Savuton baari ja muuta itseään jalkaan ampumista

<Lots of mistargeted rumbliing about individual rights>

The whole point is to protect the bar workers.

Then to the OT:

Of course there are tons of studies that prove that 2nd hand smoking is not dangerous (as well as there are thousands of studies about the dangers), but I would like to ask what if these studies are wrong and 2nd hand smoking is indeed dangerous? (I would also like to argue about the studies themselves, their funding etc. but I just don't have the time nor interest).

Anyway, isn't it justified to make sure that everyones working environment is as safe as possible? And I can't see the anything wrong in forcing smokers into air conditioned cubicles. Everyone benefits from clean air, even you Philip :-). Remember that it was not so long ago when it was allowed to smoke at work. When it was prohibited (note: everywhere else except at restaurants and bars), some complained, but everyone adapted eventually and I can't see anyone rising to the barricades to fight for free smoking at libraries, banks etc.

you really really have to keep your eyes open if you're going to find non-smoking employees in pubs/bars. but hey, one word: lahti.

<Lots of mistargeted rumbliing about individual rights>

The whole point is to protect the bar workers.

Then to the OT:

Of course there are tons of studies that prove that 2nd hand smoking is not dangerous (as well as there are thousands of studies about the dangers), but I would like to ask what if these studies are wrong and 2nd hand smoking is indeed dangerous? (I would also like to argue about the studies themselves, their funding etc. but I just don't have the time nor interest).

Anyway, isn't it justified to make sure that everyones working environment is as safe as possible? And I can't see the anything wrong in forcing smokers into air conditioned cubicles. Everyone benefits from clean air, even you Philip :-). Remember that it was not so long ago when it was allowed to smoke at work. When it was prohibited (note: everywhere else except at restaurants and bars), some complained, but everyone adapted eventually and I can't see anyone rising to the barricades to fight for free smoking at libraries, banks etc.

How are the studies offtopic? They illustrate that this is anything but a scientifically proven truth that 2nd hand smoke is in fact dangerous. Since it is not proven that the smoke is dangerous, your argument that the bar workers 'need to be protected' is moot.

I agree that arguing about the studies is probably beyond the scope of this discussion, but clearly a health law should have a solid scientific foundation.

And that is aside from the point that no bar employee is working in a bar against their own will. By extension this implies that the employee needs to be protected from his- or herself.

How are the studies offtopic? They illustrate that this is anything but a scientifically proven truth that 2nd hand smoke is in fact dangerous. Since it is not proven that the smoke is dangerous, your argument that the bar workers 'need to be protected' is moot.

Since you can argue credibly in both ways it makes no sense to start to argue, neither of us have enough skills to prove it in either direction. The point is simply this, you can not lose if you deny smoking in pubs. If 2nd hand smoking is dangerous (which is what I believe), we propably have saved some lives, if it is not, we haven't caused nothing more than little discomfort (discomfort which will disappear with time).

And that is aside from the point that no bar employee is working in a bar against their own will.

What if you are a non-smoker and the worlds best bartender and you want to make a career in a bar mixing fantastic drinks? Is it correct to expect that bartenders will have to work in 2nd hand smoke? Would you want to work in such a place? I'm a non-smoker and I code for living and I want to work in a non-smoking office.

By extension this implies that the employee needs to be protected from his- or herself.

Heh, you are reaching too far with your extensions. The worker needs to be protected from 3rd party inflicted harm, ie. from the 2nd hand smoke of the smokers.

How are the studies offtopic? They illustrate that this is anything but a scientifically proven truth that 2nd hand smoke is in fact dangerous. Since it is not proven that the smoke is dangerous, your argument that the bar workers 'need to be protected' is moot.

Since you can argue credibly in both ways it makes no sense to start to argue, neither of us have enough skills to prove it in either direction. The point is simply this, you can not lose if you deny smoking in pubs. If 2nd hand smoking is dangerous (which is what I believe), we propably have saved some lives, if it is not, we haven't caused nothing more than little discomfort (discomfort which will disappear with time).

Ok, I believe that mental health in Finland would generally be better if bad music would be outlawed. How is my claim any different from yours? Seems like we have equal amounts of 'proof' for both cases.

If you take away the scientific basis for your claim, then all you have left is your opinion, founded on belief only. That puts you in the same league with e.g. proponents for intelligent design.

By the way, you do know that there is a difference between a risk to your health and an actual reduction in your health?

What if you are a non-smoker and the worlds best bartender and you want to make a career in a bar mixing fantastic drinks? Is it correct to expect that bartenders will have to work in 2nd hand smoke? Would you want to work in such a place?

I see no problem here whatsoever. As a bartender, I would look first look for bars that were non-smoking only, by choice of the proprietor. Should such a place not exist, I have at least two options:

- Reevaluate which is more important to me: the profession of bartender or living a life in a smoke-free environment.

- Open my own bar which is nonsmoking only. Since no other places of this kind exist, this would be a niche market, which could prove to be a very lucrative business opportunity. Please note that this business opportunity no longer exists after your law has been passed.

I'm a non-smoker and I code for living and I want to work in a non-smoking office.

What about employees that want to smoke at work? Is your opinion worth more than theirs? I know loads of smokers that feel that smoking is a form of stress relief, for example.

As an employee of a given company you do have the right to influence management policy btw.

Heh, you are reaching too far with your extensions. The worker needs to be protected from 3rd party inflicted harm, ie. from the 2nd hand smoke of the smokers.

The biggest flaw I see with the argument that a worker needs to be protected in this form is that I don't see any clear place where you can draw the line. How do you feel about my RFID card for alcohol and food consumption? Don't employees need to be protected from fatty foods at their place of work, especially if they don't like fatty foods or have otherwise made a commitment to healthy eating?

I also do not agree with the assumption that the employee has no choice in regards to their place of work. You can always leave your present job and find some other form of employment.

Do you disagree that an employee has a choice of where they are employed? If not, how can you disagree with the statement?

Ok, I believe that mental health in Finland would generally be better if bad music would be outlawed. How is my claim any different from yours? Seems like we have equal amounts of 'proof' for both cases.

If you take away the scientific basis for your claim, then all you have left is your opinion, founded on belief only. That puts you in the same league with e.g. proponents for intelligent design.

That is my point, without "proven" knowledge we can only measure the facts and form an opinion and then believe in it until someone can prove us wrong.

By the way, you do know that there is a difference between a risk to your health and an actual reduction in your health?

Of course, don't be silly.

I see no problem here whatsoever. As a bartender, I would look first look for bars that were non-smoking only, by choice of the proprietor. Should such a place not exist, I have at least two options:

- Reevaluate which is more important to me: the profession of bartender or living a life in a smoke-free environment.

- Open my own bar which is nonsmoking only. Since no other places of this kind exist, this would be a niche market, which could prove to be a very lucrative business opportunity. Please note that this business opportunity no longer exists after your law has been passed.

As an employee of a given company you do have the right to influence management policy btw.

I agree that you can choose where you work but only to certain extent. There are lots of conditions when an employee cannot choose where to work. Also, many barworkers are employed through staffing service providers, where emplyoees can not control their work location at all.

The biggest flaw I see with the argument that a worker needs to be protected in this form is that I don't see any clear place where you can draw the line. How do you feel about my RFID card for alcohol and food consumption? Don't employees need to be protected from fatty foods at their place of work, especially if they don't like fatty foods or have otherwise made a commitment to healthy eating?

2nd hand smoking is not something you can choose to do (at least in practice). If you want to go to a bar you have to accept that

1) your clothes will stink
2) you will be exposed to 2nd hand smoke

For example, excessive drinking inflicts direct damage only to the drinker, 3rd parties are in danger only indirectly.

I also do not agree with the assumption that the employee has no choice in regards to their place of work. You can always leave your present job and find some other form of employment.

To some extent yes, but it is logical to deny smoking where it could possibly harm someone else than the smoker itself. In practice it is close to impossible to get employed in smoke-free bar in Finland.

Remember that you can still smoke in bars, you just have to do it in a cubicle. So, this law implies restrictions only where you can smoke, it does not forbid smoking altogether.

Ok, I believe that mental health in Finland would generally be better if bad music would be outlawed. How is my claim any different from yours? Seems like we have equal amounts of 'proof' for both cases.

If you take away the scientific basis for your claim, then all you have left is your opinion, founded on belief only. That puts you in the same league with e.g. proponents for intelligent design.

That is my point, without "proven" knowledge we can only measure the facts and form an opinion and then believe in it until someone can prove us wrong.

Ok, so you feel that health-related laws should be based on opinion rather than scientific fact.

Not much I can argue against that, although the logic of making health laws based on opinion with lack of scientific evidence is nonsensical.

How do you predict the health care system would work long-term when laws are being passed based on opinion alone?

Of course, don't be silly.

Just checking.

I agree that you can choose where you work but only to certain extent. There are lots of conditions when an employee cannot choose where to work. Also, many barworkers are employed through staffing service providers, where emplyoees can not control their work location at all.

Ok, but still a bar worker has to make other choices that at least affect their lifestyle, possibly even their health. For example, a barworker will probably need to work late hours.

What about the worlds best bartender that only wants to work Tuesday morning?

2nd hand smoking is not something you can choose to do (at least in practice). If you want to go to a bar you have to accept that

1) your clothes will stink
2) you will be exposed to 2nd hand smoke

For example, excessive drinking inflicts direct damage only to the drinker, 3rd parties are in danger only indirectly.

What about cars? I live in the centre of Helsinki and am forced to breathe a lot of exhaust fumes against my own will. In fact I'd argue that for the vast majority of people driving cars through Helsinki, they could use a bicycle instead.

How about eating beef? Cows contribute a measurable amount of methane gas to the atmosphere, and the only actual reason to eat beef is because you enjoy it - after all you can get all other nutrients from other foods as well, and of course too much beef is unhealthy for you as well.

In general I'd say that this is a highly subjective definition of health - I'm not the only one in the world wielding terms such as 'noise pollution', for example.

To some extent yes, but it is logical to deny smoking where it could possibly harm someone else than the smoker itself. In practice it is close to impossible to get employed in smoke-free bar in Finland.

Possibly harm provided a study is ever found to back up your opinion. Don't you think it's wrong to argue based on this health issue when you have no proof? Arguing based on things like 'your clothes will stink' above seems a lot more honest.

Remember that you can still smoke in bars, you just have to do it in a cubicle. So, this law implies restrictions only where you can smoke, it does not forbid smoking altogether.

And remember that it is you that seems to possess a privilege to decide where people of a certain group can enjoy a taxed legal recreational drug, based on your own opinion which is founded in nothing but belief.

Ok, so you feel that health-related laws should be based on opinion rather than scientific fact.

No. Scientific fact is a fact only until another fact proves it to be wrong. Science is a good way to be quite sure, but we can never be absolutely sure (but now we are falling into philosophy and to the semantics about what can we know for sure or do we just believe).

And what makes your beliefs better than mine?

Not much I can argue against that, although the logic of making health laws based on opinion with lack of scientific evidence is nonsensical.

But there are plenty of studies that prove 2nd hand smoking to be dangerous. If I choose to believe those studies I can easily agree with the law.

How do you predict the health care system would work long-term when laws are being passed based on opinion alone?

No, they are based on best guess that is based on scientific studies. Health care system will be tweaked infinitely. As well as everything else. New knowledge changes the environment we live in. There are no constants.

Ok, but still a bar worker has to make other choices that at least affect their lifestyle, possibly even their health. For example, a barworker will probably need to work late hours.

What about the worlds best bartender that only wants to work Tuesday morning?

World is bad place and we shouldn't even try to make it better?

What about cars? I live in the centre of Helsinki and am forced to breathe a lot of exhaust fumes against my own will. In fact I'd argue that for the vast majority of people driving cars through Helsinki, they could use a bicycle instead.

I would love to live in carless city, but that is not possible, since I want to live in southern Finland, not Antarctica. Still, if something is (almost) impossible, it does not mean that we should give up and not try to improve our environment on some other aspect,

And remember that it is you that seems to possess a privilege to decide where people of a certain group can enjoy a taxed legal recreational drug, based on your own opinion which is founded in nothing but belief.

If you ask me, tobacco should be illegal. I do support laws that protect workers and I do support individual rights. In my opinion this is not even an individual rights issue, this is purely protective work. If it causes some discomfort to smokers, then be it so. The law still does not prevent them from smoking.

No. Scientific fact is a fact only until another fact proves it to be wrong. Science is a good way to be quite sure, but we can never be absolutely sure (but now we are falling into philosophy and to the semantics about what can we know for sure or do we just believe).

And what makes your beliefs better than mine?

My point is that there is scientific consensus here. The World Health Organization has gone on record saying that 2nd hand smoking could even have a positive effect on your health. The international journal of cancer has found no correlation between 2nd hand smoking and lung cancer. And those are just two notable examples, I already posted a good selection of links on the previous page, which nobody has tried to refute.

Science is about creating ever better approximations of reality, based on empirical evidence. We seem to agree on that - you seem to feel that since the present approximation may at some point in the future change (one way or the other), it should be ignored entirely.

Unfortunately, you cannot choose which bits of science to believe in - well, actually you can - it's just that you can't call it science.

Also, science and public opinion do not always align, and you seem to be confusing the two.

Not much I can argue against that, although the logic of making health laws based on opinion with lack of scientific evidence is nonsensical.

But there are plenty of studies that prove 2nd hand smoking to be dangerous. If I choose to believe those studies I can easily agree with the law.

Yet you fail to produce a single one. Which study do you believe in, specifically?

No, they are based on best guess that is based on scientific studies. Health care system will be tweaked infinitely. As well as everything else. New knowledge changes the environment we live in. There are no constants.

Agreed - various other recreational drugs now outlawed used to be legal at some point in the previous century, for example.

But as previously stated the 'best guess' currently is that 2nd hand smoking does not negatively impact your health.

If you were to say that this law is solely based on public opinion (for the sake of discussion your own), the matter would be an entirely different one.

Ok, but still a bar worker has to make other choices that at least affect their lifestyle, possibly even their health. For example, a barworker will probably need to work late hours.

What about the worlds best bartender that only wants to work Tuesday morning?

World is bad place and we shouldn't even try to make it better?

Your definition of 'better' seems to be to ignore minorities, scientific fact and hinge decisions of health on opinion at the cost of economic opportunities and freedom of the individual.

Needless to say my definition of 'better' is somewhat different.

What about cars? I live in the centre of Helsinki and am forced to breathe a lot of exhaust fumes against my own will. In fact I'd argue that for the vast majority of people driving cars through Helsinki, they could use a bicycle instead.

I would love to live in carless city, but that is not possible, since I want to live in southern Finland, not Antarctica. Still, if something is (almost) impossible, it does not mean that we should give up and not try to improve our environment on some other aspect,

I don't understand the Antarctica argument. If I were to get rid of my (non-existant hypothetical) car, and replace it with a bike, how would this move me to Antarctica?

By the way this Friday I was in Brussels, and every now and then they close off the center of town for car traffic in the evenings, with only rollerskates and transportation by foot allowed. But I digress.

If you ask me, tobacco should be illegal. I do support laws that protect workers and I do support individual rights.

These two statements are an oxymoron. On the one hand you would be in favor of severely restricting the rights of individuals by outlawing a presently legal recreational drug, which goes well beyond the scheduled restriction of individual rights you are also arguing for, on the other you say you support individual rights. You have to choose between one or the other.

I also do not agree with your definition of protection - you claim to be protecting workers health, but you certainly are not protecting their individual rights.

You are also trying to pass a law instead of fostering discussion and compromise between employees, employers and customers of a business - in effect you're saying that these avenues of discourse are irrelevant, at least when it comes to the consumption of tobacco.

In my opinion this is not even an individual rights issue, this is purely protective work. If it causes some discomfort to smokers, then be it so. The law still does not prevent them from smoking.

You could only argue that it were protective work if

- You had a scientific basis
- Considered scientific basis as relevant for a discussion of public health

You seem to do neither, so please find another argument, such as the previously mentioned 'clothes stink after night out at the bar'.

Last but not least, you are discriminating against smokers, since you're defining where they can go after this activity outside their own home - I'll be the first to admit that much more severe forms of discrimination exist, but it does not change the fact that this is discrimination.

'So be it', you say - but this is where I beg to differ, because I feel that neither you nor I, nor anyone in politics is able to do this.

My point is that there is scientific consensus here. The World Health Organization has gone on record saying that 2nd hand smoking could even have a positive effect on your health. The international journal of cancer has found no correlation between 2nd hand smoking and lung cancer. And those are just two notable examples, I already posted a good selection of links on the previous page, which nobody has tried to refute.

And neither will I, I dont have time, the needed experience, professional skill or will to do that.

Science is about creating ever better approximations of reality, based on empirical evidence. We seem to agree on that - you seem to feel that since the present approximation may at some point in the future change (one way or the other), it should be ignored entirely.

What I feel that with these two studies that you mention, you seem to happily disregard previous global opinion (does two add up to a concensus?) that 2nd hand smoking is dangerous. Why these studies or discoveries haven't been more in public? This is the first time I hear about these. That is one reason why I'm not willing to take them as granted.

Unfortunately, you cannot choose which bits of science to believe in - well, actually you can - it's just that you can't call it science.

Do you believe in science? As I said we could argue about "knowing" and "believing" forever. I personally like Ludwig Wittgensteins approach that we can only be certain to some extent.

Also, science and public opinion do not always align, and you seem to be confusing the two.

Not quite, I might confuse hearsay to facts, since I haven't done any deep research on the subject. I even may be a victim of subconscious exposion to publicly expressed opinions instead of raw scientifical facts. I can say that I don't know much about the subject.

Yet you fail to produce a single one. Which study do you believe in, specifically?

I don't have any studies at hand. I would say that the internet is full of them, since it has been the major trend in views of 2nd hand smoking. What amount of studies is enough to disprove something?

But as previously stated the 'best guess' currently is that 2nd hand smoking does not negatively impact your health.

Is 2nd hand smoking really proved to be harmless or not? Can there be any arguments claiming 2nd hand smoking is dangerous? If we had known the dangers of asbestos in beforehand would we have banned it?

If you were to say that this law is solely based on public opinion (for the sake of discussion your own), the matter would be an entirely different one.

I would say that the law is based both on science and public opinion.

Your definition of 'better' seems to be to ignore minorities, scientific fact and hinge decisions of health on opinion at the cost of economic opportunities and freedom of the individual.

Needless to say my definition of 'better' is somewhat different.

We are still discussing about 'scientific facts'. I will not take your word for it :-P. Unfortunately I don't have time to spend on more thourogh studies, so we have to keep this conversation at lower levels. I think that 2nd hand smoking is not healthy, you disagree. That's why our ethics do not meet. Here's an example:

Let's say that a minority wants to harm themselves, possibly harming others in the process? A rough analogy would be suicide bombers, they want to harm themselves, if they want to detonate in a bar shoudl we allow them to do so?

As I think that 2nd hand smoking is dangerous that analogy works. It propably won't work for you, since you can argue that an explosion will definitely harm people nearby whereas 2nd hand smoking does not.

I don't understand the Antarctica argument. If I were to get rid of my (non-existant hypothetical) car, and replace it with a bike, how would this move me to Antarctica?

There will be others driving cars around you. You will still suffer from exhaustion fumes.

By the way this Friday I was in Brussels, and every now and then they close off the center of town for car traffic in the evenings, with only rollerskates and transportation by foot allowed. But I digress.

I would love to see carless Helsinki center!

These two statements are an oxymoron. On the one hand you would be in favor of severely restricting the rights of individuals by outlawing a presently legal recreational drug, which goes well beyond the scheduled restriction of individual rights you are also arguing for, on the other you say you support individual rights. You have to choose between one or the other.

Yes, sometimes you have to prioritize. This time I would be ready to force smokers into cubicles in places where people might be exposed to 2nd smoking. Thus, I consider the harm done to individual rights to be smaller than the possible health risks. If someone dies from 2nd smoking isn't it the most gruesome violation of individual rights ;-)

I also do not agree with your definition of protection - you claim to be protecting workers health, but you certainly are not protecting their individual rights.

You are chasing Utopia. In reality we can not achieve a situation where everything would be in balance.

You are also trying to pass a law instead of fostering discussion and compromise between employees, employers and customers of a business - in effect you're saying that these avenues of discourse are irrelevant, at least when it comes to the consumption of tobacco.

Do you think that the state should not interfere in any way how people do theri business? You are starting to sound like a libertarian at some points..

You could only argue that it were protective work if

- You had a scientific basis

See above where I stated my opinion about scientific facts. Also, you expect me to to blindly believe what you say based on couple of internet links. Sorry, can't do that.

- Considered scientific basis as relevant for a discussion of public health

I do consider scientific facts important. Don't put words into my mouth. I simply refuse at this point of time to believe that 2nd smoking is harmless. The law has been prepared with the help of health experts, doctors etc. I'd rather trust them than couple www-sites. I would say that they are familiar with the studies you provided and that they are much more able to evaluate the content of these studies.

Last but not least, you are discriminating against smokers, since you're defining where they can go after this activity outside their own home - I'll be the first to admit that much more severe forms of discrimination exist, but it does not change the fact that this is discrimination.

As I said before, in reality we have to make compromises and prioritize.

'So be it', you say - but this is where I beg to differ, because I feel that neither you nor I, nor anyone in politics is able to do this.

Democracy is dictatorship of the majority. We simply don't have a better system.

Juomia tai ruokia ei saa nauttia ravintoloihin rakennettavissa tupakointitiloissa. Eduskunta päätti asiasta tiistaina hallituksen esityksen mukaisesti äänin 113-57.
Äänestys rikkoi hallitusrintaman. Oluttuopin viemisen tupakointitilaan olisi sallinut 12 SDP:n ja kaksi keskustan kansanedustajaa. He äänestivät kokoomuksen Anne Holmlundin tekemän muutosesityksen puolesta.
Tupakointitiloissa on tarkoitus käydä vain tupakalla. Niihin ei saa myöskään tarjoilla mitään ravintolan antimia.
Tarkoituksena on, ettei henkilökunta altistu työssään tupakansavulle.
Äänestyksissä hylättiin lisäksi opposition esitykset lain siirtymäsäännöksistä luopumisesta ja voimaantulovuoden muuttamisesta.
Tiukentunut tupakkalaki tulee voimaan vuoden 2007 kesäkuun alussa. Pienet alle 50 paikan ravintolat joutuvat silloin valitsemaan, pitävätkö ne sisätilansa kokonaan savuttomina vai rakentavatko ne määräysten mukaisen tupakkakopin.
Nykyisin voimassaolevan lain mukaisten tupakointialueiden rakentamiseen investoineet suuremmat ravintolat saavat kahden vuoden lisäajan muutostöille.

http://www.ess.fi/Article.jsp?article=96834&category=23&main=21&days=0&dept=2

Science is about creating ever better approximations of reality, based on empirical evidence. We seem to agree on that - you seem to feel that since the present approximation may at some point in the future change (one way or the other), it should be ignored entirely.

What I feel that with these two studies that you mention, you seem to happily disregard previous global opinion (does two add up to a concensus?) that 2nd hand smoking is dangerous. Why these studies or discoveries haven't been more in public? This is the first time I hear about these. That is one reason why I'm not willing to take them as granted.

There's no such thing as a global opinion, otherwise we wouldn't be arguing.

As I mentioned in my previous post, these are two of many studies I found on my first page of hits passed back by Google. I posted a whole lot of quotes and links on the previous page. Link:

http://www.platinum.ac/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=306990#306990

And while I have taken the effort to read and inform myself, you say that you're not equipped to do so and rely on no particular study it seems.

Unfortunately, you cannot choose which bits of science to believe in - well, actually you can - it's just that you can't call it science.

Do you believe in science? As I said we could argue about "knowing" and "believing" forever. I personally like Ludwig Wittgensteins approach that we can only be certain to some extent.

So again it seems that you do not feel that science is a good basis for public health laws - I would assume you agree that philosophical discussions are not too useful within the scope of politics.

Not quite, I might confuse hearsay to facts, since I haven't done any deep research on the subject. I even may be a victim of subconscious exposion to publicly expressed opinions instead of raw scientifical facts. I can say that I don't know much about the subject.

Great - this is what I consider symptomatic of the 2nd smoking discussion in general. The funny thing is that even the most adamant anti-smoking vigilantes will tell you that 'it's bad for you', but strangely I have yet to meet one that could back this claim up with a study and some numbers.

Yet you fail to produce a single one. Which study do you believe in, specifically?

I don't have any studies at hand. I would say that the internet is full of them, since it has been the major trend in views of 2nd hand smoking. What amount of studies is enough to disprove something?

What needs to be disproven? I think that you have yet to _prove_ your point.

Is 2nd hand smoking really proved to be harmless or not? Can there be any arguments claiming 2nd hand smoking is dangerous? If we had known the dangers of asbestos in beforehand would we have banned it?

You've admitted yourself that you have no study, no data, no proof. On the other hand, I have studies by reputable organizations to back up my claim.

In fact I'd agree with you though that there cannot be any argument, since you have no arguments to back up your claims.

If you were to say that this law is solely based on public opinion (for the sake of discussion your own), the matter would be an entirely different one.

I would say that the law is based both on science and public opinion.

For the umpteenth time, what science?

We are still discussing about 'scientific facts'. I will not take your word for it :-P. Unfortunately I don't have time to spend on more thourogh studies, so we have to keep this conversation at lower levels.

You cannot just assume your point to be true for the sake of this discussion. Especially if you refuse to inform yourself.

Let's say that a minority wants to harm themselves, possibly harming others in the process? A rough analogy would be suicide bombers, they want to harm themselves, if they want to detonate in a bar shoudl we allow them to do so?

That analogy is pretty darn rough. People that smoke cigarettes do not instantaneously combust, and even as a smoker it is not given that your lifespan will actually be shorter than if you did not smoke.

In the same way, even if every study I put forward were to be proven wrong, and a measurable risk exists for 2nd hand smokers, they'd still not die instantaneously and it'd still not be given that that particular individuals health would be affected.

However, if an individual were to move to a politically unstable area known for its regular suicide bombs, I'd say that it is first and foremost that individuals fault.

I don't understand the Antarctica argument. If I were to get rid of my (non-existant hypothetical) car, and replace it with a bike, how would this move me to Antarctica?

There will be others driving cars around you. You will still suffer from exhaustion fumes.

Exactly, so I think a law should be passed! Would follow your logic...

I also do not agree with your definition of protection - you claim to be protecting workers health, but you certainly are not protecting their individual rights.

You are chasing Utopia. In reality we can not achieve a situation where everything would be in balance.

Thing is, you're not even trying - but at least you admit to that.

Do you think that the state should not interfere in any way how people do theri business? You are starting to sound like a libertarian at some points..

I certainly believe in free enterprise, but that does not mean that I'm against laws and regulations for business in general.

See above where I stated my opinion about scientific facts. Also, you expect me to to blindly believe what you say based on couple of internet links. Sorry, can't do that.

You can't even tell me what you believe in - I mean you cannot point to a single study to back up your opinion. It's fine to say that you don't believe in the links I've posted, after all somebody could be spoofing the WHO's DNS, but you have no basis for your claim. None at all, except 'everyone is saying so' (to paraphrase 'global opinion').

- Considered scientific basis as relevant for a discussion of public health

I do consider scientific facts important. Don't put words into my mouth. I simply refuse at this point of time to believe that 2nd smoking is harmless. The law has been prepared with the help of health experts, doctors etc. I'd rather trust them than couple www-sites. I would say that they are familiar with the studies you provided and that they are much more able to evaluate the content of these studies.

Which health experts, doctors, studies? You don't know, do you? You prefer believing in the government making sound decisions in general, and here I disagree - there are two many obvious cases (in any government, btw) where this is not so.

Democracy is dictatorship of the majority. We simply don't have a better system.

Agreed, and in my opinion a image has been fostered over years that has in turn steered public debate - wholly without factual data to back the common view.

You are willing to believe that some mythical figure somewhere has made a valid scientific case for a law being passed, yet refuse to inform yourself, or to read the studies I put forward.

Unfortunately it is exactly on that level that this discussion has taken place pretty much in all countries where this law has been passed.

You've admitted yourself that you have no study, no data, no proof. On the other hand, I have studies by reputable organizations to back up my claim. [/quote[

Something after 3 seconds of googling:

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422
http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/

So, now that I have shown some studies that believe the opposite, can we agree that we disagree in this and stop arguing? It seems that neither one of us will not bend, so the whole point becomes moot.

I know I won't win you over :D

Just for the record, the first link I posted was about that very EPA study.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg16n3c.html

There is a fantastic little documentary by Penn & Teller for their show aptly titled 'Bullshit' which gives a nice historic background on how this EPA study was conducted, and how it is been the basis for gross misappropriation.

Funnily enough other 'studies', especially those by groups lobbying for the restriction of smoking in publics (such as the 'American Lung Association' - it helps to read up and not just post random links). have often just reused the originally flawed EPA study. Often they've beefed up the numbers as well for good measure.

Still, semantically, you should be able to show me the study that the Finnish government is using to back up this law so that you can make the claim that this law is based not only on public opinion but also scientific fact.

Also, I'd be interested in what your thoughts on this point are:

I don't understand the Antarctica argument. If I were to get rid of my (non-existant hypothetical) car, and replace it with a bike, how would this move me to Antarctica?

There will be others driving cars around you. You will still suffer from exhaustion fumes.

Exactly, so I think a law should be passed! Would follow your logic...

Just so it's clear - I don't smoke. But you ARE making the decision that 'it's not too bad' one some other individuals behalf, and I again I wonder what gives you that right?

I'm not making any decicions for anyone! I'm sincerely sorry if thought that I had something to do with Finnish legistlation... :hah:
That was my HUMBLE oppinion.

'Oddity' is very good vocabulary for this purpose.

Do really feel compelled to make fun of my poor written english? In what way does that make your point more comprehensible?

Your comparison does not work because one is a biological function and the other is a recreational drug, as I stated in my previous post.

And in both cases somebody might REALLY mind if ur doing either next to him/her.

I disagree with pretty much everything in your post, yes ;)

I'm still not quite shure where you're standing in this matter?

I'll try once more to make my view of the matter clear enough to understand:

- I THINK that it's better to restrict smoking to cabinets so the smoke doesn't bother people who mind it.

- Dissregarding of what the 'studies' may tell I THINK that passive smoking isn't particularry good for your health. Otherwise it would be still ok to smoke in offices etc... I've heard that some people get anxiety from even one people smoking next to them. What about people who have astma?

- Do you THINK it's ok to use this leisure drug in places where it may cause other people anxiety?

The biggest flaw I see with the argument that a worker needs to be protected in this form is that I don't see any clear place where you can draw the line. How do you feel about my RFID card for alcohol and food consumption? Don't employees need to be protected from fatty foods at their place of work, especially if they don't like fatty foods or have otherwise made a commitment to healthy eating?

I also do not agree with the assumption that the employee has no choice in regards to their place of work. You can always leave your present job and find some other form of employment.

Do you disagree that an employee has a choice of where they are employed? If not, how can you disagree with the statement?

Can u comprehend the difference of endangering your health and endangering your health and those who are around u?

I still THINK that: it doesn't affect me in ANY way if a man next to me is eating a really fatty beef or getting really pissed (unless he makes a decicion to give me a beating while intoxicated :D ), he's eating and drinking at his own healths expence - not mine.

Also, I'd be interested in what your thoughts on this point are:

I don't understand the Antarctica argument. If I were to get rid of my (non-existant hypothetical) car, and replace it with a bike, how would this move me to Antarctica?

There will be others driving cars around you. You will still suffer from exhaustion fumes.

Exactly, so I think a law should be passed! Would follow your logic...

What a monstrous quote!

But yes, if the little green activist inside me would be a dictator, all unnecessary polluting would be prohibited (despite the cost). Necessary as in food transportation, extremely wide public transportation, pollution taxes etc. Necessary would of course be a subjective thing depending solely on my opinion what is necessary and what is not.

Just so it's clear - I don't smoke. But you ARE making the decision that 'it's not too bad' one some other individuals behalf, and I again I wonder what gives you that right?

I'm not making any decicions for anyone! I'm sincerely sorry if thought that I had something to do with Finnish legistlation... :hah:
That was my HUMBLE oppinion.

Don't take me so literally. You are in favor of the law, that means that you are in favor of someone making this decision on somebody elses behalf. In turn this means that you feel that someone (e.g. government) is better equipped for making certain individual decisions, specifically smoking.

'Oddity' is very good vocabulary for this purpose.

Do really feel compelled to make fun of my poor written english? In what way does that make your point more comprehensible?

Sorry, I did not wish to make fun of your English, I just thought that 'oddity' was the perfect word for the situation. Attacking your opponents language skills in a discussion is certainly inappropriate.

I'm still not quite shure where you're standing in this matter?

I'm against this law. I think that it infringes civil liberties needlessly as there is no good basis outside of some people not liking 2nd hand smoking.

I'll try once more to make my view of the matter clear enough to understand:

- I THINK that it's better to restrict smoking to cabinets so the smoke doesn't bother people who mind it.

Perfectly ok. I don't think that you or anyone else has the right to pass that law for 5 million people.. If the proprietor of a given bar would require his/her customers to do so, I'd have no problem with it.

- Dissregarding of what the 'studies' may tell I THINK that passive smoking isn't particularry good for your health. Otherwise it would be still ok to smoke in offices etc...

This bit of logic displays exactly what I think is wrong with this entire argument. There is no scientific evidence known to you, but because some other law exists, by extension this law is also validated.

I've heard that some people get anxiety from even one people smoking next to them. What about people who have astma?

There is also a medical condition where people can get anxiety when they hear the word 'school'. I kid you not. And like I said previously, you do have the power to talk to your employer, and failing that, to influence the employer via a union of workers for example.

This still does not justify passing a law that decides the case for everyone , everywhere, all the time.

Do you THINK it's ok to use this leisure drug in places where it may cause other people anxiety?

Definitely.

Can u comprehend the difference of endangering your health and endangering your health and those who are around u?

From your previous post:

Dissregarding of what the 'studies' may tell I THINK that passive smoking isn't particularry good for your health.

I cannot comprehend that you speak of endangering the health of those around you, since you yourself have admitted that this is at best your own opinion - which you happen to share with quite a few others out there.

I cannot comprehend that you speak of endangering the health of those around you, since you yourself have admitted that this is at best your own opinion - which you happen to share with quite a few others out there.

Well, it's quite obvious. The smoker inhales much larger quantities of that smoke through a filter and the person who has to enjoy only a fraction of that smoke unfiltered. How have you reached to that conclusion that 2nd hand tobacco smoke wouldn't be as harmfull as 1st hand smoke? There's just a quite big difference in quantities.

And what comes to scientifical studies:

As a non-smoker you have to admit that 2nd hand smoking in the worst case scenario irritates your eyes and throte. That's the 1st effect of smoke.

Have you ever wondered what a long term exposure to 2nd hand smoke does to u?

I don't think that we need a scientifical studies to point out that 2nd hand smoking is in fact bad for your health.

Actually, tobacco is so HUGE business that I have to doubt any scientific study that tries to point out tobaccos harmlesness. (in the late 18-century there was many studies of tobaccos health benefits :hah: )

You asked 'what gives the goverment the right to decide for 5 million people?'

Answer is quite simple, but complicated: We give them the right to decide for us by electing, but after that we don't have any influence on them.

I think it's pointless to arque about the way our legistlation works.