NationStates Jolt Archive

Inspired by the "Smoking. Yes or No" poll thread.

Let's assume a person (person "A") is sitting in a corner of a room. Another person (person "B") enters the room. Person B proceeds to light up a cigarette and begins smoking.

Person A cannot leave the room without passing through the cloud of smoke being emitted by person B.

The cloud of smoke emitted by person B is steadily dispersing through the room, and is approaching person A.

Person A requests that person B either leave the room or extinguish his cigarette. Person B refuses.

The question becomes. Given this situation and contingent on person B's continued refusal to either leave or stop smoking would person A be legally entitled to employ force as an act of self defense to get person B to leave the room or extinguish the cigarette? For example, by hurling a heavy blunt object at him from outside the reach of the expanding cloud of smoke?

Think it over carefully before anwering. Answers may vary depending on your country of origin so feel free to identify which legal framework your answer is operating within.

This just popped into my head a while back and I thought it would make an interesting discussion...

As a non-smoker . . . yes :D

Seriously though, this is a joke, right? Obviously, hurling heavy, blunt objects is a more immediate danger to your health than holding your breath as you bolted through some smoke-filled air.

I would say it depends on who owns or is renting the room.

Legally, no. Not unless physically attacked first by person B.

Morally, maybe. Depending on whether or not person A has some sort of medical condition which the smoke could affect, or if it is a no-smoking area. Also, if person A does have a medical condition I think that he/she would only be morally entitled if person B was first informed of the medical condition.

If it is an area specifically for smoking, then there would be no legal or moral ground for person A to attack person B.

I think that the best solution, if person B continues to smoke, would be for person A just to leave the room before there is too much smoke in the air.

No. Person A should have no right to make the other person stop smoking or leave the room.

I'm from the UK and dont smoke and never have.

Inspired by the "Smoking. Yes or No" poll thread.

Let's assume a person (person "A") is sitting in a corner of a room. Another person (person "B") enters the room. Person B proceeds to light up a cigarette and begins smoking.

Person A cannot leave the room without passing through the cloud of smoke being emitted by person B.

The cloud of smoke emitted by person B is steadily dispersing through the room, and is approaching person A.

Person A requests that person B either leave the room or extinguish his cigarette. Person B refuses.

The question becomes. Given this situation and contingent on person B's continued refusal to either leave or stop smoking would person A be legally entitled to employ force as an act of self defense to get person B to leave the room or extinguish the cigarette? For example, by hurling a heavy blunt object at him from outside the reach of the expanding cloud of smoke?

Think it over carefully before anwering. Answers may vary depending on your country of origin so feel free to identify which legal framework your answer is operating within.

This just popped into my head a while back and I thought it would make an interesting discussion...
if the room is a public place, and if it is designated as an area where smoking is permitted, then Person A has no right to challenge Person B. if Person A attacks Person B "in self defense" then Person A should be arrested for assault.

if the area in question is Person A's private property, or if it is a public area designated non-smoking, the Person A should contact the appropriate authorities. If Person B is trespassing on Person A's private property then Person A is within his rights to remove Person B by force, provided he gives Person B fair warning and clearly states he wants Person B to leave. If the area is public but designated non-smoking then Person A should be arrested for assault if he attacks Person B.

If you're going to get your pants in that much of a knot over one cigarette, you seriously need to re-examine your priorities.

But most of it depends on what the owner thinks. If its an establishment that allows smoking, person A can go fuck himself as far as I'm concerned. If the owner says no smoking, person B can go fuck himself.

But if its just a room in a general sense and no one really owns it, I'd suggest finding something more important to worry about.

I would put out the thing by force and probably punch them

That's a healthy attitude. Yeah, get in a fight with someone over like a gram of tobacco and some paper.

Personally, if it were up to me I'd make it manditory for the police to install high caliber twin machine gun turrets on every street and inside every public building. When somebody lights up they have 10 seconds to put it out. If they fail to do so they get shot the fuck up. Kinda like ED-209 from Robocop except in turret form.

If our fellow primates have taught us but one thing it's that no problem can't be solved by hurling feces.

As a non-smoker . . . yes :D

Seriously though, this is a joke, right? Obviously, hurling heavy, blunt objects is a more immediate danger to your health than holding your breath as you bolted through some smoke-filled air.Umm...

if the room is a public place, and if it is designated as an area where smoking is permitted, then Person A has no right to challenge Person B. if Person A attacks Person B "in self defense" then Person A should be arrested for assault.

if the area in question is Person A's private property, or if it is a public area designated non-smoking, the Person A should contact the appropriate authorities. If Person B is trespassing on Person A's private property then Person A is within his rights to remove Person B by force, provided he gives Person B fair warning and clearly states he wants Person B to leave. If the area is public but designated non-smoking then Person A should be arrested for assault if he attacks Person B.Yeah, something like that.

As another non-smoker (who hates the smell of cigarette smoke in her hair and clothes), I still agree with Bottle. And in general, it's worth just sucking it up (well, hopefully not too literally in this situation) and dealing with it.

On a side note, I don't think smoking (tobacco or marijuana) should be illegal... but I do think it should be banned from all indoor public areas, where it affects other people.

Seriously though, this is a joke, right? Obviously, hurling heavy, blunt objects is a more immediate danger to your health than holding your breath as you bolted through some smoke-filled air.

Unless, of course, the smoker was smoking something more toxic than what is typically found in cigarettes.

Unless, of course, the smoker was smoking something more toxic than what is typically found in cigarettes.

Well we're adjusting this hypothetical situation, I think we should have two aliens with ray-guns in the room. The question then becomes: would it be wrong for person B to indicate person A's cigarette was a threat to the aliens, thereby causing the alines to shoot him?

if the room is a public place, and if it is designated as an area where smoking is permitted, then Person A has no right to challenge Person B. if Person A attacks Person B "in self defense" then Person A should be arrested for assault.

if the area in question is Person A's private property, or if it is a public area designated non-smoking, the Person A should contact the appropriate authorities. If Person B is trespassing on Person A's private property then Person A is within his rights to remove Person B by force, provided he gives Person B fair warning and clearly states he wants Person B to leave. If the area is public but designated non-smoking then Person A should be arrested for assault if he attacks Person B.

This is what I expected the initial responses to be for the most part. However... let's consider some of the factors here in more detail.

1. We'll say it is a public area, and is not specifically designated as a smoking or non smoking area.

2. The person cannot leave the room without going through the smoke, and so cannot contact any authorities without exposing themselves to the smoke. (No, they don't have a cell phone)

3. Person A is very much aware of the various carcinogens and other nasty substances in cigarette smoke and has a very real concern of the possibility of incurring a degree of bodily harm from exposure to that smoke and has no desire to go plunging through it in a bid to reach the other side. He'll still have to inhale on the far side after all and he'll be bringing some of that disgusting and unhealthy stuff with him on his clothes, skin, etc...

Taking these factors into account is person A still unjustified in utilizing physical force in self defense to compel person B to cease and desist their smoking?

Before answering, also consider the following alternative scenario. All factors remain identical except that Person B, rather than cigarette smoke, is releasing a canister of toxic airborn chemicals into the room, which are known in some cases to cause various health problems to those exposed ranging from mild to rather serious.

If your answer to the alternative scenario is different than your answer for the original scenario, please explain on what basis.

Also, I should probably note that I'm not actually considering hurling a chair at the next idiot who boxes me into a corner with their cigarette fumes(although it would be ever so cathartic...).

Artamazia: You raised just the point I was hoping would be raised. What degree of toxicity represents the threshold beyond which you can consider your physical well-being to be threatened? Cigarette smoke is known to contain carcinogens which have the rather distinct possibility of causing you to develop cancer and eventually die well 'before your time'. Is that not toxic enough? Why or why not?

This is what I expected the initial responses to be for the most part. However... let's consider some of the factors here in more detail.

1. We'll say it is a public area, and is not specifically designated as a smoking or non smoking area.

K. Though in Britain everywhere is a smoking area by default, with no smoking areas needing to be clearly marked and noticed etc.

Not sure what it is like else where though.

2. The person cannot leave the room without going through the smoke, and so cannot contact any authorities without exposing themselves to the smoke. (No, they don't have a cell phone)

Well since it is not explicitly a non smoking area, contacting authorities is moot.

3. Person A is very much aware of the various carcinogens and other nasty substances in cigarette smoke and has a very real concern of the possibility of incurring a degree of bodily harm from exposure to that smoke and has no desire to go plunging through it in a bid to reach the other side. He'll still have to inhale on the far side after all and he'll be bringing some of that disgusting and unhealthy stuff with him on his clothes, skin, etc...

Surely the lesser of two evils would be to dart through the smoke and recieve minimal exposure to the smoke, then to stand in the corner bitching and moaning as the smoke envelopes him and sucks out his precious bodily fluids.

Taking these factors into account is person A still unjustified in utilizing physical force in self defense to compel person B to cease and desist their smoking?

No. Largely since it is pointless, braining the smoker will not cause the smoke to disappear. And damage inflicited by A will be more severe the damage inflicted by the cloud.

Before answering, also consider the following alternative scenario. All factors remain identical except that Person B, rather than cigarette smoke, is releasing a canister of toxic airborn chemicals into the room, which are known in some cases to cause various health problems to those exposed ranging from mild to rather serious.

:rolleyes: Well since we are consideeing alternative situations I propose that there is a back door.


If your answer to the alternative scenario is different than your answer for the original scenario, please explain on what basis.

Because the second is absurd.

Also, I should probably note that I'm not actually considering hurling a chair at the next idiot who boxes me into a corner with their cigarette fumes(although it would be ever so cathartic...).

Artamazia: You raised just the point I was hoping would be raised. What degree of toxicity represents the threshold beyond which you can consider your physical well-being to be threatened?

Minimal contact that results in no long term effects cannot fall into this catergory.

Cigarette smoke is known to contain carcinogens which have the rather distinct possibility of causing you to develop cancer and eventually die well 'before your time'. Is that not toxic enough? Why or why not?

Yes but a single whiff whilst leaving a room will not cause cancer.

Well since we are consideeing alternative situations I propose that there is a back door.

Alright, in your alternative scenario there is a back door. In that case my answer in your scenario is that person A should use it. Now what is your answer in my scenario?

Because the second is absurd.

Fine. An absurd thing is happening. That doesn't answer the question of what person A is entitled to do when he finds himself in this absurd situation.

Minimal contact that results in no long term effects cannot fall into this catergory.

But that's the point. He has no reason to believe that the minimal exposure definitely won't result in any long term effects. It might not... on the other hand it might. Are you saying person A is obligated to accept the risk of potential long term health problems?

Yes but a single whiff whilst leaving a room will not cause cancer.

Probably not. But not certainly not.

Alright, in your alternative scenario there is a back door. In that case my answer in your scenario is that person A should use it. Now what is your answer in my scenario?



Fine. An absurd thing is happening. That doesn't answer the question of what person A is entitled to do when he finds himself in this absurd situation.

Fine, quickly dart out the room.

But that's the point. He has no reason to believe that the minimal exposure definitely won't result in any long term effects. It might not... on the other hand it might. Are you saying person A is obligated to accept the risk of potential long term health problems?

This is ridiculous. If minimul contact with tobacco smoke did result in long term harm we'd be putting it in missiles.

Anyway, quickly leaving the room is obviously preferable to staying in the room if he deludes himself into thinking that one whiff will result in long term harm. Remaining in the room will not suddenly make the smoke disappear.

Probably not. But not certainly not.

No, certainly not.

Fine, quickly dart out the room.

This is ridiculous. If minimul contact with tobacco smoke did result in long term harm we'd be putting it in missiles.

Nobody is claiming it's the equivalent of weapons grade nerve gas. I think you're missing the point of the exercise.

The fact is that there are a whole bevy of medical studies that show that exposure to cigarette smoke is unhealthy. While prolonged exposure increases the odds of it causing health issues decreased exposure doesn't mean those health risks suddenly plummet to 0%.

Anyway, quickly leaving the room is obviously preferable to staying in the room if he deludes himself into thinking that one whiff will result in long term harm. Remaining in the room will not suddenly make the smoke disappear.

Obviously being able to quickly leave the room is preferable but as the situation stands now the only way for him to do that is to first get closer to the source of the fumes which as of now are still actively spewing higher and higher concentrations of them into the air.

It would be even more preferable if that wasn't occuring when he made his run for it.

And the question was, would he be justified in utilizing physical force in self defense in such a situation, not what would be the ideal situation for him to find himself in.

No, certainly not.

Is that so?

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/press/010405a.html

In the largest-ever study of its type, 4,399 children aged 6-16 years who participated in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) provided blood samples and took tests of reading, math, and memory. Analysis of the NHANES III data revealed that even extremely low-level exposure to ETS may be neurotoxic.

"ETS" is "environmental tobacco smoke". IE: second hand smoke.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11466122&dopt=Abstract

In the passive smoking group, environmental tobacco smoke was vented into an exposure chamber for 5 minutes (mean carbon monoxide level, 30 parts per million).
...
CONCLUSIONS: Both passive and active smoking are associated with an acute deterioration in the elastic properties of the aorta.

http://www.health.state.nd.us/NDHD/press/n040426c.htm

According to Pechacek, research indicates that nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at typical levels may incur more than one-third of the heart disease risk of someone who smokes 20 cigarettes a day. Also, even short-term exposures – lasting as little as 30 minutes – may pose significant risks, especially for people who already have or are at special risk of heart disease.

Obviously, less exposure = less risk. But at exactly WHAT threshold are we supposed to draw the line and say "this amount of risk is too low for you to justify defending yourself against"?

What criteria do you use to draw that line?

Nobody is claiming it's the equivalent of weapons grade nerve gas. I think you're missing the point of the exercise.

What is the point?

The fact is that there are a whole bevy of medical studies that show that exposure to cigarette smoke is unhealthy. While prolonged exposure increases the odds of it causing health issues decreased exposure doesn't mean those health risks suddenly plummet to 0%.

Never said that. Said it was extremely unlikely, your probably more at risk from cow farts that holding your breath whilst walking through cloud of smoke.

Obviously being able to quickly leave the room is preferable but as the situation stands now the only way for him to do that is to first get closer to the source of the fumes which as of now are still actively spewing higher and higher concentrations of them into the air.

Better get out quick then, each moment spent dithering on what to do means more toxins obviously.

I've the person is such a non risk taker one would think that he would have left the room as soon as the fag and lighter were taken out.

I'm actually amazed he doesn't wander around in a bubble.

It would be even more preferable if that wasn't occuring when he made his run for it.

Irrelevent. You made the scenario, bit unfair to change it isn't it.

And the question was, would he be justified in utilizing physical force in self defense in such a situation, not what would be the ideal situation for him to find himself in.

No. because such actions are agressive, not defensive.

Yes but a single whiff whilst leaving a room will not cause cancer. Probably not. But not certainly not.
No, certainly not.Is that so?

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/press/010405a.html

Wow, a source that deal with exposure of tobacco smoke on 6-16 years olds' IQ. Now I'm convinced that a whiff will cause cancer :rolleyes:

"ETS" is "environmental tobacco smoke". IE: second hand smoke.

Still nothing about a whiff causing cancer.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11466122&dopt=Abstract
According to Pechacek, research indicates that nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at typical levels may incur more than one-third of the heart disease risk of someone who smokes 20 cigarettes a day. Also, even short-term exposures – lasting as little as 30 minutes– may pose significant risks, especially for people who already have or are at special risk of heart disease.
Are you reading what you post. It does not take 30 minutes to leave a room, and if it did I'm sure it would be easy enough to go to another part of the room.





Obviously, less exposure = less risk. But at exactly WHAT threshold are we supposed to draw the line and say "this amount of risk is too low for you to justify defending yourself against"?

What criteria do you use to draw that line?

I don't. It is never permissable to attack a smoker under the auspice of 'self defence' for smoking.

What is the point?

I spelled it out rather clearly at the end of that post.

Never said that. Said it was extremely unlikely, your probably more at risk from cow farts that holding your breath whilst walking through cloud of smoke.

Really? Could you show me the studies that show that even extremely low level exposure to cow farts can be neurotoxic?

Better get out quick then, each moment spent dithering on what to do means more toxins obviously.

That argument can be equally applied to not dithering about driving the offending party from the room.

I've the person is such a non risk taker one would think that he would have left the room as soon as the fag and lighter were taken out.

Assuming he noticed it immediately, and you're still completely ignoring the point of the question. You appear to be much more interested in making smartass remarks about the hypothetical subject of this little exercise than in discussing the details of the scenario.

At what point should we say, from a legal standpoint, that a risk to your health is too low for you to be able to justify taking action to physically defend yourself against it? And how do we establish that criteria?

Irrelevent. You made the scenario, bit unfair to change it isn't it.

I wasn't changing the scenario, I was making an observation.

No. because such actions are agressive, not defensive.

But see, that's exactly the question. Why wouldn't it be considered a defensive application of force?

Wow, a source that deal with exposure of tobacco smoke on 6-16 years olds' IQ. Now I'm convinced that a whiff will cause cancer :rolleyes:

Please don't play dumb. When presented with peer reviewed research sources that point out that even low-level exposure to second-hand smoke has the potential to cause physical harm all of a sudden if it isn't one exact specific kind of physical harm it doesn't count?

Are you reading what you post. It does not take 30 minutes to leave a room, and if it did I'm sure it would be easy enough to go to another part of the room.

Are you readng what I post? 30 minutes results in SIGNIFICANT risk. And I said that obviously lessened exposure = lessened risk. But the risk is still non-zero.

I don't.

???

Really? You have NO criteria? NO threshold? So NO amount of risk to your personal physical wellbeing justifies you applying force in self defense to attempt to mitigate that risk?

I'm sure that isn't true, and just to remind you once again, this is a thought exercise. We are exploring just how we should draw that line. At what point does a level of risk become sufficient justification for physically defending yourself and how do we establish that point?

I spelled it out rather clearly at the end of that post.

Really? Could you show me the studies that show that even extremely low level exposure to cow farts can be neurotoxic?

Maybe I should start using tags.

That argument can be equally applied to not dithering about driving the offending party from the room.

But to drive the offending party from the room you will probably need to spend more time closer to the source of the pollution (ie the fag). Leaving the room immediatly bypasses this.

Assuming he noticed it immediately, and you're still completely ignoring the point of the question. You appear to be much more interested in making smartass remarks about the hypothetical subject of this little exercise than in discussing the details of the scenario.

You finally noticed?

As I said before, I find the concept of using violence against smokers as absurd. That and I have been up too long and don't feel like making serious points at the best of times.

At what point should we say, from a legal standpoint, that a risk to your health is too low for you to be able to justify taking action to physically defend yourself against it? And how do we establish that criteria?

When there is clear and present danger? (And playing with [low] probabilities doesn't constitute clear and present danger).

No idea, I have honestly never thought about it, and won't for a while since I'm going to bed when I finish this post.

I wasn't changing the scenario, I was making an observation.

meh


But see, that's exactly the question. Why wouldn't it be considered a defensive application of force?

Because you are putting you self in more danger (not just from the cigarette but also from actual bodily harm) by using violence to solve the problem rather then just leaving.

Please don't play the idiot. When presented with peer reviewed research sources that point out that even low-level exposure to second-hand smoke has the potential to cause physical harm all of a sudden if it isn't one exact specific kind of physical harm it doesn't count?

Physical harm? It was concerned with a small reduction in IQ. Hardly life threatening.

Are you readng what I post? 30 minutes results in SIGNIFICANT risk. And I said that obviously lessened exposure = lessened risk. But the risk is still non-zero.

Never said it was.


???

Really? You have NO criteria? NO threshold? So NO amount of risk to your personal physical wellbeing justifies you applying force in self defense to attempt to mitigate that risk?

I don't consider second hand smoke to be a risk to my personal well being. That and I am not a violent person, I'll defend myself if attakced, but I will not attack a passive risk.

I'm sure that isn't true, and just to remind you once again, this is a thought exercise. We are exploring just how we should draw that line. At what point does a level of risk become sufficient justification for physically defending yourself and how do we establish that point?

When you are attacked, not a passive risk. Smoking is not a form of attack, granted it can be risky, but it is passive, not agressive.

I spelled it out rather clearly at the end of that post.

Really? Could you show me the studies that show that even extremely low level exposure to cow farts can be neurotoxic?

Maybe I should start using tags.

That argument can be equally applied to not dithering about driving the offending party from the room.

But to drive the offending party from the room you will probably need to spend more time closer to the source of the pollution (ie the fag). Leaving the room immediatly bypasses this.

Assuming he noticed it immediately, and you're still completely ignoring the point of the question. You appear to be much more interested in making smartass remarks about the hypothetical subject of this little exercise than in discussing the details of the scenario.

You finally noticed?

As I said before, I find the concept of using violence against smokers as absurd. That and I have been up too long and don't feel like making serious points at the best of times.

At what point should we say, from a legal standpoint, that a risk to your health is too low for you to be able to justify taking action to physically defend yourself against it? And how do we establish that criteria?

When there is clear and present danger? (And playing with [low] probabilities doesn't constitute clear and present danger).

No idea, I have honestly never thought about it, and won't for a while since I'm going to bed when I finish this post.

I wasn't changing the scenario, I was making an observation.

meh


But see, that's exactly the question. Why wouldn't it be considered a defensive application of force?

Because you are putting you self in more danger (not just from the cigarette but also from actual bodily harm) by using violence to solve the problem rather then just leaving.

Please don't play the idiot. When presented with peer reviewed research sources that point out that even low-level exposure to second-hand smoke has the potential to cause physical harm all of a sudden if it isn't one exact specific kind of physical harm it doesn't count?

Physical harm? It was concerned with a small reduction in IQ. Hardly life threatening.

Are you readng what I post? 30 minutes results in SIGNIFICANT risk. And I said that obviously lessened exposure = lessened risk. But the risk is still non-zero.

Never said it was.


???

Really? You have NO criteria? NO threshold? So NO amount of risk to your personal physical wellbeing justifies you applying force in self defense to attempt to mitigate that risk?

I don't consider second hand smoke to be a risk to my personal well being. That and I am not a violent person, I'll defend myself if attakced, but I will not attack a passive risk.

I'm sure that isn't true, and just to remind you once again, this is a thought exercise. We are exploring just how we should draw that line. At what point does a level of risk become sufficient justification for physically defending yourself and how do we establish that point?

When you are attacked, not a passive risk. Smoking is not a form of attack, granted it can be risky, but it is passive, not agressive.

Nighty night.

Okay, let me ask you this then.

Let's say that something similar to this takes place in a public place, where smoking is not forbidden but neither is the area designated as being for smoking. In fact, let's make this more specific.

I play disc golf. For those unfamiliar with the sport, all you really need to know is that, as in regular golf, everyone on a particular tournament card tees off from the same area, and that area is even more restricted than in ball golf. The sport takes place outdoors, so avoiding smoke usually is not an issue, but on calm days smoke can linger for quite a while, and sometimes takes longer to disperse even with fanning than the amount of time permitted between one player's tee shot and the next.

If everyone on my card is smoking except me, I have told them I am allergic to the smoke, I am teeing off last, all of them have been taking drags and exhaling while on the teepad, and despite my attempts to hold my breath I get a lungful when I make my tee shot...

If the resulting coughing fit is racking enough to make me throw up, am I justified in doing so into their equipment?

(I'm kidding, mostly. Generally nobody minds keeping their smoke away from the actual tee pad and only once has one of the coughing fits I get when I inhale cigarette smoke resulted in my throwing up.)