Nanarina

Dancers Who Smoke

242 posts in this topic

So all liberty is not created equal, if the smoker was there first smoking when a non smoker turns up does the liberty of the smoker prevail as they marked that territory first, or does the superior liberty of the moral right of the non smoker take precedence. Like I said earlier the Final Solution may be camps, great big camps, where smokers can smoke like chimneys.

Simon, your last sentence is deeply silly and almost makes me want to abandon the discussion. I would ask a smoker not to light up if I had arrived first, but not if he did. But of course this choice only applies to spaces where moving is possible, not to the example we've discussed of the queue.

Or, since the history of tobacco in the US predates European settlers, African American immigration perhaps the right of the smoker that of the Native American should trump all other considerations. I suppose there's a poetic irony in the fact you gave them syphilis and blankets, they gave you lung cancer.

Specious. Native Americans would have a case, but they're not complaining.

What exactly are you concerned about for the young? You accuse me of a facile reading of ego, but equally you seem to prescribe a similar facile ego to the "young" (and how young is young) that you think they're so easily swayed. If it's for their health then you'll be hard pushed to find a smoker who'll force their smoke on kids.

It's their health, of course. I'm not going to lay out the case that the young ape their idols, and I'm not going to lay out the case that the sun rises in the morning.

I suppose ultimately what is it exactly that you'd like to see done about this? Total ban on all smoking, everywhere?

There isn't anything I want to see done. I'm glad to see prohibitions in some cases, and in some others not. I oppose them in bars and restaurants and other private establishments.

Marga wrote:

Delving further - and getting more philosophical as well as political: why should anyone's liberty be privileged?

As a practical matter, where wills clash, one or both sides have their liberty curtailed. The issue of smoking in public illustrates this fact. When non-smokers have to move, their liberty is curtailed. Sometimes we pass laws taking one side or another. That's the law's function. And in a democracy, where each side can push their case, that's not unfair.

Share this post


Link to post
And remember, for the record, that Martins refused a breath test. Does one refuse this more likely for having been just a little over the legal limit or perhaps a good bit or even a lot over? You have a lot to lose or a lot to gain if you choose to have one, but if you refuse one (I remember not being aware that you could do so, but nobody answered me on that), you may look suspicious, but that's still the less risky choice if you HAVE imbibed excessively.

In fairness to Mr. Martins, it is almost always a much wiser course to refuse the on-site breath test.

So all liberty is not created equal, if the smoker was there first smoking when a non smoker turns up does the liberty of the smoker prevail as they marked that territory first, or does the superior liberty of the moral right of the non smoker take precedence.

Actually, the origins of much of the anti-smoking legislation was because of non-smokers who could not move (such as restaurant and bar workers) and the related public interest. These were groups that were spending extended periods of time in close quarters with smokers, and were experiencing unusually high rates of smoking-related diseases. Because these are groups that tended to be uninsured, the high healthcare costs were being footed by the tax-paying public, and so municipalities started getting involved.

Share this post


Link to post

When non-smokers have to move, their liberty is curtailed.

As a non-smoker, I agree with your statement 100%. As a home-birther, I agree with homebirth advocates who have cogent reasoning behind their choice. As a breastfeeding mother, I agree with (and can present) all the logical reasons why breastfeeding is the superior infant feeding method. As an Estonian whose countrymen were kidnapped, tortured, killed, and sent to Siberia in cattle cars, I agree with all who explain why Communism is evil. As a proponent of Vaganova training, I agree with those fanatical Russians who see it as the epitome of ballet training and hoist it high above the R.A.D. and Cecchetti methods.

Although my examples don't all qualify as danger/no danger, they show more than personal preference. They are my deep-seated beliefs. However, my musing "why should anyone's liberty be privileged?" is a philosophical query that has nothing to do with personal preference, law, or morality.

This thread has a polarizing influence (is that statement discussing the discussion? I can't tell anymore!) which will continue to separate us into factions as there is no real final answer to the topic at hand: dancers who smoke. Not that there has to be a final answer (now I'm rambling). I'm just interested to see what new thoughts will emerge from this think tank (is that sentence discussing the discussion? Oh dear, I just don't know!) Moderators, feel free to take a scalpel to my post.

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, the origins of much of the anti-smoking legislation was because of non-smokers who could not move (such as restaurant and bar workers) and the related public interest. These were groups that were spending extended periods of time in close quarters with smokers, and were experiencing unusually high rates of smoking-related diseases. Because these are groups that tended to be uninsured, the high healthcare costs were being footed by the tax-paying public, and so municipalities started getting involved.

Smoking bans on planes was driven by the flight attendants' union.

Share this post


Link to post

In fairness to Mr. Martins, it is almost always a much wiser course to refuse the on-site breath test.

Why is it wise? For the tested and his outcome, or for the truth? Or, do you mean the authorities, the police are likely to corruptly falsify? My questions have to be answered or the 'in fairness to Mr. Martins' may mean something, but I haven't any idea what that might be.

Here was the description in the papers at the time, that was very familiar in all the reports about 'struck the curb', etc., as, for instance, the Wall Street Journal:

Though the line of vehicles at the checkpoint on the Saw Mill River Parkway was “virtually at a standstill,” police at the checkpoint noticed that Mr. Martins’s 2005 Bentley Continental was wandering in and out of its lane, according to Mr. O’Leary. Mr. Martins drove onto the shoulder and struck the curb several times, at one point mounting the curb with his tires.

“He was having difficulty even at that very reduced speed,” Mr. O’Leary said.

And he didn't even GET charged with DUI or DWI, as the NYTimes reported some 10 days after the incident:

A leader of the New York City Ballet pleaded guilty on Tuesday to a lesser charge after being accused of driving while intoxicated.

The ballet master, Peter Martins, admitted to driving while his ability was impaired. He was fined $300 and released, said Nina Azeez, a Yonkers City Court clerk.

So, with swerving all over the place, he ended up with a $300 fine.

In legal terms, therefore, he is not even guilty of a 'dumb mistake' or what-have-you DUI. We call it 'DUI' of 'DWI', but that's not what it is/was officially. He's guilty of 'admitting to driving while his ability was impaired'.

There was also lots of high dudgeon round these parts when Nilas Martins made his plea deal, based on 'protecting someone else'. There was heard by his lawyer "He does not use drugs. He has not used drugs. He will never, ever use drugs," Jones said.

But he had to do some alcohol and drug 'evaluation' (I don't know whether that went anywhere.) I thought that was pretty innocuous by comparison, just an illegal substance in a parked car, but some were concerned about the other person, also a NYCB dancer, as I recall.

Share this post


Link to post
When smoking was banned from the indoors based on health concerns, it was not a given that the problem would be transferred to the streets which escalated the amount of smoking on the streets, especially in groups.

A "given"? Perhaps not. A reasonable assumption that occurred to a fair number of people beforehand, yes. It didn't take genius - I thought of it when I read the first article I saw on the subject. Where else could people go?

Actually, the origins of much of the anti-smoking legislation was because of non-smokers who could not move (such as restaurant and bar workers) and the related public interest. These were groups that were spending extended periods of time in close quarters with smokers, and were experiencing unusually high rates of smoking-related diseases. Because these are groups that tended to be uninsured, the high healthcare costs were being footed by the tax-paying public, and so municipalities started getting involved.

Most of the discussion in this thread has revolved around bans on smoking in open spaces. I think everyone sympathizes with workers whose jobs require them to stay in one place and can understand their complaints, even if the science on the health dangers was/is disputable, to say the least. I haven't brought that up because I figured that was a fight this thread doesn't need......

Share this post


Link to post

Forgot to add that it's nice to hear from you again, sidwich. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Why is it wise? For the tested and his outcome, or for the truth? Or, do you mean the authorities, the police are likely to corruptly falsify? My questions have to be answered or the 'in fairness to Mr. Martins' may mean something, but I haven't any idea what that might be.

Patrick,

Sidwich is unfortunately very very right. A drunk driver does have the right to refuse a breath test by the side of the road and later at the police station in which case they're taking their chances by being solely at the mercy of the courts. If no accident has occurred prior to their being stopped by the police they may very well be better off taking the pot luck choice. In the case of Martins who was by all accounts plainly drunk to the point where he was mistaking the pavement for the road he gambled and rightly so, that a judge would see that a person as "important" as he had just made a "silly mistake".

In the UK our laws regarding deaths caused by drunk driving are very different from yours unfortunately, it's only rare cases that a custodial sentence is given even for deaths caused by drunk or irresponsible driving, especially if it's a first offence. We don't have vehicular manslaughter per se, which is a mandatory sentence in your judicial system.

Share this post


Link to post

Most of the discussion in this thread has revolved around bans on smoking in open spaces. I think everyone sympathizes with workers whose jobs require them to stay in one place and can understand their complaints, even if the science on the health dangers was/is disputable, to say the least. I haven't brought that up because I figured that was a fight this thread doesn't need......

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post

"White man who speak with fork tongue brought ballet rain dance to Land".

The name's Land. Brooke Land.

Share this post


Link to post

Or, since the history of tobacco in the US predates European settlers, African American immigration perhaps the right of the smoker that of the Native American should trump all other considerations. I suppose there's a poetic irony in the fact you gave them syphilis and blankets, they gave you lung cancer.

Well, going :off topic: (but this thread has certainly wandered anyway...) according to some very plausible theories, syphilis was one of the treasures of the Western Hemisphere and only came to Europe after crews returned from voyages with tobacco, gold, etc. There are counter theories that syphilis existed in Europe prior to explorations of the "New World" but just wasn't noticed or noted (that appears sort of a stretch for me). But the Europeans did bring smallpox over with the blankets......

Share this post


Link to post

[Admin Beanie On]

I'm not even going to try to salvage what is useful from any post that begins with "Your problem is...".

[Admin Beanie Off]

Share this post


Link to post

even if the science on the health dangers was/is disputable, to say the least. I haven't brought that up because I figured that was a fight this thread doesn't need......

Since this was brought up as part of the discussion, I'd be interested to see the disputed science.

Share this post


Link to post

[Admin Beanie On]

I'm not even going to try to salvage what is useful from any post that begins with "Your problem is...".

[Admin Beanie Off]

Okay, so posts which accuse other posters of being specious and silly are fine as long as the poster has a view in accordance with the prevalent argument that smoking outside is a subversive act of malice and an attack on civil liberties?

There have been many specious aspects both pro and con. What I do take issue with is this assumption that the "youth" are so facile that they'll ape their idols by engaging in similar behaviours.

My points were that Kurt Cobain a heroin addict, suicide and smoker, the biggest star in the world did not prompt a rash of suicides and heroin addiction amongst his young followers. Likewise the marvellously self destructive Amy Winehouse, who a few years ago was the biggest selling female artist in the world didn't prompt her fans to follow her into crack addiction.

Kate Moss who has directly been blamed for anorexia, lung cancer due to her refusal to stop smoking, has rather candidly repudiated the claims that she is a bad role model, saying she's not a role model she's a model. And there is absolutely no proof to link her to anorexia, cocaine addiction and abuse nor to kids taking up smoking. What I do think is sad is how much smoking has damaged one of the most beautiful faces I've ever seen - and yes, there's no way I could argue against the damaging effects of smoking.

If there is one truly specious argument here it's that young people's sense of self is so poor, their intellects so stunted that they have no choice but to follow their idols bad habits. And that much I don't buy.

This whole thread started on very shaky ground by attacking two ballerinas as being poor "role models" and indirectly setting a bad example to kids.

It's plainly obvious that kfw and several others see smokers as being sub classes of society whose liberties are privileges demanding of being revoked. Well, law has revoked many of those privileges. It's a done deal.

I've also brought up several points about the usefulness of tax dollar and revenue from tobacco, though of course those points were ignored. This convo can't progress because there is no flexibility on the anti smoking brigade's part who do seem to like to feel indignant for the mere sake of it.

Share this post


Link to post

even if the science on the health dangers was/is disputable, to say the least. I haven't brought that up because I figured that was a fight this thread doesn't need......

Since this was brought up as part of the discussion, I'd be interested to see the disputed science.

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/04/false-claims-about-secondhand-smoke.html

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/10/blowing-secondhand-smoke-new-research.html

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm

http://www.healbuzz.com/All/Americans-for-Nonsmokers-Rights-Apparently-Retains-False-Secondhand-Smoke-Claims-Why-Is-It-Necessary-to-Lie-When-the-Truth-Would-Be-Enough

These should get you started and point you in the direction for deeper, further study should you so desire.

Share this post


Link to post

[Admin Beanie On]

I'm not even going to try to salvage what is useful from any post that begins with "Your problem is...".

[Admin Beanie Off]

Okay, so posts which accuse other posters of being specious and silly are fine as long as the poster has a view in accordance with the prevalent argument that smoking outside is a subversive act of malice and an attack on civil liberties?

Ugh, no. Posts that describe other arguments as specious or silly are watched carefully. Posts that purport to tell people what their problems are deleted, if we find them, or if, before we find them, the original poster has responded with a much better reply than we can.

Share this post


Link to post

Since the context of dirac's comment was people in the workplace, not those casually exposed to second-hand smoke:

From the last link, since the others debunk claims of increased mortality due to second-hand smoke, rather than chronic or secondary effects like asthma (cited by the EPA) and as far as I can see, don't distinguish between the amount of smoke a worker is subject to, i.e. a bar vs. an office:

Starting with the title:

Why Is It Necessary to Lie When the Truth Would Be Enough?

Then

Brief tobacco smoke exposure does not cause heart damage. What is does cause is endothelial damage (reversible vascular injury to the cells that line the coronary arteries). Heart damage refers to actual damage to the heart muscle, such as one sustains after myocardial ischemia or a heart attack.

Note the use of "brief".

- FALSE VERSION: "There are virtually no health disparities between active and passive smoking."1 - ACCURATE VERSION: "The effects of secondhand smoke exposure on endothelial function are virtually identical to those of active smoking."2 - FALSE VERSION: "The risks of heart disease associated with secondhand smoke are twice what were previously thought and are virtually indistinguishable from those associated with active smoking."2 - ACCURATE VERSION: "The effects of tobacco smoke exposure on cardiovascular disease are nonlinear; as a result, the risk of heart disease associated with chronic exposure to secondhand smoke may actually approach that of very light, active smoking."3 - FALSE VERSION: "Just thirty minutes of exposure to secondhand smoke can cause heart damage similar to that of habitual smokers."3 - ACCURATE VERSION: "Just thirty minutes of exposure to secondhand smoke can cause endothelial dysfunction similar to that observed in active smokers.

The conclusion:

The statements are still very powerful and convey the high level of health risk associated with secondhand smoke exposure. In fact, I think they explain more accurately exactly why secondhand smoke is so strongly linked to heart disease. The statements are no less powerful in providing a rationale for regulating tobacco smoke exposure in workplaces and public places. The only real difference is that these statements are accurate, while ANR's claims are inaccurate.Why the need to lie to the public?

Share this post


Link to post

[Admin Beanie On]

I'm not even going to try to salvage what is useful from any post that begins with "Your problem is...".

[Admin Beanie Off]

Okay, so posts which accuse other posters of being specious and silly are fine as long as the poster has a view in accordance with the prevalent argument that smoking outside is a subversive act of malice and an attack on civil liberties?

Ugh, no. Posts that describe other arguments as specious or silly are watched carefully. Posts that purport to tell people what their problems are are usually deleted, if we find them.

Specious and silly are blunt terms for describing arguments. They can be specious and silly themselves, or they can be the blunt truth and the best way to cut through the fog of rhetoric. In any case, they are directed at the argument, not the person.

I should add that I, for one, don't consider smoking outside a subversive act, or an act of malice, or an attack on civil liberties, or any other kind of attack.

Share this post


Link to post
As a practical matter, where wills clash, one or both sides have their liberty curtailed. The issue of smoking in public illustrates this fact. When non-smokers have to move, their liberty is curtailed. Sometimes we pass laws taking one side or another. That's the law's function. And in a democracy, where each side can push their case, that's not unfair.

Smokers, who are the objects of social shaming and reproach, as this thread demonstrates, are at a plain disadvantage in these debates. These laws are passed for reasons of health, not as matters of "personal liberty." My own feeling that if non-smokers can't be bothered to move, it might be best and safest for them to stay home.....

All of the foregoing points, including mine, were raised earlier on this thread. Just sayin'.

Since this was brought up as part of the discussion, I'd be interested to see the disputed science.

Helene, I said that was not going to be a fight I was going to start on this thread and indeed I would never have raised the matter myself and I didn't. I remain untempted to take up the cudgels. I simply pointed out that the matter was disputable. Your access to the Internet and the relevant research available elsewhere is as good as mine. :)

Thanks, Simon.

Share this post


Link to post

Helene, I said that was not going to be a fight I was going to start on this thread and indeed I would never have raised the matter myself and I didn't. I remain untempted to take up the cudgels. I simply pointed out that the matter was disputable. Your access to the Internet and the relevant research available elsewhere is as good as mine. :)

:dunno: Once raised, it becomes a legitimate part of the discussion. I asked for sources, because there's a lot of literature out there from both sides of the debate, and I was curious what the basis of your statement was, since there are arguments against global warming and evolution as well.

Share this post


Link to post

Helene, I said that was not going to be a fight I was going to start on this thread and indeed I would never have raised the matter myself and I didn't. I remain untempted to take up the cudgels. I simply pointed out that the matter was disputable. Your access to the Internet and the relevant research available elsewhere is as good as mine. :)

:dunno: Once raised, it becomes a legitimate part of the discussion. I asked for sources, because there's a lot of literature out there from both sides of the debate, and I was curious what the basis of your statement was, since there are arguments against global warming and evolution as well.

You know, I am tempted to respond to that, but instead I'm going to let the provocation speak for itself. You may take my refusal to engage in any way you wish.

Share this post


Link to post

:dunno: Once raised, it becomes a legitimate part of the discussion. I asked for sources, because there's a lot of literature out there from both sides of the debate, and I was curious what the basis of your statement was, since there are arguments against global warming and evolution as well.

Well if we want to extend the argument of a human practice impacting disastrously on not only mankind but the environment, when it comes to global warming one of the biggest contributors to methane gasses destroying the ozone layer is anal emissions from livestock specifically bred intensively in increasing volume to feed mankind's demands for meat, specifically cheap meat.

Nature didn't design livestock with McDonalds, Burger King, In & Out, Wendy's etc in mind, animals aren't intended to be bred in such volume, where life cycles are sped up, nor did design intervention by man on the process, modern farming and volume. The meat industry meets a demand it and the public have created and the results are proving disastrous.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree, there are a lot of environmentally bad practices on this planet. I even agree that there are worse environment impacts than second-hand smoke. (Shocking, I know.)

I don't think, though, that reducing or removing environmental impacts is an all-or-nothing proposition.

Share this post


Link to post
As a practical matter, where wills clash, one or both sides have their liberty curtailed. The issue of smoking in public illustrates this fact. When non-smokers have to move, their liberty is curtailed. Sometimes we pass laws taking one side or another. That's the law's function. And in a democracy, where each side can push their case, that's not unfair.

Smokers, who are the objects of social shaming and reproach, as this thread demonstrates, are at a plain disadvantage in these debates. These laws are passed for reasons of health, not as matters of "personal liberty." My own feeling that if non-smokers can't be bothered to move, it might be best and safest for them to stay home.....

I’ll grant you that smokers are often the objects of social shaming and reproach, and that stinks, no pun intended. But as I have tried to say in one way or another on this thread, that’s not my approach to them. As I believe I have explicitly said, I don’t look down on them – that sort of attitude is very far from my thinking. I do think that under some conditions smoking is rude, but that isn’t to say that rudeness characterizes smokers, as if all smokers were rude, or no one else ever was. I am not on a crusade against smokers or smoking, I'm just taking a position on the rights of smokers vs. non-smokers.

I believe Simon was the first to speak of liberties here, when on page 11 he wrote of “a total curtailment of [smoker’s] liberties.” I completely agree with you that the laws are passed for reasons of health, and so that everyone can enjoy public spaces (the latter is the same thinking behind some noise ordinances) and not in order to curtail liberties. But there is legal liberty and practical liberty, and as the saying goes, your freedom/liberty ends at the point of my nose. Where wills clash, which to say in any society, no one can be completely free, and we make laws to side with one disputant over the other. As a practical matter then, laws curtail legal liberties, but their absence sometimes curtails practical liberties.

Leaving aside for the sake of argument the issue of harm, I still don’t understand why if the smoker is bothering the non-smoker and not the other way around, the smoker should be accorded a right to do as he pleases and the non-smoker not.

Share this post


Link to post

wikipedia smoking entry

From 1965 to 2006, rates of smoking in the United States have declined from 42% to 20.8%. A significant majority of those who quit were professional, affluent men.

simon g

This whole thread started on very shaky ground by attacking two ballerinas as being poor "role models" and indirectly setting a bad example to kids.

It's plainly obvious that kfw and several others see smokers as being sub classes of society whose liberties are privileges demanding of being revoked.

This thread also begins to separate people by class and to ostracize certain groups, in a very polite way of course, and to stigmatize dancers – whom Ballet Alert professes support.

Share this post


Link to post