Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Outlaw smoking

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 12:39:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The common Libertarian argument for the legalization of drugs is that what people do with their own bodies is their business. This is respectable, and in a vacuum it ought to be the law of the land. However, the reality of it is that smoke does far more than harm the user. Second hand smoke is the equivalent of aggression, one human being forcing a dangerous circumstance upon another. People would then smoke only in the privacy of their homes right? But, babies and small children need to be protected too. They are far more apt to harm by smoke than a full grown adult.

The Risks of Secondhand Smoke to a Child

- Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)- children whose mothers smoked during pregnancy have an increased risk of SIDS.

- The EPA estimates that passive smoking is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 of these infections in children under 18 months annually

- Asthma - According to the EPA, between 200,000 and 1,000,000 kids with asthma have their condition worsened by secondhand smoke every year. Also, passive smoking may also be responsible for thousands of new cases of asthma every year
Chronic respiratory symptoms such as cough and wheezing may be attributed to secondhand smoke.
(http://quitsmoking.about.com...)

This is just to name a few. Clean air is a human right in many ways because we all need it, and will die or suffer without it. Therefore, no one has the right to contaminate air with hazardous fumes within the proximity of other individuals. Like the constant battle we have against factory and automobile emissions, smoking too poses a danger to the innocent bystanders aggrieved to the significantly dangerous environment. If you are Libertarian, in accordance with your doctrine of nonaggression, you cannot possibly support the open legality of smoking.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 7:56:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
bump
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 8:19:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2011 12:39:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
The common Libertarian argument for the legalization of drugs is that what people do with their own bodies is their business. This is respectable, and in a vacuum it ought to be the law of the land. However, the reality of it is that smoke does far more than harm the user. Second hand smoke is the equivalent of aggression, one human being forcing a dangerous circumstance upon another. People would then smoke only in the privacy of their homes right? But, babies and small children need to be protected too. They are far more apt to harm by smoke than a full grown adult.

The Risks of Secondhand Smoke to a Child

- Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)- children whose mothers smoked during pregnancy have an increased risk of SIDS.

- The EPA estimates that passive smoking is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 of these infections in children under 18 months annually

- Asthma - According to the EPA, between 200,000 and 1,000,000 kids with asthma have their condition worsened by secondhand smoke every year. Also, passive smoking may also be responsible for thousands of new cases of asthma every year
Chronic respiratory symptoms such as cough and wheezing may be attributed to secondhand smoke.
(http://quitsmoking.about.com...)

This is just to name a few. Clean air is a human right in many ways because we all need it, and will die or suffer without it. Therefore, no one has the right to contaminate air with hazardous fumes within the proximity of other individuals. Like the constant battle we have against factory and automobile emissions, smoking too poses a danger to the innocent bystanders aggrieved to the significantly dangerous environment. If you are Libertarian, in accordance with your doctrine of nonaggression, you cannot possibly support the open legality of smoking.

I push for outlawing farting in public.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 9:02:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2011 8:19:02 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 12/10/2011 12:39:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
The common Libertarian argument for the legalization of drugs is that what people do with their own bodies is their business. This is respectable, and in a vacuum it ought to be the law of the land. However, the reality of it is that smoke does far more than harm the user. Second hand smoke is the equivalent of aggression, one human being forcing a dangerous circumstance upon another. People would then smoke only in the privacy of their homes right? But, babies and small children need to be protected too. They are far more apt to harm by smoke than a full grown adult.

The Risks of Secondhand Smoke to a Child

- Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)- children whose mothers smoked during pregnancy have an increased risk of SIDS.

- The EPA estimates that passive smoking is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 of these infections in children under 18 months annually

- Asthma - According to the EPA, between 200,000 and 1,000,000 kids with asthma have their condition worsened by secondhand smoke every year. Also, passive smoking may also be responsible for thousands of new cases of asthma every year
Chronic respiratory symptoms such as cough and wheezing may be attributed to secondhand smoke.
(http://quitsmoking.about.com...)

This is just to name a few. Clean air is a human right in many ways because we all need it, and will die or suffer without it. Therefore, no one has the right to contaminate air with hazardous fumes within the proximity of other individuals. Like the constant battle we have against factory and automobile emissions, smoking too poses a danger to the innocent bystanders aggrieved to the significantly dangerous environment. If you are Libertarian, in accordance with your doctrine of nonaggression, you cannot possibly support the open legality of smoking.

I push for outlawing farting in public.

Attach farting detectors to everybody?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 9:26:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2011 12:39:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
The common Libertarian argument for the legalization of drugs is that what people do with their own bodies is their business. This is respectable, and in a vacuum it ought to be the law of the land. However, the reality of it is that smoke does far more than harm the user. Second hand smoke is the equivalent of aggression, one human being forcing a dangerous circumstance upon another. People would then smoke only in the privacy of their homes right? But, babies and small children need to be protected too. They are far more apt to harm by smoke than a full grown adult.

The Risks of Secondhand Smoke to a Child

- Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)- children whose mothers smoked during pregnancy have an increased risk of SIDS.

- The EPA estimates that passive smoking is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 of these infections in children under 18 months annually

- Asthma - According to the EPA, between 200,000 and 1,000,000 kids with asthma have their condition worsened by secondhand smoke every year. Also, passive smoking may also be responsible for thousands of new cases of asthma every year
Chronic respiratory symptoms such as cough and wheezing may be attributed to secondhand smoke.
(http://quitsmoking.about.com...)

This is just to name a few. Clean air is a human right in many ways because we all need it, and will die or suffer without it. Therefore, no one has the right to contaminate air with hazardous fumes within the proximity of other individuals. Like the constant battle we have against factory and automobile emissions, smoking too poses a danger to the innocent bystanders aggrieved to the significantly dangerous environment. If you are Libertarian, in accordance with your doctrine of nonaggression, you cannot possibly support the open legality of smoking.

What about consumption within the confines of a home or privately owned specified building with proper ventilation systems?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 10:31:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2011 8:19:02 PM, Indophile wrote:

I push for outlawing farting in public.

Right, right, because farts can kill you and are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in the U.S alone per year......Help me out here, what logical fallacy did you just make?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 10:54:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2011 10:31:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/10/2011 8:19:02 PM, Indophile wrote:

I push for outlawing farting in public.

Right, right, because farts can kill you and are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in the U.S alone per year......Help me out here, what logical fallacy did you just make?

Let's see. Farts are composed of the following.

hydogen sulfide
methanethiol
dimetyhl sulfide

All very dangerous chemicals

http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk...
http://www.sciencelab.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 8:26:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2011 10:54:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/10/2011 10:31:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/10/2011 8:19:02 PM, Indophile wrote:

I push for outlawing farting in public.

Right, right, because farts can kill you and are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in the U.S alone per year......Help me out here, what logical fallacy did you just make?

Let's see. Farts are composed of the following.

hydogen sulfide
methanethiol
dimetyhl sulfide

All very dangerous chemicals

http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk...
http://www.sciencelab.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I can't believe we're having this argument. The only danger assumed in all three of those links were flammability. However, only the gases individually are flammable. Like air itself, pure Oxygen is flammable but there is no sudden explosion when you light a match....the other atmospheric gases dilute the oxygen. Farts are composed primarily of nitrogen (which is not flammable, and is fundamentally harmless) http://en.wikipedia.org... No one has died from a fart, no has been harmed from a fart, and to compare a fart to drug smoke is arrant nonsense

I'm sure you already knew that, you just felt like saying something stupid to distract the issue.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 8:36:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Parents shouldn't smoke in front of their kids. If a parent feeds their kids McDonalds everyday, we know their health will suffer (see: Supersize Me). Yet that doesn't mean we should outlaw McDonalds. Instead, we should hope that knowing the risks of eating McDonalds everyday would be enough to sway the parents away from that. The gist of it is that it would be immoral and counterproductive to ask the government to make these kinds of laws. Smoking isn't going to stop. Instead cigarettes would just emerge on the black market, creating an entire new realm of criminal enterprises.

Right now the government taxes the hell out of cigarettes so at least generates some revenue that way, whereas on the underground cigarettes would still be just as expensive (due to the risk of transport and selling, etc.) yet criminals would pocket the money. You'd have cigarette dealers obviously working off the books and not paying taxes too. Overall, there is really no way this policy could really prove to be useful or beneficial, even if it's true that second-hand smoking is harmful. A lot of things are harmful, but it would be naive to think the government could effectively solve a lot of problems without creating innumerable new ones.
President of DDO
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 9:29:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2011 12:39:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
The common Libertarian argument for the legalization of drugs is that what people do with their own bodies is their business. This is respectable, and in a vacuum it ought to be the law of the land. However, the reality of it is that smoke does far more than harm the user. Second hand smoke is the equivalent of aggression, one human being forcing a dangerous circumstance upon another. People would then smoke only in the privacy of their homes right? But, babies and small children need to be protected too. They are far more apt to harm by smoke than a full grown adult.

The Risks of Secondhand Smoke to a Child

- Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)- children whose mothers smoked during pregnancy have an increased risk of SIDS.

- The EPA estimates that passive smoking is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 of these infections in children under 18 months annually

- Asthma - According to the EPA, between 200,000 and 1,000,000 kids with asthma have their condition worsened by secondhand smoke every year. Also, passive smoking may also be responsible for thousands of new cases of asthma every year
Chronic respiratory symptoms such as cough and wheezing may be attributed to secondhand smoke.
(http://quitsmoking.about.com...)

This is just to name a few. Clean air is a human right in many ways because we all need it, and will die or suffer without it. Therefore, no one has the right to contaminate air with hazardous fumes within the proximity of other individuals. Like the constant battle we have against factory and automobile emissions, smoking too poses a danger to the innocent bystanders aggrieved to the significantly dangerous environment. If you are Libertarian, in accordance with your doctrine of nonaggression, you cannot possibly support the open legality of smoking.

There is not one scientific study that establishes causation between "second hand" anything and any disease, not one. There are a plethora of media reports that do though. That is why, no nonsmoker has ever prevailed in an impartial setting to prevail on a complaint. But why let facts over rule the masses when making laws. (ad populem is always fallacious)
sadolite
Posts: 8,839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 9:48:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Proof is irrelevant, Just make the accusation and repeat it over and over. The new scientific method and news reporting model all rolled up into one. Govt studies, what a joke. Govt studies are just agenda disguised in bastard science. It is a insult to even use the word science in the same sentence as govt study.

The behavior police. The face of tyranny before you. Pick and choose what should and should not be legal based on the flavor of the day. Alcohol kills just as many people but it gets a pass. Legalize marijuana and drugs, They cause hundreds of thousands of work place accidents and deaths every year and lost productivity. But it gets a pass. No, just cigarettes, they are the worst, they must be banished. I equate it to 14th century witch burning. Just ban everything that could possibly be harmful to anyone for any reason. In the name of saving tax payer money. Live a life of absolute safety and boredom to the point of living having no point what so ever. You might get hurt you might get sick you might offend someone you might do something you'll regret you might get............................. on and on and on.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 10:52:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
If you are Libertarian, in accordance with your doctrine of nonaggression, you cannot possibly support the open legality of smoking.:

This is a really simple concept: You are free to do with your body whatever you want UNTIL what you are doing with your body directly affects someone else.

So, you can pound 5 liters of whiskey if you want. But you cannot drive after consuming those levels of alcohol because it directly endangers the lives of others.

If you want to smoke, smoke until your lungs turn black. However, if you smoke with children in the house, and law enforcement gets involved, then you have to suffer the consequences because now you are endangering other people.

Why is that such a hard concept to grasp, versus going the extreme route and outlawing it for everybody, thus creating criminal enterprises which *surprise, surprise* won't stop determined people from smoking?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 11:05:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/11/2011 10:52:49 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
If you are Libertarian, in accordance with your doctrine of nonaggression, you cannot possibly support the open legality of smoking.:

This is a really simple concept: You are free to do with your body whatever you want UNTIL what you are doing with your body directly affects someone else.

So, you can pound 5 liters of whiskey if you want. But you cannot drive after consuming those levels of alcohol because it directly endangers the lives of others.

If you want to smoke, smoke until your lungs turn black. However, if you smoke with children in the house, and law enforcement gets involved, then you have to suffer the consequences because now you are endangering other people.

Why is that such a hard concept to grasp, versus going the extreme route and outlawing it for everybody, thus creating criminal enterprises which *surprise, surprise* won't stop determined people from smoking?

LOL there ya go, just make it a law, involve the paramilitary and face the consequence. ad populem in the extreme
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 11:37:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/11/2011 8:26:28 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/10/2011 10:54:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/10/2011 10:31:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/10/2011 8:19:02 PM, Indophile wrote:

I push for outlawing farting in public.

Right, right, because farts can kill you and are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in the U.S alone per year......Help me out here, what logical fallacy did you just make?

Let's see. Farts are composed of the following.

hydogen sulfide
methanethiol
dimetyhl sulfide

All very dangerous chemicals

http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk...
http://www.sciencelab.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I can't believe we're having this argument. The only danger assumed in all three of those links were flammability.

On the chemicals:

"Harmful if inhaled. Skin, eye and respiratory irritant. CNS depressant. Chronic exposure may cause lung damage. Typical PEL 0.5 - 1.0 ppm. Odour threshold ca. 2 ppb."

"The substance may be toxic to blood, kidneys, liver, mucous membranes, skin, eyes. Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target
organs damage."

"Hydrogen sulfide is considered a broad-spectrum poison, meaning that it can poison several different systems in the body, although the nervous system is most affected. The toxicity of H2S is comparable with that of hydrogen cyanide. It forms a complex bond with iron in the mitochondrial cytochrome enzymes, thus preventing cellular respiration."

Theoretically, If H2S goes above 300–350 ppm, then yes a fart can kill you.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 12:10:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Smoking in public is a non-issue if buildings are constructed with human health in mind. Indoor air is terrible for you, particularly if you are in a place that has been listening to modern environmentalists' concerns about saving energy by sealing in the warm air. This air contains traces of mold, pollen, dust, feces and urine, dead skin, and other various toxins either exhaled or off-gassed from the items in the building. All these things collect and concentrate until they are vented away to the outside.

Homes used to be built with open spaces under the eaves of the roof to vent air out naturally, but now we close everything up to save on heating costs. We like to breath ourselves, but we don't like our buildings to breath, which is a conflict of interests. In properly ventilated areas, smoke will not collect and smokers can be courteous by moving to an area that is close to where the air is exiting.

If you want to complain about health concerns to the public, then second-hand smoke is pretty far down on the list in terms of importance. The reason why smoking is targetted is that society has an obsession with choice; most problems are linked somehow with the choice to buy or consume something, so we'll leave it alone, but second-hand smoke can't be opted out of so we attack it as a violation of our freedom.

We consider things like trans-fats and corn syrup just fine because we bought them, ignoring the fact that our choices are severely constrained and not really genuine. No sociologist is going to agree with you if you say that some poor woman feeding her kid potato chips for lunch is acting out of pure choice (although many DDOers will make this argument). This ignores the effects of marketing on our culture, which has fooled us into thinking that drinking soda with every meal is fine or that french fries are an acceptable side to go with your sandwich at lunch. If you're going to take the libertarian position and say that anything you have an active part in choosing is fine if it causes damage, then you are effectually supporting the McDonaldization of our culture and allowing those with resources to condition the public into buying their products even against their own best interests. Nobody wants to admit that there's a reason companies spend $billions on advertising each year - it works. So you can't say that people have a choice because finances and conditioning plays a definite part in removing that choice.
Rob
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 4:17:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/11/2011 11:37:41 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/11/2011 8:26:28 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/10/2011 10:54:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/10/2011 10:31:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/10/2011 8:19:02 PM, Indophile wrote:

I push for outlawing farting in public.

Right, right, because farts can kill you and are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in the U.S alone per year......Help me out here, what logical fallacy did you just make?

Let's see. Farts are composed of the following.

hydogen sulfide
methanethiol
dimetyhl sulfide

All very dangerous chemicals

http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk...
http://www.sciencelab.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I can't believe we're having this argument. The only danger assumed in all three of those links were flammability.

On the chemicals:

"Harmful if inhaled. Skin, eye and respiratory irritant. CNS depressant. Chronic exposure may cause lung damage. Typical PEL 0.5 - 1.0 ppm. Odour threshold ca. 2 ppb."

"The substance may be toxic to blood, kidneys, liver, mucous membranes, skin, eyes. Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target
organs damage."

"Hydrogen sulfide is considered a broad-spectrum poison, meaning that it can poison several different systems in the body, although the nervous system is most affected. The toxicity of H2S is comparable with that of hydrogen cyanide. It forms a complex bond with iron in the mitochondrial cytochrome enzymes, thus preventing cellular respiration."

Theoretically, If H2S goes above 300–350 ppm, then yes a fart can kill you.

Stop wasting my time. If you actually have something valuable to say I'd like to hear it, otherwise stop this fart nonsense.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 4:36:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/11/2011 4:17:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/11/2011 11:37:41 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/11/2011 8:26:28 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/10/2011 10:54:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/10/2011 10:31:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/10/2011 8:19:02 PM, Indophile wrote:

I push for outlawing farting in public.

Right, right, because farts can kill you and are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in the U.S alone per year......Help me out here, what logical fallacy did you just make?

Let's see. Farts are composed of the following.

hydogen sulfide
methanethiol
dimetyhl sulfide

All very dangerous chemicals

http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk...
http://www.sciencelab.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I can't believe we're having this argument. The only danger assumed in all three of those links were flammability.

On the chemicals:

"Harmful if inhaled. Skin, eye and respiratory irritant. CNS depressant. Chronic exposure may cause lung damage. Typical PEL 0.5 - 1.0 ppm. Odour threshold ca. 2 ppb."

"The substance may be toxic to blood, kidneys, liver, mucous membranes, skin, eyes. Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target
organs damage."

"Hydrogen sulfide is considered a broad-spectrum poison, meaning that it can poison several different systems in the body, although the nervous system is most affected. The toxicity of H2S is comparable with that of hydrogen cyanide. It forms a complex bond with iron in the mitochondrial cytochrome enzymes, thus preventing cellular respiration."

Theoretically, If H2S goes above 300–350 ppm, then yes a fart can kill you.

Stop wasting my time. If you actually have something valuable to say I'd like to hear it, otherwise stop this fart nonsense.

How is knowing the LD50 of farts not interesting?