Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Smoking Controversy

Extremely-Far-Right
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 10:57:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I welcome any arguments for why smoking should be restricted. (Not including indoor places such as an airplane [due to safety reasons] or inside a public building)

To date, I really haven't found a good reason why we should restrict and/or discontinue or limit smoking.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 11:46:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
By smoking, I assume you mean tobacco.

Well, the only real argument is that it's bad for your health.

Someone could then argue people should have the freedom to make health mistakes.

Those same people would likely also restrict smoking from children, though. They would say children are incompetent.

I would say the vast majority of people are incompetent.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 11:49:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
If you want to stretch it, other arguments include:

* It's a fire hazard.

* Second-hand smoking is equal to assault.

*Idk..um...it smells?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 12:07:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 11:46:39 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I would say the vast majority of people are incompetent.

Yourself conveniently excluded, of course :P .
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 12:28:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
A lot of the recent anti-smoking legislation has been introduced at the behest of spiteful, self-righteous, puritans who just love to ban anything they don't personally enjoy themselves.

Why not allow some bars to permit smoking, for example? Then the punters could vote with their feet on whether smoking should be permitted or not. The reason is, of course, that the bars that unilaterally-banned smoking in Britain prior to the blanket ban were shunned by most pub-goers, especially in the winter.

I suspect some of these pious, meddling little prigs would have people arrested for going out in public naked under their clothes if they could!
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 12:37:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 12:07:14 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 5/11/2011 11:46:39 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I would say the vast majority of people are incompetent.

Yourself conveniently excluded, of course :P .

Of course. Then, in a broader sense, I think that ever person has ultimately flawed understanding.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
smc_gamer
Posts: 48
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 3:30:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Many will say that it should be a choice to smoke or not, but there's one problem - nicotine addiction removes that choice.
"If good things lasted forever, would we appreciate how precious they are?"
-Hobbes
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 9:27:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 10:57:45 AM, Extremely-Far-Right wrote:
I welcome any arguments for why smoking should be restricted. (Not including indoor places such as an airplane [due to safety reasons] or inside a public building)

To date, I really haven't found a good reason why we should restrict and/or discontinue or limit smoking.

if I can smell it, it violates my rights.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 9:28:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I also am in favor of laws forcing people to bathe.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
Sam_Lowry
Posts: 367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 2:28:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 3:30:37 PM, smc_gamer wrote:
Many will say that it should be a choice to smoke or not, but there's one problem - nicotine addiction removes that choice.

Your point? Smoking does not automatically cause addiction. I smoke socially given the opportunity, but the health consequences prevent me from making it a habit. Furthermore, given the assumption that 100% of people who smoke will instantly become addicted, then the obvious conclusion is that people voluntarily choose to become addicts unless they do not know that tobacco is addictive. In which case they have literally done the equivalent of reaching underneath their sink and drinking from a random bottle without reading the label.

And really, it makes no difference whether or not your premise is true as automatically it defeats any implicit policy suggestion. If smokers have no choice but to smoke, then smokers will continue to smoke even if we prohibit tobacco. The result of which would be a horrifying black market that would fuel organized crime, spread wide-scale violence, reduce tax revenue and damage a large portion of the economy, undermine respect for the law, and result in massive levels of government corruption that even the modern War on Drugs could not rival (many government officials are unapologetic smokers). In fact you would likely have a situation similar to alcohol prohibition where some states simply refuse to go along with national prohibition due to heavy localized reliance on the tobacco economy.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 3:04:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 9:27:52 PM, askbob wrote:
At 5/11/2011 10:57:45 AM, Extremely-Far-Right wrote:
I welcome any arguments for why smoking should be restricted. (Not including indoor places such as an airplane [due to safety reasons] or inside a public building)

To date, I really haven't found a good reason why we should restrict and/or discontinue or limit smoking.

if I can smell it, it violates my rights.

If you're joking, that's funny.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 3:08:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Why would there be a black market in tobacco if chewing it is legal?

I figure if there you're smoking in a police where a police officer going about his business is likely to catch you, your initiation of force is just significant to penalize on about the level of a jaywalking ticket.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 3:09:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
*smoking it in a place where a police officer*
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 3:09:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
also delete there.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Sam_Lowry
Posts: 367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 4:07:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 3:08:27 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Why would there be a black market in tobacco if chewing it is legal?

I can't really contemplate coherent scenario in which smoking tobacco was illegal but chewing tobacco was not unless you are banning the action rather than the substance. It would be akin to legalizing edible/alcohol based preparations of marijuana but not smoke-able preparations. Specials preparations of chewing tobacco that are implicitly marketed to be smoked rather than chewed would become common and difficult to effectively regulate. This is exactly what some companies currently do with "pipe tobacco" to avoid taxes on "roll your own" tobacco (a scenario which has lead exasperated lawmakers into basically giving up and taxing both forms equally).

But yes, chewing tobacco would probably greatly reduce black market activity if only because it would make a complete mockery of actually enforcing prohibition in addition to the substitute effect.
Extremely-Far-Right
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 1:54:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 11:35:14 AM, OreEle wrote:
Safety reasons are strong enough as to why it should not be allowed.

Should we not allow alcohol then for the same reasons that you suggested?
Extremely-Far-Right
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 1:57:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 11:49:15 AM, FREEDO wrote:
If you want to stretch it, other arguments include:

* It's a fire hazard.

* Second-hand smoking is equal to assault.
How is second-hand smoking equal to assault?

*Idk..um...it smells?
Smells....what? Good? Bad? Extremely nausating? Could you elaborate more please...I'm assuming what you mean is that the smoke smells bad, but then one could counter the argument by saying the smoke smells good.
Extremely-Far-Right
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 2:10:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 9:27:52 PM, askbob wrote:
At 5/11/2011 10:57:45 AM, Extremely-Far-Right wrote:
I welcome any arguments for why smoking should be restricted. (Not including indoor places such as an airplane [due to safety reasons] or inside a public building)

To date, I really haven't found a good reason why we should restrict and/or discontinue or limit smoking.

if I can smell it, it violates my rights.

If you smell car exhaust, does that violate your rights?
smc_gamer
Posts: 48
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 3:27:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 2:28:42 AM, Sam_Lowry wrote:
At 5/11/2011 3:30:37 PM, smc_gamer wrote:
Many will say that it should be a choice to smoke or not, but there's one problem - nicotine addiction removes that choice.

Your point? Smoking does not automatically cause addiction. I smoke socially given the opportunity, but the health consequences prevent me from making it a habit. Furthermore, given the assumption that 100% of people who smoke will instantly become addicted, then the obvious conclusion is that people voluntarily choose to become addicts unless they do not know that tobacco is addictive. In which case they have literally done the equivalent of reaching underneath their sink and drinking from a random bottle without reading the label.

And really, it makes no difference whether or not your premise is true as automatically it defeats any implicit policy suggestion. If smokers have no choice but to smoke, then smokers will continue to smoke even if we prohibit tobacco. The result of which would be a horrifying black market that would fuel organized crime, spread wide-scale violence, reduce tax revenue and damage a large portion of the economy, undermine respect for the law, and result in massive levels of government corruption that even the modern War on Drugs could not rival (many government officials are unapologetic smokers). In fact you would likely have a situation similar to alcohol prohibition where some states simply refuse to go along with national prohibition due to heavy localized reliance on the tobacco economy.

Not automatically (I think the addiction time is about four weeks) but it's pretty strong. If you smoke, you're likely to be addicted. And, for those who are, they can't easily choose to quit - it might be one of the hardest things they ever do.
"If good things lasted forever, would we appreciate how precious they are?"
-Hobbes
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 4:04:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 10:57:45 AM, Extremely-Far-Right wrote:
I welcome any arguments for why smoking should be restricted. (Not including indoor places such as an airplane [due to safety reasons] or inside a public building)

To date, I really haven't found a good reason why we should restrict and/or discontinue or limit smoking.:

It's a real simple solution, just let each private establishment create their own rules for the place they own. Let's say you own a restrurant. You may be reluctant to allow smoking because there are more non-smokers in the world and it will cut in to your business. You don't want to lose that clientele, so it's easier to disallow people to smoke indoor but accommodate the smokers with a smoking patio. It's a win/win.

At a bar/pub you know that at least half of your customers smoke and want to smoke indoors without hassle. If a non-smoking customer does not like it, they can freely go to a pub that banned indoor smoking.

The point is that it should be left up to the owners to decide for themselves without government intervening. They will be forced to meet the demand of their clients and come up with a decent solution.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 4:10:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 3:30:37 PM, smc_gamer wrote:
Many will say that it should be a choice to smoke or not, but there's one problem - nicotine addiction removes that choice.:

And making it illegal removes the choice too, aye? Quid pro quo....

So why don't we just let adults be adults. I smoked for a long, long time. I know all about the addiction and how psychologically and physiologically strong nicotine is. I know it very well. But I didn't make excuses for myself by blaming everyone else. There was a time when one could have claimed ignorance, but we ALL know how dangerous it is now and have for decades. Addicting or not, you're ultimately responsible.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Extremely-Far-Right
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 8:20:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 4:04:39 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 5/11/2011 10:57:45 AM, Extremely-Far-Right wrote:
I welcome any arguments for why smoking should be restricted. (Not including indoor places such as an airplane [due to safety reasons] or inside a public building)

To date, I really haven't found a good reason why we should restrict and/or discontinue or limit smoking.:

It's a real simple solution, just let each private establishment create their own rules for the place they own. Let's say you own a restrurant. You may be reluctant to allow smoking because there are more non-smokers in the world and it will cut in to your business. You don't want to lose that clientele, so it's easier to disallow people to smoke indoor but accommodate the smokers with a smoking patio. It's a win/win.

At a bar/pub you know that at least half of your customers smoke and want to smoke indoors without hassle. If a non-smoking customer does not like it, they can freely go to a pub that banned indoor smoking.

The point is that it should be left up to the owners to decide for themselves without government intervening. They will be forced to meet the demand of their clients and come up with a decent solution.

Aha! Now here is something I can agree with. If only we can find a common agreement on Arizona's SB1070 immigration law.....
D