wasn't arguing that cannabis should be legal, and the point remains that it is no more dangerous (and probably less dangerous) than alcohol.



So why is one illegal and the other celebrated?

Just saw this and have to say, I agree. As someone who has observed close family members with addictions to both of these substances, I feel that they are both as a bad as each other, yet going out and drinking is still socially acceptable.

[Wiglaf]

Originally Posted by Ursa major

There are a number of reasons why the authorities might publicise the effects on the wider public.

• One is to circumvent arguments about personal freedom (i.e. you may wish to smoke yourself into an early grave or whatever, but there's a suggestion that you cannot expect to inflict the effect on others).

• Another is to build up a feeling of disapproval of a behaviour in the population as a whole. While laws are fine in themselves, they are not nearly as powerful as general public disdain for an activity; for one thing, the public is everywhere - even with CCTV, the police are not.

Why is this only true for cigarettes? Why not make it socially undesirable to do something illegal that is harmful to others?

[Ursa major]

I can't quantify how many people smoke, say, marijuana as compared to tobacco, but I'm willing to guess that it's a much lower number. That being so, the risk of being affected by, say, secondary marijuana smoking must also be low, and certainly not enough to build up a strong feeling in the general public.

(Other drugs, I'm not so sure about - I've always suspected that at least some of the odder decisions to emanate from government, business and the financial world have their roots in substance abuse.)

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

Well, we tried banning alcohol in this country, Sephiroth, and the result was a spectacular failure. It seems that that particular genie is so completely out of the bottle that there's no putting it back again.

The smoking in public places ban, on the other hand, has been tried in several places, and has proved to be quite effective in doing what it sets out to do. (It's only a failure if you regard it as an attempt to stop people from smoking at all, which it isn't.)

In these things, I think it's a matter of putting your efforts where you think they will do the most good. Do what you can today.

I see your point, and I should reiterate that the opinion I expressed earlier was not that I opposed the implementation of a smoking ban in public places per se, but that I felt the ban was too draconian, in that it extended into areas it should not have (such as the private members’ clubs).

I do agree that prohibition can cause more problems than it solves.


As for the illegality of substances being a deterrent to their use, I’m not so sure about that. I think education and positive social pressure are far more effective tools. Anecdotally, I have never met anyone who wanted to take drugs, but didn’t because they were illegal. On the other hand, I know many people who refused to take them because they understood the negative impact of that choice, both on themselves and others around them.

Controversial as this opinion may be, I believe that the best way to tackle the serious problem of the devastating impact of dangerous illegal drugs – particularly those such as heroin, crack cocaine and methamphetamine – is not to criminalise the users. I would like to see these substances decriminalised (this is not the same as legalisation!) and strictly controlled, with registers for addicts, and programs in place to help them tackle their addiction. I do not believe that this would lead to a rush of new people seeking to take these drugs just because they were no longer illegal. In fact, I believe that some of the ‘glamour’ that Wiglaf mentions would be lost, and that the stigma of being a registered drug addict would be a greater deterrent than the remote threat of imprisonment (which itself has a certain caché on the streets). I also feel that this would strike a blow against the lucrative black market, the control of which by groups of organised criminals is responsible for the worst crime problems. It would also help to address the problem of lower-level crime, however, reducing the need for people to steal in order to fund their habits.


The ‘War on Drugs’ is a spectacular failure, and I would like to see a new approach to the problem.


I’m against criminalising tobacco users for similar, if less dramatic reasons.

[Wiglaf]

California's population is about 34million, it has roughly 4million smokers(3.6mil adult and 200,000 underage). That is less than 12%. I could not find marijuana data on the State web site.