Unexpected Consequences - Smoking Bans/Drunk Driving

[kh1958]

That's the short version of the article. Demonica is involved, appropriately enough.

Club where girl, 12, stripped will keep license

Place where girl, 12, danced can't be closed under city ordinance

12:00 AM CDT on Thursday, March 27, 2008

By TANYA EISERER / The Dallas Morning News

teiserer@dallasnews.com

The mere fact that a 12-year-old girl danced nude at a northwest Dallas strip club isn't enough to close its doors.

That's because the city ordinance that regulates sexually oriented businesses does not allow authorities to revoke the license of such a business for employing someone under the age of 18.

The sixth-grader danced at Diamonds Cabaret over a two-week period late last year, authorities say. They also say they found a 17-year-old girl working in the club in January.

"If they're not shut down, it's like they're giving them permission to have underage girls dancing and working in that club," said the mother of the 12-year-old. The mother is not being named because her daughter, a runaway at the time of the incident, is considered a sexual assault victim.

Operators of the Diamonds Cabaret at 2444 Walnut Ridge St. did not return calls for comment. Their sexually oriented business license expires in November.

Demonica Abron, 27, who worked as a stripper in the club, and David Bell, 22, are facing charges in connection with the 12-year-old girl's dancing in the club. Mr. Bell does not appear to have been employed by the club.

Police officials are continuing to investigate whether the club's management knew the sixth-grader was underage.

The 23-page city ordinance does allow revocation of a club's license if, for example, the club knowingly allows prostitution, the sale or use of drugs at the club, or if there are two convictions for sex-related crimes at the club within a 12-month period.

The department also can suspend, but not revoke, the license of an escort agency for up to 30 days if it has employed anyone under 18.

But the ordinance does not give the department similar power over adult cabarets such as Diamonds Cabaret.

"There's a laundry list of things we can use to deny or revoke a license, but having a 12-year-old dancing in their establishment is not one of the things that automatically enables us to revoke their license," said Lt. Christina Smith, a vice unit commander who oversees licensing of such establishments.

The mother of the 12-year-old girl said her daughter ran away in early November. She said the family frantically began looking and her husband finally found their daughter in late November. She was then interviewed by police.

According to court records, the runaway gave the following account:

Mr. Bell and Ms. Abron, who went by the stage name "Jewels," offered the runaway shelter. Mr. Bell told her that she would be stripping at a club called "Diamonds."

Mr. Bell dropped them off at the club one day and Ms. Abron introduced her to a man named "David" in the club's office.

"Suspect David asked complainant if she had ever danced before, she said no," the court records state. "David" then gave her an application, which she filled out with a fake name. She also told him that she was 19.

When "David" asked to see her identification, she told him that she didn't have one. He told her to bring one when she came to work as a dancer.

"Complainant couldn't think of a fake birthday, so she told suspect 'David' she forgot her birthday," the records state. "Suspect 'David' gave her a funny look and told her she would have been born in 1988 if she was 19."

A couple of days later, Mr. Bell drove Ms. Abron and the victim back to the club, where Ms. Abron introduced her to a man named "Steve."

"Suspect 'Steve' told" the girl "to take her clothes off to see if she was too shy to dance nude," the records state. He told her she would have to pay a fee ranging from $10 to $30 each time she danced nude.

She danced that night and made about $100, of which she gave $30 to "Steve," the records state.

The court documents are unclear on how many nights she danced.

The mother of the 12-year-old says she believes the club must have known her daughter was underage.

"I think they just didn't care," her mother said. "She's 12, but she's got the body of a 20-year-old. All they were thinking about was the money she could bring in."

She said her daughter is now living with her grandmother in Arlington and again attending school.

Ms. Abron and Mr. Bell were indicted in late February on one count of felony sexual performance of the child in connection with making the 12-year-old work at the club. Both are also accused of engaging in organized crime.

Mr. Bell is accused of two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child and aggravated kidnapping. He is still being held in the Dallas County Jail in lieu of $450,000 bail.

Ms. Abron, who also faces a prostitution charge, has been released on bail from jail.

[Alexander]

As much as I dislike government interference,

it's, sadly, needed in order to protect us from ourselves.

Lack of respect, lack of common sense, etc...

Today, the city of Dallas has to look again at their ordinances

concerning local clubs because of a "loophole" that allowed a 12 year old

to dance naked in one of them here. So yet another appendage to a law...

R~~

I'm reminded of the "Simpsons" episode where Homer and Bart are watching Kent Brockmann talking about football on TV. Brockmann states that the only cure for "Football Fever" is to take two tickets to the big game. A hushed announcer voice quickly reads the disclaimer: "Tickets not to be taken internally."

Homer (to Bart): See? Because of me, they have a warning.

[Dan Gould]

According to court documents, the 12-year-old told club employees that she was 19, but couldn't give them identification and didn't know what year she was born if she were that age.

Thanks for the link. Pretty pathetic story - it reminds me though of when I worked in a phone sex room. Our way of screening out the kids who had gotten their horny underage hands on the ad in Hustler or Penthouse was to ask their age, and then their year of birth. Of course they'd not know the year, but only a few would hang up at that point, the rest would try to bluff their way through by confidently stating that they were born in such and such year. Of course since the state of math education in this country is pathetic, they were never right, and I always enjoyed quickly doing the math in my head so that I could tell them "If you were born in 1952, you'd be 45 years old, not 25" or "If you were 35 years old, you'd have been born in 1960." I think the worst one was when the kid told me he was 25 but gave a birth year that would have made him 72. Honest.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

but why in all the world does someone still smoke when he knows about the consequences? I'll never understand that mindset.

There are two, related, answers to that, as far as I'm concerned.

The first is that everyone should, and does, as far as I know, decide what risks, personal and third party, they're prepared to put up with in their life. There is no such thing as risk free living. I am moderately unhappy contributing to people's passive smoking - though they also have options they can exercise, such as get the fuck out. I would be a LOT more than moderately unhappy if I were to kill someone when I was driving a car; that's a risk I'm not prepared to take, so I've never learned to drive. The same consideration holds good for myself being killed in a road accident. Public transport is much safer; there are environmental issues, too.

Second point is that I became addicted before the harmful effects were greatly publicised. Tobacco is a good deal more addictive than most hard drugs. I am inadequately motivated to give up, since I spend very little on tobacco - I smoke less than 3 grammes a day, which of course affects my perception of risk - and because I actually enjoy it

MG

[ejp626]

but why in all the world does someone still smoke when he knows about the consequences? I'll never understand that mindset.

There are two, related, answers to that, as far as I'm concerned.

The first is that everyone should, and does, as far as I know, decide what risks, personal and third party, they're prepared to put up with in their life. There is no such thing as risk free living. I am moderately unhappy contributing to people's passive smoking - though they also have options they can exercise, such as get the fuck out.

MG

And yet before smoking bans came into force, there were large numbers of employees who really didn't have the same rights to remove themselves from the premises, and it is debatable how many reasonable alternatives there are for workers who wish to avoid smoke. Smoke free coffee shops started doing pretty well in the 1990s but smoke free bars usually failed if their competitors allowed smoking. Even further back, if the boss wanted to smoke, well there was smoking in the office, and on the train, even in airplanes at one point (talk about inflicting your choices/freedoms on others). Personally I find it tragic that adults smoke in homes with children (again those with almost no rights) and the logical conclusion is that one day it will be considered child endangerment to smoke around children. (Probably about the same time that the RealID finally gets switched on.)

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

but why in all the world does someone still smoke when he knows about the consequences? I'll never understand that mindset.

There are two, related, answers to that, as far as I'm concerned.

The first is that everyone should, and does, as far as I know, decide what risks, personal and third party, they're prepared to put up with in their life. There is no such thing as risk free living. I am moderately unhappy contributing to people's passive smoking - though they also have options they can exercise, such as get the fuck out.

MG

And yet before smoking bans came into force, there were large numbers of employees who really didn't have the same rights to remove themselves from the premises, and it is debatable how many reasonable alternatives there are for workers who wish to avoid smoke. Smoke free coffee shops started doing pretty well in the 1990s but smoke free bars usually failed if their competitors allowed smoking. Even further back, if the boss wanted to smoke, well there was smoking in the office, and on the train, even in airplanes at one point (talk about inflicting your choices/freedoms on others). Personally I find it tragic that adults smoke in homes with children (again those with almost no rights) and the logical conclusion is that one day it will be considered child endangerment to smoke around children. (Probably about the same time that the RealID finally gets switched on.)

By and large, society decides, from time to time, what kind of behaviour is acceptable in public. People who don't like that, have to put up with it - note the thread about the guy on the commuter train. And, as you note, it's only recently that there have been smoking bans. These happened first, as I recall, in workplaces (I'm talking about Britain, of course), where you note correctly that choice is most limited. But I was actually avoiding smoking near others well before that. And I haven't smoked indoors at home for more than thirty years.

MG

[porcy62]

but why in all the world does someone still smoke when he knows about the consequences? I'll never understand that mindset.

There are two, related, answers to that, as far as I'm concerned.

The first is that everyone should, and does, as far as I know, decide what risks, personal and third party, they're prepared to put up with in their life. There is no such thing as risk free living. I am moderately unhappy contributing to people's passive smoking - though they also have options they can exercise, such as get the fuck out.

MG

And yet before smoking bans came into force, there were large numbers of employees who really didn't have the same rights to remove themselves from the premises, and it is debatable how many reasonable alternatives there are for workers who wish to avoid smoke. Smoke free coffee shops started doing pretty well in the 1990s but smoke free bars usually failed if their competitors allowed smoking. Even further back, if the boss wanted to smoke, well there was smoking in the office, and on the train, even in airplanes at one point (talk about inflicting your choices/freedoms on others). Personally I find it tragic that adults smoke in homes with children (again those with almost no rights) and the logical conclusion is that one day it will be considered child endangerment to smoke around children. (Probably about the same time that the RealID finally gets switched on.)

By and large, society decides, from time to time, what kind of behaviour is acceptable in public. People who don't like that, have to put up with it - note the thread about the guy on the commuter train. And, as you note, it's only recently that there have been smoking bans. These happened first, as I recall, in workplaces (I'm talking about Britain, of course), where you note correctly that choice is most limited. But I was actually avoiding smoking near others well before that. And I haven't smoked indoors at home for more than thirty years.

MG

As smoker I have to say that I welcomed the smoking bans in public places, it's a form of respect for not smoking people. Nedless to say that I don't smoke in private closed places with children around, and I ask before lit a cigar or a cigarette even at my home.

At the same time I would like to see banned a lot of dangerous and annoying behavior like cell phones conversation in public places, driving useless gaz guzzler car (or eating Chilean strawberries in december in Chicago, London or Rome, that means ton of useless pollution for transport of stoopid fruit that you could eat in season).

In other words I respect non-smokers and their health, I would like the same respect back, I mean you don't like my cigarette and I don't like your polluting SUV in my neighbourhood.

Edited April 10, 2008 by porcy62

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

At the same time I would like to see banned a lot of dangerous and annoying behavior like cell phones conversation in public places, driving useless gaz guzzler car (or eating Chilean strawberries in december in Chicago, London or Rome, that means ton of useless pollution for transport of stoopid fruit that you could eat in season).

If enough people think the same way as you, these things will change - eventually; perhaps not soon enough, though.

MG

[ejp626]

At the same time I would like to see banned a lot of dangerous and annoying behavior like cell phones conversation in public places, driving useless gaz guzzler car (or eating Chilean strawberries in december in Chicago, London or Rome, that means ton of useless pollution for transport of stoopid fruit that you could eat in season).

If enough people think the same way as you, these things will change - eventually; perhaps not soon enough, though.

MG

Actually I just read that the EC is about to allow cell phones on airplanes, while the FAA is so far holding the line in the States. So I think things get worse before they get better. Right now we are in a period of elevating personal rights above any notion of a common good or responsibilities, but the pendulum may swing back. Hopefully we don't get too many vigilantes in the meantime.

[Jazzmoose]

Thanks for the link. Pretty pathetic story - it reminds me though of when I worked in a phone sex room. Our way of screening out the kids who had gotten their horny underage hands on the ad in Hustler or Penthouse was to ask their age, and then their year of birth. Of course they'd not know the year, but only a few would hang up at that point, the rest would try to bluff their way through by confidently stating that they were born in such and such year. Of course since the state of math education in this country is pathetic, they were never right, and I always enjoyed quickly doing the math in my head so that I could tell them "If you were born in 1952, you'd be 45 years old, not 25" or "If you were 35 years old, you'd have been born in 1960." I think the worst one was when the kid told me he was 25 but gave a birth year that would have made him 72. Honest.

Okay, I will definitely never call one of those lines...the thought of getting Dan on the line pretending to be Fifi, the French maid I expected is just too much to deal with!

[Dan Gould]

Thanks for the link. Pretty pathetic story - it reminds me though of when I worked in a phone sex room. Our way of screening out the kids who had gotten their horny underage hands on the ad in Hustler or Penthouse was to ask their age, and then their year of birth. Of course they'd not know the year, but only a few would hang up at that point, the rest would try to bluff their way through by confidently stating that they were born in such and such year. Of course since the state of math education in this country is pathetic, they were never right, and I always enjoyed quickly doing the math in my head so that I could tell them "If you were born in 1952, you'd be 45 years old, not 25" or "If you were 35 years old, you'd have been born in 1960." I think the worst one was when the kid told me he was 25 but gave a birth year that would have made him 72. Honest.

Okay, I will definitely never call one of those lines...the thought of getting Dan on the line pretending to be Fifi, the French maid I expected is just too much to deal with!

But notice that I said "worked at a phone sex room".

I left the industry quite a while ago, so its safe to call and ask for Fifi.

[Jazzmoose]

Whew!

[Guy Berger]

As smoker I have to say that I welcomed the smoking bans in public places, it's a form of respect for not smoking people. Nedless to say that I don't smoke in private closed places with children around, and I ask before lit a cigar or a cigarette even at my home.

At the same time I would like to see banned a lot of dangerous and annoying behavior like cell phones conversation in public places, driving useless gaz guzzler car (or eating Chilean strawberries in december in Chicago, London or Rome, that means ton of useless pollution for transport of stoopid fruit that you could eat in season).

In other words I respect non-smokers and their health, I would like the same respect back, I mean you don't like my cigarette and I don't like your polluting SUV in my neighbourhood.

Part of living in a free society means that we put up with "annoying behavior" like cell phone conversations in public places, people driving useless gas guzzler cars*** and eating Chilean strawberries wherever the hell they want to.

I don't think smoking in closed spaces is equivalent to any of those since it does actually poses a health risk.

Guy

***Let me add that I'm all for carbon and/or pollution taxes.

[porcy62]

As smoker I have to say that I welcomed the smoking bans in public places, it's a form of respect for not smoking people. Nedless to say that I don't smoke in private closed places with children around, and I ask before lit a cigar or a cigarette even at my home.

At the same time I would like to see banned a lot of dangerous and annoying behavior like cell phones conversation in public places, driving useless gaz guzzler car (or eating Chilean strawberries in december in Chicago, London or Rome, that means ton of useless pollution for transport of stoopid fruit that you could eat in season).

In other words I respect non-smokers and their health, I would like the same respect back, I mean you don't like my cigarette and I don't like your polluting SUV in my neighbourhood.

Part of living in a free society means that we put up with "annoying behavior" like cell phone conversations in public places, people driving useless gas guzzler cars*** and eating Chilean strawberries wherever the hell they want to.

I don't think smoking in closed spaces is equivalent to any of those since it does actually poses a health risk.

Guy

***Let me add that I'm all for carbon and/or pollution taxes.

Well, car's pollution is more then an "annoying behavior", it's a health risk and I don't think that pollution taxes are enough. Gas guzzler cars should be banned exactly like cigarettes, period. I mean that I don't think that you have any right to pose my health at risk because you can afford it. Let's say that I can pay 2000 $ of taxes per years for smoking my damn fags in public places, would it be OK for you? Same for industrial plants, let's say that they will cover your health insurance when you or your children got cancers because of them, is it a free society?

Welcome to the free world.

I agree that cell phone is an "annoying behavior".

Eating strawberries out of season is an "ignorant behavior".

You're free to be stupid and annoying in a free society, at the same time a free society should be able to educate itself and its citizens in order to survive beyond the abstract concept of "freedom" and the more pragmatic concept of "profit".

Basically I think the biggest problems are coming from the short term perspective of the market and politic, enviroment is a long term investment, citizens (stock holders in an economic perspective) want gain NOW, it would be up to ruling classes, politicians, (CEO) whatever you want to call them, at the end the citizens themselves, to think in long terms.

So they could quit some stupid and annoying behavior (and give some of their freedoms up) in order have long term benefits, like a clean and safe enviroment.

WTF am I the only one here who read John Locke and Thomas Hobbes?

Edited April 12, 2008 by porcy62

[Guy Berger]

Part of living in a free society means that we put up with "annoying behavior" like cell phone conversations in public places, people driving useless gas guzzler cars*** and eating Chilean strawberries wherever the hell they want to.

I don't think smoking in closed spaces is equivalent to any of those since it does actually poses a health risk.

***Let me add that I'm all for carbon and/or pollution taxes.

Well, car's pollution is more then an "annoying behavior", it's a health risk and I don't think that pollution taxes are enough. I mean that I don't think that you have any right to pose my health at risk because you can afford it. Let's say that I can pay 2000 $ of taxes per years for smoking my damn fags in public places, would it be OK for you? Same for industrial plants, let's say that they will cover your health insurance when you or your children got cancers because of them, is it a free society?

Welcome to the free world.

Yes... if smokers all paid sufficiently high fees for the privilege of smoking in public to cover the health damage they cause to those around them when smoking in public, then I think that would be a reasonable compromise. The same with pollution taxes etc etc.

Guy

[porcy62]

Part of living in a free society means that we put up with "annoying behavior" like cell phone conversations in public places, people driving useless gas guzzler cars*** and eating Chilean strawberries wherever the hell they want to.

I don't think smoking in closed spaces is equivalent to any of those since it does actually poses a health risk.

***Let me add that I'm all for carbon and/or pollution taxes.

Well, car's pollution is more then an "annoying behavior", it's a health risk and I don't think that pollution taxes are enough. I mean that I don't think that you have any right to pose my health at risk because you can afford it. Let's say that I can pay 2000 $ of taxes per years for smoking my damn fags in public places, would it be OK for you? Same for industrial plants, let's say that they will cover your health insurance when you or your children got cancers because of them, is it a free society?

Welcome to the free world.

Yes... if smokers all paid sufficiently high fees for the privilege of smoking in public to cover the health damage they cause to those around them when smoking in public, then I think that would be a reasonable compromise. The same with pollution taxes etc etc.

Guy

Actually smokers do it, if you consider the government's high taxes on tobacco, at least over here.

BTW we pay a lot of taxes on gasoline too.

The point is that it's not enough for public health and enviroment.

It might be questionable if one agree to trade his health with money.

Personally I don't.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Part of living in a free society means that we put up with "annoying behavior" like cell phone conversations in public places, people driving useless gas guzzler cars*** and eating Chilean strawberries wherever the hell they want to.

I don't think smoking in closed spaces is equivalent to any of those since it does actually poses a health risk.

***Let me add that I'm all for carbon and/or pollution taxes.

Well, car's pollution is more then an "annoying behavior", it's a health risk and I don't think that pollution taxes are enough. I mean that I don't think that you have any right to pose my health at risk because you can afford it. Let's say that I can pay 2000 $ of taxes per years for smoking my damn fags in public places, would it be OK for you? Same for industrial plants, let's say that they will cover your health insurance when you or your children got cancers because of them, is it a free society?

Welcome to the free world.

Yes... if smokers all paid sufficiently high fees for the privilege of smoking in public to cover the health damage they cause to those around them when smoking in public, then I think that would be a reasonable compromise. The same with pollution taxes etc etc.

Guy

Actually smokers do it, if you consider the government's high taxes on tobacco, at least over here.

BTW we pay a lot of taxes on gasoline too.

The point is that it's not enough for public health and enviroment.

It might be questionable if one agree to trade his health with money.

Personally I don't.

I had a big argument with a doctor a few years ago about whether health was a tradable commodity - of course, he thought that the mere idea was a burnable heresy. People do trade their health for other benefits, and smoking is one example of this; driving is another; riding a motor bike is an even more poignant example.

But the real point for society is whether other people's health is a tradable commodity. And it must be clear that I cannot trade in your health, any more than I can in your big stock of Mosaics that you don't know what to do with. So there's clearly a sound argument for banning smoking in public places.

But, as the main article makes clear, such things have unintended and worse consequences - or may have, since there's no conclusive proof, but let's say that the case is proved, since it's not in any way counter-intuitive. In such cases the correct strategy is to allow choice, but heavily weighted in favour of a ban. So perhaps, just as a business that is selling alcoholic drinks has to apply for a license to do so, so should a place in which it is intended that smoking should be permitted. Allowing sufficient loopholes in a ban to satisfy what really is a genuine market demand should obviate some of the worst of the unintended consequences of the ban. And leaves smokers and non-smokers alike with a viable choice of whether to risk their own health or not.

MG

[porcy62]

I had a big argument with a doctor a few years ago about whether health was a tradable commodity - of course, he thought that the mere idea was a burnable heresy. People do trade their health for other benefits, and smoking is one example of this; driving is another; riding a motor bike is an even more poignant example.

But the real point for society is whether other people's health is a tradable commodity. And it must be clear that I cannot trade in your health, any more than I can in your big stock of Mosaics that you don't know what to do with. So there's clearly a sound argument for banning smoking in public places.

But, as the main article makes clear, such things have unintended and worse consequences - or may have, since there's no conclusive proof, but let's say that the case is proved, since it's not in any way counter-intuitive. In such cases the correct strategy is to allow choice, but heavily weighted in favour of a ban. So perhaps, just as a business that is selling alcoholic drinks has to apply for a license to do so, so should a place in which it is intended that smoking should be permitted. Allowing sufficient loopholes in a ban to satisfy what really is a genuine market demand should obviate some of the worst of the unintended consequences of the ban. And leaves smokers and non-smokers alike with a viable choice of whether to risk their own health or not.

MG

Correct, but I trade MY health when I drive MY motorbike or I smoke. I've got nothing back when gaz guzzlers packed my neighbourghood in traffic jam. Where's the trading in this case? So why ban smoking in public places and allow Ferrari, BMW, Mercedes and Hummer in the city center? I mean health is health and the effects of car's pollution are proved.

You have the same very same right I have to drive your own veichle, but specific for emission should be more restrictive.

Edited April 13, 2008 by porcy62

[tkeith]

Personally, I dig going to bars without that shit making the air unbreathable.

And personally, I like playing in bars without that shit making the air unbreathable. And coming home smelling like somebody's ashtray (not to mention the smell of all my gear, and thus my vehicle, etc.)

Plus one on this. Finally, gone are the days where I have to set all my equipment out in the living room and on the porch for 3 days just to get the stench out of it.

The first is that everyone should, and does, as far as I know, decide what risks, personal and third party, they're prepared to put up with in their life. There is no such thing as risk free living. I am moderately unhappy contributing to people's passive smoking - though they also have options they can exercise, such as get the fuck out.

Except, as pointed out in a response, when smoking was allowed in the workplace here in the states. My mother, who never smoked a day in her life, grew up in a house with smokers, then worked much of her life with them. At 60, she died of lung cancer. I believe that gives me a significant ax to grind with the way in which fellow citizens decide what risks are right for them. Bogart a whole tobacco field in your house, but in public, in traffic, at the beach, and in the workplace, I don't want to smell it.

That said, I favor a "smoker's cafe" idea here in the states. We have Asian food restaurants, kid restaurants; why not smoker's restaurants? The answer is simple: U.S. society is too stupid to let something like that work. Somebody would sue over it. If workers were willing to sign off and customers are willing to allow it to exist, it should work.

In the meantime, here's one thing I *haven't* seen mentioned in this thread. What is it about smokers that they think it's okay to just dump their butts out the window of the car? There is a mall about 20 minutes from here. The median parallel to the turn lane to get on the high way looks like it has a mop head on it. The mop head is made of cigarette butts. I'll never understand that. If the cigarettes are so enjoyable, it'd really help the rest of the world if you'd do two things: 1) please roll up your window so I don't have to smell it, and 2) please keep your trash, much like I will my water bottles or food wrappers, in your vehicle.

[Guy Berger]

One more thing to add - banning "useless gas guzzler cars" is a greatly inferior solution from a policy perspective since the actual amount of gasoline used or pollution spewed or CO2 spewed (depending on what you are concerned about) matters a lot more. A guy who drives a Toyota Yaris 60 minutes to and from work every day is probably guzzling a lot more gas than the dude who brings out his Ford F150 twice a week.

Part of living in a free society means that we put up with "annoying behavior" like cell phone conversations in public places, people driving useless gas guzzler cars*** and eating Chilean strawberries wherever the hell they want to.

I don't think smoking in closed spaces is equivalent to any of those since it does actually poses a health risk.

***Let me add that I'm all for carbon and/or pollution taxes.

Well, car's pollution is more then an "annoying behavior", it's a health risk and I don't think that pollution taxes are enough. I mean that I don't think that you have any right to pose my health at risk because you can afford it. Let's say that I can pay 2000 $ of taxes per years for smoking my damn fags in public places, would it be OK for you? Same for industrial plants, let's say that they will cover your health insurance when you or your children got cancers because of them, is it a free society?

Welcome to the free world.

Yes... if smokers all paid sufficiently high fees for the privilege of smoking in public to cover the health damage they cause to those around them when smoking in public, then I think that would be a reasonable compromise. The same with pollution taxes etc etc.

Guy

Actually smokers do it, if you consider the government's high taxes on tobacco, at least over here.

BTW we pay a lot of taxes on gasoline too.

The point is that it's not enough for public health and enviroment.

It might be questionable if one agree to trade his health with money.

Personally I don't.

[RDK]

but why in all the world does someone still smoke when he knows about the consequences? I'll never understand that mindset.

There are two, related, answers to that, as far as I'm concerned.

The first is that everyone should, and does, as far as I know, decide what risks, personal and third party, they're prepared to put up with in their life. There is no such thing as risk free living.

Indeed, one might as well be concerned with the increased risk of getting into an auto accident while traveling to a jazz concert or CD store more often than the average person.

[porcy62]

It depends on mileage obviously, for sure a guy who drives his BMW X5 60 minutes to and from work every day is definitely guzzling a lot more gas than the guy with the Yaris.

If you wanna kill yourself you can use your car, (even a Yaris) and a hose and you're done in 50 minutes, if you wanna kill yourself with passive smoking you'll take 30 years, just to have an idea of the different level of risk for health. So I found contradictory ban smoking in open places like square and allow Ford F150.

For the very same reason I found contradictory ban marijuna and allow cigarette and alcohol.

Have you ever been in front of a school with hundred of cars, mother or father at wheel? Do you really think that the twice a day concentration of pollution in that small area is less harmful for children then passive smoking?

[porcy62]

Let me add that I am happy that oil price is skyrocketing, it will force lots of people toward a more enviromental friendly behavior even if they didn't give a damn about it, and force automotive industry in the same way.

[tkeith]

If you wanna kill yourself you can use your car, (even a Yaris) and a hose and you're done in 50 minutes

Not so much. It's a pretty theory, but it's like pregnancy -- each attempt is not a guarantee. Unfortunately, I still have a brother-in-law to prove my point.

For the very same reason I found contradictory ban marijuna and allow cigarette and alcohol.

Have you ever been in front of a school with hundred of cars, mother or father at wheel? Do you really think that the twice a day concentration of pollution in that small area is less harmful for children then passive smoking?

I'm not sure I follow your point. I think the situation you describe is highly unhealthy. I also am against smoking in public places where my enjoyment is affected. If a smoker is comfortable risking the life of their child, I think that's a larger problem. If s/he cannot go long enough without a butt to not slowly kill her/his child, I don't think that polluting the air I have to breath is an acceptable alternative any more than I think it's okay for parents with children to ruin my dining experience. As has been pointed out, we all make choices. If your screaming brats or cigarette smoke is a detriment to my enjoyment in a public space, my choice is to call you on it.

[porcy62]

If you wanna kill yourself you can use your car, (even a Yaris) and a hose and you're done in 50 minutes

Not so much. It's a pretty theory, but it's like pregnancy -- each attempt is not a guarantee. Unfortunately, I still have a brother-in-law to prove my point.

For the very same reason I found contradictory ban marijuna and allow cigarette and alcohol.

Have you ever been in front of a school with hundred of cars, mother or father at wheel? Do you really think that the twice a day concentration of pollution in that small area is less harmful for children then passive smoking?

I'm not sure I follow your point. I think the situation you describe is highly unhealthy. I also am against smoking in public places where my enjoyment is affected. If a smoker is comfortable risking the life of their child, I think that's a larger problem. If s/he cannot go long enough without a butt to not slowly kill her/his child, I don't think that polluting the air I have to breath is an acceptable alternative any more than I think it's okay for parents with children to ruin my dining experience. As has been pointed out, we all make choices. If your screaming brats or cigarette smoke is a detriment to my enjoyment in a public space, my choice is to call you on it.

My point is that if you drive a useless gas guzzler instead of a low emission vehicle just because you enjoy and can afford it (like a BMW X5 or a Hummer) YOU are damaging my health and I can't call you on it. So if the problem is only personal annoyance, I'd add cell phones conversations and lots of bad behavior, if the problem is pollution I'd add gaz guzzlers and all the behaviors that contribute to it, like plastic bags, etc. Lots of these behaviors could be changed with the very same minimum effort a smoker put in avoiding smoking in public places. That's it. Plain and simple.