Smoking In Public

[The Steel Magnolia]

Smoking in public on, say, a sidewalk or in a park causes harm that is incredibly miniscule.

Source?

You're in the open air. It dissipates.

[Libertarian California]

As a libertarian, this issue is complex, because there is no option that really maximizes liberty. I'm of the belief that all people are entitled to life, liberty, and property


1. Smoking in public places allows individuals to choose what to consume (thus giving smokers liberty), but secondhand smoke is detrimental to by-standers (depriving them of life).

2. Banning smoking in public places is against the smoker's liberty to choose what to consume (but guarantees everyone else life).


Perhaps there could be a compromise of only allowing electronic cigarettes to be smoked in public?

I'd say a 'real' libertarian model wouldn't so much place restrictions as the society would be expected to adjust accordingly.

I'd say that's more of the anarchist model than the libertarian one. I'm still sorta stumped.

[YellowApple]

Source?

You're in the open air. It dissipates.

Yes, but how fast? What about wind speed/direction? Ambient atmospheric toxins? There are quite a few variables involved here, and stating that the effect is "incredibly miniscule" would require some sauce, I imagine.

Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but I like seeing statistics

[Bleckonia]

As long as it's not in a public building or they're blowing smoke in my face, feel free to give yourself lung cancer and heart disease.

[Forsher]

You're in the open air. It dissipates.

Yes, but how fast? What about wind speed/direction? Ambient atmospheric toxins? There are quite a few variables involved here, and stating that the effect is "incredibly miniscule" would require some sauce, I imagine.

Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but I like seeing statistics

Especially considering that smoke from cigarettes tends to remain visible for quite some time...

[Fireye]

This argument again?

Perfume is incomparable to cigarette smoke because cigarette smoke unlike perfume is proven to have detrimental health effects on anybody who breathes it in. Some people having perfume allergies is not the same as everybody reacting unfavourably to cigarette smoke.

For the last time; the push to ban smoking is not because some people don't like the smell of it.

Bravo gentlemen, you have shown common sense, as opposed to common ignorance of what the others show...

So the answer to my question is no, then. OK.

[Grainne Ni Malley]

Ah, the old wind argument.

You can tell its flawed by walking behind smokers (even for only a few metres) and the wind's coming towards you.

If the wind is coming towards you, then logically the wind should be carrying the smoke towards you as well. Which is unfortunate if you're bothered by it, but it is typically temporary and certainly not the end of the world.

As far as asthmatic people are concerned, I get bouts of bronchial asthma from time to time after a bad case of bronchitis struck me down in my prime. I know how bad it can get. No, really... I am sympathetic to asthmatics. However, I do not think a ban on public smoking is the end all of solutions. What's next? A ban on pollen? Also, I imagine a lot of smokers would be willing to be fined if they were caught just to get that puff. It's that bad. Comparable to a heroin addiction I would even venture.

[Costa Alegria]

Especially considering that smoke from cigarettes tends to remain visible for quite some time...

No it doesn't.

[Costa Alegria]

Some people having perfume allergies is not the same as everybody reacting unfavourably to cigarette smoke.

I've been around smokers most of my life and I am proudly standing here declaring what a cancer ridden corpse I am.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Some people having perfume allergies is not the same as everybody reacting unfavourably to cigarette smoke.

I've been around smokers most of my life and I am proudly standing here declaring what a cancer ridden corpse I am.

And I speed all the time yet have never had an accident. Personal experiences really mean shit in the face of scientific proof.

[Condunum]

I've been around smokers most of my life and I am proudly standing here declaring what a cancer ridden corpse I am.

And I speed all the time yet have never had an accident. Personal experiences really mean shit in the face of scientific proof.

Speed laws are fucking stupid.

[Vitaphone Racing]

And I speed all the time yet have never had an accident. Personal experiences really mean shit in the face of scientific proof.

Speed laws are fucking stupid.

I know. It's absolutely fucking stupid that the government realises that most drivers are not aware of the handling limits of their car on a certain stretch of road and mandates they drive at a conservative speed for the safety of anybody else on or near the road.

[Maurepas]

Speed laws are fucking stupid.

I know. It's absolutely fucking stupid that the government realises that most drivers are not aware of the handling limits of their car on a certain stretch of road and mandates they drive at a conservative speed for the safety of anybody else on or near the road.

Actually that's not really true, most people drive within a certain range that they feel comfortable with. The ones who don't, disobey the speeding laws anyway, rendering them rather pointless.

I'm not saying they should be gotten rid of, but if their stated goal is stopping speeding they fail pretty bad. Usually it's just to get money in the pockets of the City Government.

[Vitaphone Racing]

I know. It's absolutely fucking stupid that the government realises that most drivers are not aware of the handling limits of their car on a certain stretch of road and mandates they drive at a conservative speed for the safety of anybody else on or near the road.

Actually that's not really true, most people drive within a certain range that they feel comfortable with.

Curious that the WHO finds speed to be a major factor in many traffic accidents and recommends speed limits. skip to page 42. Advising a speed limit makes it less important for those unfamiliar to a road to determine their own speed and helps keeping traffic flowing at the same speed.

The ones who don't, disobey the speeding laws anyway, rendering them rather pointless.

Source?

Usually it's just to get money in the pockets of the City Government.

Most people point to this theory when arguing against speed limits. I challenge anybody to come up with a more reasonable way of penalising speeding drivers (or any crime for that matter) than a monetary fine.

[Pillea]

Most people point to this theory when arguing against speed limits. I challenge anybody to come up with a more reasonable way of penalising speeding drivers (or any crime for that matter) than a monetary fine.

Speeding, suspension of license. They've got public transit to contend with now.
If that ain't a deterrent, nothing is.

[YellowApple]

Most people point to this theory when arguing against speed limits. I challenge anybody to come up with a more reasonable way of penalising speeding drivers (or any crime for that matter) than a monetary fine.

Speeding, suspension of license. They've got public transit to contend with now.
If that ain't a deterrent, nothing is.

Depending on the speed, it could be classified as reckless driving as well, which has its own set of punishments.

[Maurepas]

Actually that's not really true, most people drive within a certain range that they feel comfortable with.

Curious that the WHO finds speed to be a major factor in many traffic accidents and recommends speed limits. skip to page 42. Advising a speed limit makes it less important for those unfamiliar to a road to determine their own speed and helps keeping traffic flowing at the same speed.

The ones who don't, disobey the speeding laws anyway, rendering them rather pointless.

Source?

Usually it's just to get money in the pockets of the City Government.

Most people point to this theory when arguing against speed limits. I challenge anybody to come up with a more reasonable way of penalizing speeding drivers (or any crime for that matter) than a monetary fine.

I'm not saying that speeding isn't dangerous, or that it isn't frequent, I'm saying that the speed limit laws have little effect on their prevalence. In fact your link would seem to back me up in that regard.

http://www.motorists.org/speed-limits/do-limits-matter

Only one industrialized country officially allows unlimited speeds on portions of its public highways, Germany. Significant stretches of the Autobahn do not have speed limits. Yes, some vehicles travel at very high speeds, some in excess of 150 mph! But, the average speed for most vehicles is around 80 mph, about 10 mph faster than traffic in the U.S. on comparable highways. But, here's the clincher, the fatality rate on the German Autobahn is lower than the fatality rate on rural Interstates in the United States!
...
Over a period of five years, researchers monitored motorist response to speed limits at 227 different locations around the United States. First, motorist speeds were measured at all the locations. Next, the speed limits were raised on some roads and lowered on others while yet others remained the same. The results? Speeds did not change. People continued to drive at speeds that they felt were comfortable and safe, just like you and I do.

I'm saying that the money shouldn't go to the city. It puts an incentive on writing tickets, not on stopping the crime.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Curious that the WHO finds speed to be a major factor in many traffic accidents and recommends speed limits. skip to page 42. Advising a speed limit makes it less important for those unfamiliar to a road to determine their own speed and helps keeping traffic flowing at the same speed.


Source?


Most people point to this theory when arguing against speed limits. I challenge anybody to come up with a more reasonable way of penalizing speeding drivers (or any crime for that matter) than a monetary fine.

I'm not saying that speeding isn't dangerous, or that it isn't frequent, I'm saying that the speed limit laws have little effect on their prevalence. In fact your link would seem to back me up in that regard.

http://www.motorists.org/speed-limits/do-limits-matter

Only one industrialized country officially allows unlimited speeds on portions of its public highways, Germany. Significant stretches of the Autobahn do not have speed limits. Yes, some vehicles travel at very high speeds, some in excess of 150 mph! But, the average speed for most vehicles is around 80 mph, about 10 mph faster than traffic in the U.S. on comparable highways. But, here's the clincher, the fatality rate on the German Autobahn is lower than the fatality rate on rural Interstates in the United States!
...
Over a period of five years, researchers monitored motorist response to speed limits at 227 different locations around the United States. First, motorist speeds were measured at all the locations. Next, the speed limits were raised on some roads and lowered on others while yet others remained the same. The results? Speeds did not change. People continued to drive at speeds that they felt were comfortable and safe, just like you and I do.

This can be explained though just by comparing the size and quality of the Autobahn against US interstate routes. Plus, very few vehicles are actually fuel efficient past 80mph so are these drivers choosing speeds because they feel most comfortable with them or because it saves them money?

Using NMA as a source is really no better than using Fox News. It would be nice if they actually provided that study as a source.

[Maurepas]

I'm not saying that speeding isn't dangerous, or that it isn't frequent, I'm saying that the speed limit laws have little effect on their prevalence. In fact your link would seem to back me up in that regard.

http://www.motorists.org/speed-limits/do-limits-matter

This can be explained though just by comparing the size and quality of the Autobahn against US interstate routes. Plus, very few vehicles are actually fuel efficient past 80mph so are these drivers choosing speeds because they feel most comfortable with them or because it saves them money?

Using NMA as a source is really no better than using Fox News. It would be nice if they actually provided that study as a source.

Irrelevant really, regardless of reason, most people drive at speeds they feel comfortable with, limit or no limit.

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html

U.S. Department of Transportation Research, Development, and Technology
Federal Highway Administration Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center
6300 Georgetown Pike
McLean, Virginia 22101-2296

The objectives of this research was to determine the effects of raising and lowering posted speed limits on driver behavior and accidents for non-limited access rural and urban highways. Speed and accident data were collected in 22 States at 100 sites before and after speed limits were altered. Before and after data were also collected simultaneously at comparison sites where speed limits were not changed to control for the time trends. Repeated measurements were made at 14 sites to examine short - and long-term effects of speed limit changes.

The results of the study indicated that lowering posted speed limits by as much as 20 mi/h (32 km/h), or raising speed limits by as much as 15 mi/h (24 km/h) had little effect on motorist' speed. The majority of motorist did not drive 5 mi/h (8 km/h) above the posted speed limits when speed limits were raised, nor did they reduce their speed by 5 or 10 mi/h (8 or 16 km/h) when speed limits are lowered. Data collected at the study sites indicated that the majority of speed limits are posed below the average speed of traffic. Lowering speed limits below the 50th percentile does not reduce accidents, but does significantly increase driver violations of the speed limit. Conversely, raising the posted speed limits did not increase speeds or accidents.

If you prefer.

[Vitaphone Racing]

This can be explained though just by comparing the size and quality of the Autobahn against US interstate routes. Plus, very few vehicles are actually fuel efficient past 80mph so are these drivers choosing speeds because they feel most comfortable with them or because it saves them money?

Using NMA as a source is really no better than using Fox News. It would be nice if they actually provided that study as a source.

Irrelevant really, regardless of reason, most people drive at speeds they feel comfortable with, limit or no limit.

It isn't irrelevant at all. In 20 years time, the average speed of autobahn users could very well rise to 150mph on the back of greater fuel efficiency. Thus it's important to understand why.

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html

U.S. Department of Transportation Research, Development, and Technology
Federal Highway Administration Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center
6300 Georgetown Pike
McLean, Virginia 22101-2296

The objectives of this research was to determine the effects of raising and lowering posted speed limits on driver behavior and accidents for non-limited access rural and urban highways. Speed and accident data were collected in 22 States at 100 sites before and after speed limits were altered. Before and after data were also collected simultaneously at comparison sites where speed limits were not changed to control for the time trends. Repeated measurements were made at 14 sites to examine short - and long-term effects of speed limit changes.

The results of the study indicated that lowering posted speed limits by as much as 20 mi/h (32 km/h), or raising speed limits by as much as 15 mi/h (24 km/h) had little effect on motorist' speed. The majority of motorist did not drive 5 mi/h (8 km/h) above the posted speed limits when speed limits were raised, nor did they reduce their speed by 5 or 10 mi/h (8 or 16 km/h) when speed limits are lowered. Data collected at the study sites indicated that the majority of speed limits are posed below the average speed of traffic. Lowering speed limits below the 50th percentile does not reduce accidents, but does significantly increase driver violations of the speed limit. Conversely, raising the posted speed limits did not increase speeds or accidents.

If you prefer.

The only logical conclusion that can be taken from this study is that driver's do not respond to artificial changes of the speed limit. It does not offer any explanation as to why drivers adhered to the speed limit before the study was taken.

[Great Zavi]

Smoking should only be done in private homes.
I don't know why everyone else is saying its okay to do it outdooors; here in New York City if someone smokes outside I can be a good distance behind them and still smell that damned smoke. I don't want to inhale that poison.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Smoking should only be done in private homes.
I don't know why everyone else is saying its okay to do it outdooors; here in New York City if someone smokes outside I can be a good distance behind them and still smell that damned smoke. I don't want to inhale that poison.

Liar.

[Algonquin Ascendancy]

Smoking should only be done in private homes.
I don't know why everyone else is saying its okay to do it outdooors; here in New York City if someone smokes outside I can be a good distance behind them and still smell that damned smoke. I don't want to inhale that poison.

If you're that concerned about inhaling poison, why do you live in New York City?

[Conciousness]

People have perfume allergies. Ban perfume.

Well perfume doesn't have lethal chemicals in it, so that's one difference, another difference is that smoking is an unnecessary pollution, that doesn't benefit anyone at all...

Toxic Perfume Ingredients Linked to Cancer, Sperm Damage

[Maurepas]

Irrelevant really, regardless of reason, most people drive at speeds they feel comfortable with, limit or no limit.

It isn't irrelevant at all. In 20 years time, the average speed of autobahn users could very well rise to 150mph on the back of greater fuel efficiency. Thus it's important to understand why.

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html



If you prefer.

The only logical conclusion that can be taken from this study is that driver's do not respond to artificial changes of the speed limit. It does not offer any explanation as to why drivers adhered to the speed limit before the study was taken.

I think you would need some way of showing that people are even aware of fuel efficiency in that regard, tbqh.

Drivers never adhered to it at all, and they still do not. Which is why raising or lowering it has little effect on the actual speed in which people drive.