If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the Forum Rules. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Welcome to RPGamer's new forums running under Vanilla Forums! If you're run into any odd or strange issues after our software migration please see this thread for details

Smoking/Anti-Smoking

12346

Comments

  • PhatosePhatose Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"I agree, it can. But you can't force everyone to go jogging, because that would downright crazy. Getting rid of smoking, to me, does not seem to be anywhere near making people do physical labour.
    Also, a lack of exercise (to varying degrees, because it depends on the person, and frankly no one has ever done NO exercise whatsoever) presents a health RISK. You cannot predict what effects diet/exercise/etc. will have on a person. Smoking, however is not a risk -- it is a certainty. It may not be the thing that kills you, but it WILL have detrimental health effects on you, no doubt about it.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Any qualms I might have about your decision on what would be crazy and what would not be crazy aside, one question. Where is your data that it IS a certainty? Every study released deal in increases in risk - literal translation, NOT a certainty. Every single study released points to the very clear point that it is NOT a certainty, it is a measurable risk. If measureable risk translates to 'certainty' in this case, then it certainly translates in other cases.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE" The only conclusive link between video games and violent behaviour is that several people would like to hunt down Senator Joe Leiberman and his legion of angry letter-writing (and voting) mothers who won't let their kids read Dracula for school.
    There is no real evidence that I've heard of that proves video games promote violent behaviour in mentally-healthy people who are not in extremely messed-up situations. There are only reports about games with titles like "The Resident of Evil Creek," which by the way do not exist. I heard that some kids once went down into the sewers looking for the Ninja Turtles, but if your kids actually think the Ninja Turtles are real, you've got more serious problems that violence, I'd say.
    Also, video games are rated according to a suggested age bracket -- and when I say "suggested," I mean "enforced." If you're going to let young, impressionable children be subjected to material intended for educated adults, you have ceded all rights for reasonable protection, if you don't mind me borrowing your catchphrase.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    http://www.apa.org/releases/videogames.html

    The American Psychiatric Organization would disagree with your conclusions, it seems.

    So would http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty....AB.pdf, who in their conclusion state quite clearly that these effects include college age individuals. Not just children, thus making the point of control through age limits as moot as claiming age limits on cigarettes are adequate controls.

    The risk is there, the psychological community is in agreement, and it's not just children. Comment?

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"So what you're saying is -- if you know that someone will die if you smoke around them, it's okay because it is the asthma that killed them, and you had nothing to do with it? Almost sounds like they deserved to die.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Hardly. I am saying that in such a situation, it would be wildly innappropriate to say that cigarrete smoke was the primairy cause of death. Asthma, obviously, would be, complicated by exposure to cigarette. And again, obviously, if you knowingly did so, you'd be held accountable - but this does little for the rest of your claims, as the primairy cause of death was still asthma.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Isn't that how things work around here? If, hypothetically, there was a vote to ban smoking, then shouldn't we go with the results of that vote? How else should we do things?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    No, it's not. Majority rules isn't the rule of the U.S.A., it's clearly and heavily limited, as per the U.S. constitution. More theoretically, any time democracy cease to have protections for the individuals built in, it become a simple case of tyranny by numbers.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"My evidence is that I still breathe in smoke when I'm around smokers, whether we are outside or not. Also, being outside does not make cigarettes any better for the smokers, as you may have guessed.
    At my work, there is a bench outside the door where people go at break time. People smoke there all the time. It is not a "smoking area", it's just an area. Pretty much the ONLY area, actually. But, it's outside, so I guess that makes it okay. Never mind that the outdoor area has a roof over it and the same amount of smoke hangs around me there as it would if I were indoors.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    And I point you to your own studies that don't deal with single breaths of cigarette smoke, but long term (meaning decades worth), exposure in high concentration indoor environments. So, again, I remind you the classifiable risk that has been studied doesn't deal with a single breath of smoke, or even with 5 minute periods in an at least semi-ventilated area (unless you don't have wind where you live).
    I would also kindly point out, that evidence on the hazard of small, short duration doses has not been established by the studies that have been done. I would also kindly point out that the risks associated with any form of chemical exposure are directly related to the concentration of that chemical and the length of exposure. I would therefore conclude that your claim that smoke exposure in and of itself is insufficient to claim any quantifiable risk, and would ask you kindly, to show the study which does indeed demonstrate that the risk associated with your short term exposure is well beyond any reasonable limits - reasonable limits, being of course, the risk level accepted in all other things in society that is assumed as normal risk for living in that society.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Also, perhaps you've noticed a few cigarette butts lying around on city streets. People smoke as they walk around town, knowing full well that there are not floating ash trays following them as they go. Eventually, they will have to dispose of the cigarette butt somewhere. "Somewhere," meaning "wherever they want to throw it." Of course, this is more about the greater concept of litter, but it just goes to show that it is pretty hard to be a smoker and still have concern for the environment (ecologically or aesthetically, take your pick) and those around you who don't smoke.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Broad generalizations about when and where all smokers behave isn't really helping your situation any. Even were it absolutely and positively true, then the appropriate rememdy would still be to address the actual problem, and make laws against dropping ones cigarette anywhere one pleases.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"I'm trying to think how to word this so that it doesn't sound like a moral tirade, but... bicycling, driving, drinking, and other everyday activities such as these will not do certain harm to your body. The only way bicycling and driving are linked to death is by ignoring one's responsibility to do them safely, or by some kind of unpredictable accident. Yes, people have died when biking or driving. People have also died by dropping a hairdryer in the bathtub, probably. You can't ban everything that could kill you if you do it in an unintended and lethal manner.
    As for drinking, yes -- it can do harm to you if you drink too much. If you're looking to get me to defend drinking, you can forget it, though. But, with moderation and wisdom, drinking doesn't have to kill you.
    Smoking has to do damage to your body -- that is a necessary byproduct of cigarettes. When you find a realistic way to smoke in a way that doesn't cause various cancerous diseases, you let me know.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    There is that word, certain again. Please provide your proof.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"If someone does nothing but play video games and ignore all calls to exercise, then yes. If somebody eats nothing but greasy McDonalds cheeseburgers and ignores any advice on healthy dieting, then yes. See, video games and burgers can be consumed in healthy moderation, and do not necessarily have to be unhealthy at all. I am not aware, however, of any methods which can counteract the damage done by cigarettes. I guess you could just smoke once in a while, to the tiny degree in which smoking becomes an insignificant rish (say, a puff a week or something) but even that is iffy -- and unrealistic, wouldn't you say?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    I'd say that the same form of healthy lifestly that offsets the negative effects of those cheeseburgers and long hours spend playing rpgs could be said to be an offset for any harmful effects smoking might have. If a risk for heart disease due to your cheeseburger is acceptably put off by exercise, why not smoking?

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Our society has made cars necessary to function and earn a living. The exhaust is an unfortunate side effect, for which a solution should be researched.
    Barbecues exist in private residences. There are no "BBQ Sections" where barbecuers meet to inhale the fumes. Also, most people do not barbecue a pack of meat every day, with their head stuck over the grill the whole time. And if they did, well, they're kinda weird. ...Or a chef, maybe. I dunno, chefs can be weird.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    As you've been so kind to point out, smoke does not heed nice lines of private residences. And as it stands, most barbeques are illegal to have indoors. Apparently, by the same methods which allow the carcinogen containing cigarette smoke to move, and wander, will allow the barbeque smoke from your neighbors backyard to flow into yours and contaimenate your air. And your stance doesn't seem to allow for acceptable levels of exposure to tobacco smoke, why exactly, do the same principles not apply to barbeques?

    As for cars, I'll agree that they are largely a neccessity, but it would seem under your stance, that only that neccessity keeps them off the banned list. Unfortunately, you know as well as I do that not all car trips are made on the basis of neccesity. I would say that under your current stance, it would be neccessary to either check that any trip made by automobile by anyone was in fact neccessary, or to allow a large amount of toxic chemicals to be spread into the air unneccessairly - a concept that, it would seem, you are completely and totally against. If you're going to enforce those standards against tobacco smoke, it's only fair and reasonable that your enforce it against other contaimenents. Otherwise, I daresay, you're applying a double standard.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Well, okay, you do that. I'm looking forward to your proposal.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Good. Lets start off a bit, shall we? With the easy ones, that shouldn't get too much resistance.

    Public transportation - all smoking banned. That's just polite.

    Government buildings - All indoor smoking banned. Outdoor smoking areas must be establish. They must be as distant from all non-smoking rest areas, as design possibly allows, though a good faith effort to maintain accessibility must be maintained. In cases where design would require the area to be within, say, 20 yards of any non-smoking area of congregation (non-smoking rest areas, building entrances and exits), solid, non-permeable barriers must be erected between the areas, and ventilation systems to outside areas or indoor scrubbing systems must be installed). The areas will require adequate ashtrays and benches to accomidate the expected number of smokers, and should be as protected from the elements as design allows. A similar, non-smoking rest area, sans ashtrays of course, shall be erected for non-smoking patrons. Good faith accessibility is expected, meaning simply that genuine effort must be made to make the area reachable and as comfortable as the situation allows. No special priveleges will be granted to smokers who choose to use the area, but no special penalties will be implied either - meaning, I don't mind if you lose your place in line if you go have a smoke, but you'd better lose it if you go to the bathroom, too.

    Large businesses (over 300 people) not generally open to the public have requirements mirroring the governments. Small businesses (under 300 people) not generally open to the public have all smoking banned, but do not have to meet the requirements of appropriate smoking/non-smoking areas if doing so would negatively impact their businesses. In such cases, all smoking is banned on the premises.

    Smoking within a private residence, on private grounds, or in a private vehicle is controlled solely by the owner of said grounds.

    In the interest of maintaining accountability, all government grants to agencies primarily describable as anti-smoking agencies are outlawed. Government spending on proper education on tobacco and the proven scientific risks is mandated, to be paid for, by say, a 20 cent tax on every pack of cigarettes sold. However, these programs must be government controlled and administered and subject to court review, to limit the possibilities of them being abused as propaganda agencies by either side.


    How's it sound so far?
  • LordBrianLordBrian Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    First of all, you're not suggesting anything that hasn't been suggested already, aside from enforcing the non-jackassery we've been asking for by the government (and why should the government have to enforce such things? what do they have to do with anything?). I'm confused about this, though:

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"In the interest of maintaining accountability, all government grants to agencies primarily describable as anti-smoking agencies are outlawed.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    If a currently-existing company is currently fighting the cigarette companies, and is receiving government grants to do so, why should they stop receiving such grants in this new plan? If you truly think that the government would spend the money in any more honest a fashion because the "courts" are watching them (and more power to you if you do), then why not just hold the companies to the same standard?
  • RDSRDS Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    If Cigarette production and sale was banned(or illegal), how is that infringing on anyone's rights? It would not be anyone saying you can't smoke, it would be saying you aren't allowed to make harmful substances with addictive properties with the intent to sell them to a mass market. Kind of like how Heroin is illegal to produce and sell.

    This would mean that people can still make their own cigaretes, they would have to grow their own tobacco plants and keep it personal though. I really don't see how that would infringe on anyone's rights or freedoms.



  • RicoRico Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    I'd like to speak to the discussion by means of a counterfactual conditional. I find it a rather good method to sidestep the inevitable, "Provide evidence," "Well, that isn't good evidence," "Well, you didn't provide evidence I like either," bit thrown around by both sides in most real-world cases.

    ---

    I, as well as a sizable but minority group of Americans, enjoy deafening ourselves with portable devices we carry which emit a very loud pitch (each device emits the same pitch, although some devices, dubbed Devices Light, emit it at a slightly lower volume). Clearly, those in proximity to the device for close to or the same amount of time as the users will become deaf at approximately the same rate. Those people who pass by the users at a close to middling distance may experience momentary pain, but no immediate other effects. However, in extremely young people and middle-older aged people, repeated momentary exposure, even spread out over the course of many, many years, can cause the same effects.

    Restaurants and several other establishments have enacted a near-unanimous ban of the device after the second-hand sound studies came out. However, devicing is still allowed outside in most places. Where it is restricted, there is generally only a division of very unsoundproof air between the devicing and non-devicing area. In addition, many devicers are in the habit of walking while devicing, passing many people who are in the vulnerable age group.

    Now, people are calling for a ban on outdoor devicing in public places. The devicers claim that this is merely a bullying tactic, and that the anti-devicers shouldn't be allowed to do this since they do not make an attempt to compromise and distance themselves from the devicers, and that they have an inherent freedom to device (on property they do not own) as long as these steps aren't taken. The anti-devicers respond by pointing out that it's unclear how such a freedom would exist, and also that such steps, in many situations, cannot be taken or present undue hassle?Something which some devicers try to remedy by proposing certain regulations, but regulations which will impose cost of construction on the government and a sizable number of privately-owned businesses.

    Apparently, it is viewed as better to force cost and restrictions on privately-owned institutions than to restrict certain actions to private property only.
  • PhatosePhatose Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"If a currently-existing company is currently fighting the cigarette companies, and is receiving government grants to do so, why should they stop receiving such grants in this new plan? If you truly think that the government would spend the money in any more honest a fashion because the "courts" are watching them (and more power to you if you do), then why not just hold the companies to the same standard?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Because Rico, after the cigarette companies challenged the EPA labeling of Cigarette smoke as a class A carcinogen, and the courts declared that EPA recomendation were not subject to court challenges, I became extremely concerned about accountibility. ?If we're capable of writing it into law that any organization is going to be subject to court interdiction if they recieve money from the government for tobacco education, that's fine with me. ?As long as all agencies recieving money for this are held accountable that their educational services are factual and unbiased, and as long as we can be certain that there is a clear route to interdiction. ?I just refuse to have government money go to organizations who are beyond the reach of the public - if the public is going to fund these organizations, then the public has the right and duty to ensure that these organization are providing the truth and nothing but the truth. ?The courts provide a convient venue for that. ?But I'm not going to have a situation where education funds are given to private organizations who are then not subject to public review - there is no reason to fund an organization that is free to become a propaganda board. ?I would think you'd agree that accountability is in order - I'd imagine you don't want pro-tobacco propaganda agencies taking government money for 'education' any more then I want anti-tobacco propaganda agencies taking government money to do the same.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"If Cigarette production and sale was banned(or illegal), how is that infringing on anyone's rights? It would not be anyone saying you can't smoke, it would be saying you aren't allowed to make harmful substances with addictive properties with the intent to sell them to a mass market. Kind of like how Heroin is illegal to produce and sell.

    This would mean that people can still make their own cigaretes, they would have to grow their own tobacco plants and keep it personal though. I really don't see how that would infringe on anyone's rights or freedoms.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    It wouldn't work. ?You'd either have to outlaw the growth and use of tobacco entirely, or you'd just end up with cigarette companies 'selling' cigarette boxes and 'giving' away tobacco for free with each purchase.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"I, as well as a sizable but minority group of Americans, enjoy deafening ourselves with portable devices we carry which emit a very loud pitch (each device emits the same pitch, although some devices, dubbed Devices Light, emit it at a slightly lower volume). ?Clearly, those in proximity to the device for close to or the same amount of time as the users will become deaf at approximately the same rate. ?Those people who pass by the users at a close to middling distance may experience momentary pain, but no immediate other effects. ?However, in extremely young people and middle-older aged people, repeated momentary exposure, even spread out over the course of many, many years, can cause the same effects.

    Restaurants and several other establishments have enacted a near-unanimous ban of the device after the second-hand sound studies came out. ?However, devicing is still allowed outside in most places. ?Where it is restricted, there is generally only a division of very unsoundproof air between the devicing and non-devicing area. ?In addition, many devicers are in the habit of walking while devicing, passing many people who are in the vulnerable age group.

    Now, people are calling for a ban on outdoor devicing in public places. ?The devicers claim that this is merely a bullying tactic, and that the anti-devicers shouldn't be allowed to do this since they do not make an attempt to compromise and distance themselves from the devicers, and that they have an inherent freedom to device (on property they do not own) as long as these steps aren't taken. ?The anti-devicers respond by pointing out that it's unclear how such a freedom would exist, and also that such steps, in many situations, cannot be taken or present undue hassle?Something which some devicers try to remedy by proposing certain regulations, but regulations which will impose cost of construction on the government and a sizable number of privately-owned businesses.

    Apparently, it is viewed as better to force cost and restrictions on privately-owned institutions than to restrict certain actions to private property only.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    I'm going to assume you're ignoring all possible consideration of ear-splitting noise as a free speech. ?I imagine the court battle over that one would be most interesting, and could go either way.

    I would also point out that this isn't a direct relation to the case at hand, seeing as how the detail differ signifigantly, especially in regards to the certainty of the protection that air provides, and the certainty of effects. ?While it's certainly a creative sidestep, it's not a valid one, since as a similie, it neccessairly favors the anti-smoking arguement in it's assumptions. ?An interesting tactic, but wrapping pat assumptions in metaphor doesn't make them valid.

    I'd also point to existing government law, such as the A.D.A., that has already established, that yes, it is valid to force cost and restrictions on private owned industry to protect the rights of the members of society.

    I would also like to comment simply on one final thing. ?Under such a system of ethics, were we to apply a similiar standard to tobacco, and allow the assumptions you make to be perfectly valid, then you'd have a reasonable case for banning smoking outside. ?But of course, under your morality system, any smoking in privately owned building, since ownership of the property in question is your key test, becomes solely the rights of the property holder. ?You'd gain outside, but you'd lose your claim to jurisprudence over any privately held buisinesses. ?Sound like a fair trade to you?

    Of course, now I shall repeat your story, with but a few minor changes, and see how well it holds up.



    I, as well as a sizable but minority group of Americans are infected with a communicable bacteria. Still, we enjoy spending our time outdoors. Clearly, those in proximity to us will very likely become infected. Those people who pass by the us at a close to middling distance may experience momentary pain, but it is very unlikely they will become infected. However, in extremely young people and middle-older aged people, repeated momentary exposure, even spread out over the course of many, many years, can cause the same illness - especially those with weak immune systems.

    Restaurants and several other establishments have enacted a near-unanimous ban of our presence after the aerial transmission studies came out. However, we are still allowed outside in most places. Where we are restricted, there is generally only a division of very unbacteriaproof air between the our area and non-sick area. In addition, many of us are in the habit of walking while breathing, passing many people who are in the vulnerable age group.

    Now, people are calling for a ban on our outdoor presence in public places. We claim that this is merely a bullying tactic, and that the health advocates shouldn't be allowed to do this since they do not make an attempt to compromise and distance themselves from us, and that they have an inherent freedom to breathe (on property they do not own) as long as these steps aren't taken. The health advocates respond by pointing out that it's unclear how such a freedom would exist, and also that such steps, in many situations, cannot be taken or present undue hassle. Some of us will try to remedy by proposing certain regulations, but regulations which will impose cost of construction on the government and a sizable number of privately-owned businesses. Still, the laws pass.

    Apparently, it is viewed as better to restrict our presence to private property then force cost and restrictions on privately-owned institutions.



  • LordBrianLordBrian Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE" I would think you'd agree that accountability is in order - I'd imagine you don't want pro-tobacco propaganda agencies taking government money for 'education' any more then I want anti-tobacco propaganda agencies taking government money to do the same.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Right. Any institution to which the government gives money should be open to review at any time, to see where that money is going. It's not just limited to education.

    Edit: Though I would qualify that to say that any institution which is funded by the government for national security purposes should be open for review, but perhaps not public review, as I wouldn't want some of that stuff getting out in the open.



  • RicoRico Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    When engaged in a debate, I really wish people would use terminology properly. ?It needlessly complicates the issue when certain words are used with their common meaning when in actuality, the context should make them mean something else. ?In a debate or argument, the only thing which can be properly labeled as valid or invalid is an attempt at logical argument. ?An argument in which the conclusions, if they are true, guarantee the truth of the premise is valid. ?An argument in which this is not the case is invalid. ?It has nothing to do with the actual truth of any of the individual pieces of the argument.

    In addition, there was not a single simile in my post.

    It was also nice of you to turn around and do the same thing you accused me of: modifying the original claim such that it portrays your given side more favorably. ?While my comparison may be flawed, and indeed, all such comparisons will be flawed in some way, to portray smoking as an involuntary thing slants it far more than assuming some things based on a combination of studies which apply to long-term effects and common sense.

    Edit: It occured to me that there's a strong possibility that this will be labeled as nitpicking and used to infer that I possess no actual counters to your attempted rebuke. Hence, I'll clarify some things further.

    The reason I requested more precise diction in further correspondence is because I believe your use of valid, Phatose, to be an instance of the fallacy of equivocation. When you say, "While it's certainly a creative sidestep, it's not a valid one.?.?.?." you mean valid in the sense of being well grounded or just. When you say, ".?.?.?it is valid to force cost and restrictions on private owned industry to protect the rights of the members of society," valid would mean that it is legal. Finally, when you say, "Under such a system of ethics, were we to apply a similiar standard to tobacco, and allow the assumptions you make to be perfectly valid," you're just flat out using the word incorrectly. One cannot allow something to become well-grounded or just, nor can one really allow something to be effective in that sense, and it's obviously not a claim of legality.

    There is further misuse of language, such as jurisprudence instead of the proper term, jurisdiction, as well as the aforementioned bit about the similes. On top of that, when trying to counter my point by drawing another analogous situation, you alter some things that make it almost completely unapplicable. Your situation is one in which smoking would be involuntary and necessary for survival ("and that they have an inherent freedom to breathe (on property they do not own)". This is simply ridiculous.



  • PhatosePhatose Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    [quote=Rico,April 08 2003,14wow.gif3][/quote]
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"The reason I requested more precise diction in further correspondence is because I believe your use of valid, Phatose, to be an instance of the fallacy of equivocation. ?When you say, "While it's certainly a creative sidestep, it's not a valid one. . . ." you mean valid in the sense of being well grounded or just. ?When you say, ". . . it is valid to force cost and restrictions on private owned industry to protect the rights of the members of society," valid would mean that it is legal. ?Finally, when you say, "Under such a system of ethics, were we to apply a similiar standard to tobacco, and allow the assumptions you make to be perfectly valid," you're just flat out using the word incorrectly. ?One cannot allow something to become well-grounded or just, nor can one really allow something to be effective in that sense, and it's obviously not a claim of legality.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Very well. ?In the first case, the appropriate term is indeed grounded, and in the second, the appropriate term is indeed legal. ?In the third case, the correct terminology would be "if we treat your assumptions as truths". ?More clear?

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Your situation is one in which smoking would be involuntary and necessary for survival ("and that they have an inherent freedom to breathe (on property they do not own)". ?This is simply ridiculous.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    I beg to differ. ?While breathing is in and of itself neccessary, leaving one's property to do so, and doing so in public grounds (property they do not own) in neither neccessary nor involuntary. ?As such, it is not simply ridiculous.


    However, since you have no made it clear that the amount of changes made in the tale and their nature affects the relevance of the tale to the question at hand, let us investigate the assumptions made in the original. ?Your original tale does, without a doubt, make certain alterations, some more liberal then others. ?

    The first change is that smoke is equivalent to noise - a quick perusal over existing laws, especially in regards to automobiles, will convince us that they are not equivalent. ?Society places a different set of values on noise then it does on air pollution, and switching the 'crime' from a section where social norm allows for signifigant leniency to one that allows for far less leniency amounts to an attempt to enforce a different set of standards onto tobacco smoking then is reasonably applied.

    The second alteration is made in the effects catergory. ?In particular, with regards to long term health effects relating to the elderly. ?As we have already acknowledged, the data available deals only with long term, repeated, indoor exposure. ?To say the least, creating additional hazards for the activity in question (and as long as data is non-existent, assuming that these hazards do exist in this example is doing exactly that) creates additional slant against the activity.

    The third alteration is in regards to the mitigating effects of air. ?When applied to sound, as it is in the example, air has only negligible effects. ?However, when applied to smoke, that same air becomes more relevent - a good breeze, or even a very light breeze, will indeed diffuse smoke, making air far more 'smokeproof' then it is 'soundproof'. ?Here again, the transition to a sonic device instead of a cigarette leans toward enhancing the risks, by reducing the effectiveness of intervening mediums.

    The fourth alteration is that those in close proximity lose their hearing at approximately the same rate. ?By comparision, even the most theatening statistics available ?for secondhand smoke paint it as a risk far less signifigant the primary smoking. ?This again, amplifies the risks associated.

    That's no less then four alterations, each one alteringing the tale by changing your 'device' into a tool considerably more risky then smoking. ?While any conclusions we might reach about said device may be interesting, this device has a higher risk associated with it then smoking. ?Considering that society shows repeatedly through it's law structure that the amount of danger associated with any behavior is indeed relevant to how it should be handled, it would be a mistake to assume that any behavior dictated in our theoretical device example is applicable to the real world case. ?Push an example too far from reality, and it loses it's relevance. ?I would say that your device example has now been signifigantly altered to the point where it's no longer relevant to the matter at hand. ?(and yes, I will acknowledge that the alterations in my tale, also, push it well beyond the boundaries of relevance. ?Which, puts us back at precisely the same point we were before we began this discussion.)

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Right. Any institution to which the government gives money should be open to review at any time, to see where that money is going. It's not just limited to education.

    Edit: Though I would qualify that to say that any institution which is funded by the government for national security purposes should be open for review, but perhaps not public review, as I wouldn't want some of that stuff getting out in the open. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    I would agree. Putting in an overwhelming public review law would've seemed to be going beyond the scope of the proposal though, and should likely be considered in it's own right. I'd like to apoligize for calling you Rico, that was a slip.



  • RDSRDS Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"It wouldn't work. You'd either have to outlaw the growth and use of tobacco entirely, or you'd just end up with cigarette companies 'selling' cigarette boxes and 'giving' away tobacco for free with each purchase[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Okay, then illegalize the mass distribution of tobacco not purely the selling of it. Also, under this law it would be of no use to a company to grow and maintain tobacco plants in mass quantities if the distribution of tobacco was illegal. If they kept growing the plants, they would be highly suspect under this law. It would almost be like a drug front.

    This way you would not have to outlaw the growth and use of tobacco entirely.
  • RicoRico Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Phatose @ April 08 2003,18:38)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Very well. ?In the first case, the appropriate term is indeed grounded, and in the second, the appropriate term is indeed legal. ?In the third case, the correct terminology would be "if we treat your assumptions as truths". ?More clear?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Yes, that makes it clear. However, the third definition is still not an accepted denotation of the word, and it is an instance of the fallacy of equivocation.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"
    The second alteration is made in the effects catergory. ?In particular, with regards to long term health effects relating to the elderly. ?As we have already acknowledged, the data available deals only with long term, repeated, indoor exposure. ?To say the least, creating additional hazards for the activity in question (and as long as data is non-existent, assuming that these hazards do exist in this example is doing exactly that) creates additional slant against the activity.
    [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Yes, the data we currently have only applies to long-term, repeated, indoor exposure. However, it's hardly a leap to think that something which can and does cause death with repeated indoor exposure could have some highly adverse effects even outdoors.
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"
    The third alteration is in regards to the mitigating effects of air. ?When applied to sound, as it is in the example, air has only negligible effects. ?However, when applied to smoke, that same air becomes more relevent - a good breeze, or even a very light breeze, will indeed diffuse smoke, making air far more 'smokeproof' then it is 'soundproof'. ?Here again, the transition to a sonic device instead of a cigarette leans toward enhancing the risks, by reducing the effectiveness of intervening mediums.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    In my experience, I find that still air is actually more beneficial for the negating of smoke. While of course it will technically diffuse faster with a breeze, breezes tend to interrupt the natural rising, keeping the smoke closer to people and their intake.

    Really, the counterfactual conditional wasn't intended to prove anything. It is merely a look at a fairly analogous situation that's preconstructed. This is helpful for the very reasons I prefaced it with: Although no situation can be perfectly analogous, it's an opportunity to construct arguments without being hung up on facts?A way to focus on what is valid instead of demanding that everything be sound despite the fact that available data is extremely limited. I would absolutely love it if smoking was as harmless in such situations as you describe it. It would make me quite a bit more comfortable, and probably lead to me being employed more often. However, my own experiences just being around second-hand smoke for a few hours a week, not counting walking around the city, have led me to think that this is not the case. The truth is likely in the middle of the believable arguments for each side. The bottom line is that both sides can really only talk in terms of counterfactual conditionals or restrict their topic solely to long-term, indoor smoking, which has already been pretty sufficiently covered.

    Discussing based on counterfactual conditionals or other hypothetical situations is not useless. If people can reach an agreement on what to do if smoking does x, and if smoking does y, or whatever inbetween, then as soon as reliable data comes out, we've already decided precisely what to do. There's nothing harmful about that.
  • The AthenianThe Athenian Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    Looks like a I have a lot of catching-up to do around here! ?But, I'll be pretty busy for the next while and probably unable to spend much time on posting and such. ?So, for now, let me just say the following:

    Phatose, you sure as heck like to compare cigarettes to a lot of other products. ?Each and every one of these comparison products have had critical (and frankly, obvious) differences from the act of smoking that make them useless in trying to find parallels between them. ?Off the top of my head, here are a few of them...
    Cheeseburgers: I'm pretty sure a healthy diet and exercise will NOT be able to counteract the effects of smoking.
    Farting: I'd like to see you try banning that. ?Let me know how that goes.
    Barbecues: Smoking is to actively and willingly expose one's lungs (and others', if they're close enough) to various toxic chemicals just for the heck of it. ?Barbecuing is the process of cooking food over an open grill, which produces some smoke as a side-effect. ?Banning barbecues would be banning certain methods of cooking, and deciding what people are and aren't allowed to eat. ?Also, you'd probably have to ban any other things that produce exhaust or pollution, such as lawn mowers, fire of any kind, and industry in general.
    Video games: Unless there is some video game that forces you to play it 24 hours a day, thus hypnotizing you into not being able to leave the screen or do any exercise, I don't see what the problem is. ?Books do the same thing. ?So does bathing. ?So does eating. ?Maybe we should ban literacy, hygene, and food, too, because you cannot exercise while doing them.
    Also, psychological matters (as in the relation between violent video games and violent behaviour) cannot be compared to the physical consequences of smoking. ?All the studies in the world cannot prove that Mortal Kombat actually makes people lash out at each other. ?There may be some short-term effects (like throwing the controller), but these are unpredictable and depend heavily on the individual. ?Also, I'm sure there are people out there who have played MK, Doom, and the like, and who are not violent people. ?It's possible, don't you think?
    Another thing to consider is that if someone commits murder, video games are not an acceptable excuse. ?But everyone knows smoking is a darn good cause of lung diseases, cancers, etc.
    Automobiles: Yes, they pollute the air, but we need them to travel. ?Your suggestion of limiting travel to only what is necessary for survival is a HUGE violation of rights, not to mention privacy. ?It would also be ridiculously expensive, not to mention impossible, to constantly monitor everyone who owns a car. ?Who, exactly, is to decide what is "necessary" travel, anyway? ?What if I'm driving to work (and I suppose my job would be decided for me by the government, based on my geographical location), and I decide to stop and get a coffee on the way? ?Whoops! ?I don't really NEED that coffee, so my decision is cancelled-out by the magical Omni-Car Society Surveillance System in the centre of the earth. ?Also, I suppose I don't really NEED to move out of the house when I grow up. ?I don't really NEED some new clothes. ?I don't really NEED that new CD I've been wanting. ?I don't really NEED to change my mind about where to go, mid-trip. ?I don't really NEED free will, basically. ?Yes, this sounds just like a ban on cigarettes to me!
    A science fiction novel of sorts in which a race of mutants infected with lethal bacteria face persecution by the norms: Well, I'm sure you've heard of that SARS thing that's going around. ?They've been closing hospitals left and right, so if something as dangerous as your bacteria-from-Hell were let loose on our society, I don't think it would be a simple matter of having a "Bacteria Section" in restaurants.
    Also, these bacteria people you speak of (may I call them Bacteriazoids?) do not have nor spread this bacteria by choice. ?They do not simply have the bacteria simply because they derive pleasure from it. ?Having this dangerous and contagious condition was not inspired by peer-pressure or ads featuring some kind of anachronistic cowboy being infected by bacteria while fighting the nazis. ?And speaking of nazis...
    Hitler's Nazi Germany: No, putting a ban on smoking is not like sending thousands of Jews to the gas chambers, no matter how you twist it. ?How anyone could think that slaughtering innocent people is remarkably similar to banning a product that is deemed hazardous to people's health is beyond me. ?If it was really that bad, then I'm guessing that you would compare a ban on indoor smoking to, say, only killing Jews indoors. ?And having a "smoking section" would be like having a "Jews" section?

    Oh, Phatose. ?You are one silly goose.

    Anyway, all these examples just go to show one thing: ?smoking is not like anything. ?It is a horrible thing that shouldn't have been invented in the first place -- and whoever did invent it must've been pretty weird to think something like that would be a good idea. ?I don't know what could have been going through their head at the time, but of course they would have been unaware that it was bad for their health, because they didn't have scientists to tell them that back then. ?...As if you need a scientist to tell you it's bad for you.
    All this is why banning smoking is NOT like banning other rights, is NOT an irrational or moral crusade, and is NOT like a tyrannical regime -- and by the way, I don't see how it would be tyranny if we had a hypothetical vote to ban it or not. ?"Tyranny by numbers," I think you called it? ?Poop to that, sir! ?Poop to that!

    And by the way, putting a ban on Rico's example of a noise-making device which damages people's hearing is not a violation of the right to free speech. ?It's not speech at all, it's just a stupid machine that makes noise, and which hurts people and steals one of their senses. ?How is that communication?



  • PhatosePhatose Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Cheeseburgers: I'm pretty sure a healthy diet and exercise will NOT be able to counteract the effects of smoking.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Oh no? ?Interesting, you seem rather convinced it will counteract the effects of overeating. ?A postive lifestyle offsets the negative effects of overeating, yet the two are not neccessairly the same thing. ?I'm wondering why an offset is allowed for one hurtful activity, but not another.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Farting: I'd like to see you try banning that. ?Let me know how that goes.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    That's kind of the whole point.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Barbecues: Smoking is to actively and willingly expose one's lungs (and others', if they're close enough) to various toxic chemicals just for the heck of it. ?Barbecuing is the process of cooking food over an open grill, which produces some smoke as a side-effect. ?Banning barbecues would be banning certain methods of cooking, and deciding what people are and aren't allowed to eat. ?Also, you'd probably have to ban any other things that produce exhaust or pollution, such as lawn mowers, fire of any kind, and industry in general.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Again, that's kind of the point. ?The restrictions you're creating are, apparently, only applicable to smoking. ?Any morality which applies one set of standards to a very specific set of behaviors as a test of its acceptability, then applies a completely different set of standards for acceptibility to all other behaviors is a very dangerous one, is it not? ?Nor do I see the relevance of banning what people can or can not eat. ?The viability of a ban on what people can put into their bodies was a key point of your thrust, wasn't it?

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Video games: Unless there is some video game that forces you to play it 24 hours a day, thus hypnotizing you into not being able to leave the screen or do any exercise, I don't see what the problem is. ?Books do the same thing. ?So does bathing. ?So does eating. ?Maybe we should ban literacy, hygene, and food, too, because you cannot exercise while doing them.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Er. ?Well, yeah, under the 'is it neccessary? ?is it dangerous to you?' ?that I'm seeing being used on cigarettes yeah. ?Kinda makes you wonder if such a test is such a good idea, doesn't it?

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Also, psychological matters (as in the relation between violent video games and violent behaviour) cannot be compared to the physical consequences of smoking. ?All the studies in the world cannot prove that Mortal Kombat actually makes people lash out at each other. ?There may be some short-term effects (like throwing the controller), but these are unpredictable and depend heavily on the individual. ?Also, I'm sure there are people out there who have played MK, Doom, and the like, and who are not violent people. ?It's possible, don't you think?
    Another thing to consider is that if someone commits murder, video games are not an acceptable excuse. ?But everyone knows smoking is a darn good cause of lung diseases, cancers, etc.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    First off, I doubt there is anyone out there who equates being a cause and being an acceptable excuse. ?More interestingly though, is your claim that everyone knows smoking is a darn good cause of lung diseases, cancer, ect - especially since these are facts that are established purely through scientific studies. ?Similarly, the link between violence and violent media, including games, is established by these scientific studies. ?Also similar in this two issues is one of unpredictability. ?Even in studies which completely damn smoking, it's never claimed that 100% of all smokers do get cancer, or lung disease. ?Just as not every gamer punches someone in the head, not every smoker gets cancer.

    I am highly confused by your stance on this. ?It would seem you allow that it is reasonable to ignore scientific evidence in this case, which makes me wonder why it acceptable to ignore the data in this case while not in the tobacco case. ?If anything, I would expect that disregarding scientific studies like that would be the last thing you'd want, seeing as the dangers attached to smoking are almost entirely substantiated by those scientific studies. ?

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Automobiles: Yes, they pollute the air, but we need them to travel. ?Your suggestion of limiting travel to only what is necessary for survival is a HUGE violation of rights, not to mention privacy. ?It would also be ridiculously expensive, not to mention impossible, to constantly monitor everyone who owns a car. ?Who, exactly, is to decide what is "necessary" travel, anyway? ?What if I'm driving to work (and I suppose my job would be decided for me by the government, based on my geographical location), and I decide to stop and get a coffee on the way? ?Whoops! ?I don't really NEED that coffee, so my decision is cancelled-out by the magical Omni-Car Society Surveillance System in the centre of the earth. ?Also, I suppose I don't really NEED to move out of the house when I grow up. ?I don't really NEED some new clothes. ?I don't really NEED that new CD I've been wanting. ?I don't really NEED to change my mind about where to go, mid-trip. ?I don't really NEED free will, basically. ?Yes, this sounds just like a ban on cigarettes to me![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Which is again, the point. ?The test you are using to determine if cigarette smoking is acceptable is unworkable and wouldn't actually be applied to anything else in the world. ?Specifically applying it in this case is unreasonable and unfair, as it's creating a special set of standards which apply only to one case. ?

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"A science fiction novel of sorts in which a race of mutants infected with lethal bacteria face persecution by the norms: Well, I'm sure you've heard of that SARS thing that's going around. ?They've been closing hospitals left and right, so if something as dangerous as your bacteria-from-Hell were let loose on our society, I don't think it would be a simple matter of having a "Bacteria Section" in restaurants.
    Also, these bacteria people you speak of (may I call them Bacteriazoids?) do not have nor spread this bacteria by choice. ?They do not simply have the bacteria simply because they derive pleasure from it. ?Having this dangerous and contagious condition was not inspired by peer-pressure or ads featuring some kind of anachronistic cowboy being infected by bacteria while fighting the nazis. ?And speaking of nazis...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Oh, the bacteria I had in mind was nothing quite so lethal as SARS. ?Given that it causes at most brief discomfort to the healthy and only a signifigant risk to those already weakened, something as common as the flu would fit. ?And while they do not have the bacteria simpy because the derive pleasure from it, they do involve themselves in the spreading purely for the pleasure of it - it is 'we enjoy walking outside' after all.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Hitler's Nazi Germany: No, putting a ban on smoking is not like sending thousands of Jews to the gas chambers, no matter how you twist it. ?How anyone could think that slaughtering innocent people is remarkably similar to banning a product that is deemed hazardous to people's health is beyond me. ?If it was really that bad, then I'm guessing that you would compare a ban on indoor smoking to, say, only killing Jews indoors. ?And having a "smoking section" would be like having a "Jews" section?[/uote]

    Eh....you know, the only time I actually mentioned Hitler was in regards to the dangers of unrestricted democracy. ?I don't remember at any time claiming that killing millions of innocent people was even close to equivalent to banning smoking. ?I did in fact claim that saying "Majority rules, hahahaha" was an inheriently dangerous action, since it was being claimed that a simple majority rules was an acceptable way to run government. ?I then pointed to a historical situation where majority public opinion lead quite clearly to very unpleasant situation, as an example of why simple majority rules was a dangerous way to do buisiness. ?I don't remember claiming at any point that the holocaust and a cigarette ban were equivalent, only that the former provides an example of why unfettered, pure democracy doesn't work.

    [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>And by the way, putting a ban on Rico's example of a noise-making device which damages people's hearing is not a violation of the right to free speech. ?It's not speech at all, it's just a stupid machine that makes noise, and which hurts people and steals one of their senses. ?How is that communication? [/quote] ?Speech would seem to cover a lot of things in our society. ?If miming and exotic dancing are considered forms of speech, then I'd see a possibility that even a stupid noisemaker device might concievably be speech. ?But, I'm not especially interested in debating the communication value of a theoretical deafening noise box, nor am I especially convinced it neccessairly has one, so I let it go.




    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Yes, that makes it clear. ? However, the third definition is still not an accepted denotation of the word, and it is an instance of the fallacy of equivocation.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Very well. ?I shall withdraw the claims in the offending paragraph, and reconsider my wording.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Yes, the data we currently have only applies to long-term, repeated, indoor exposure. ?However, it's hardly a leap to think that something which can and does cause death with repeated indoor exposure could have some highly adverse effects even outdoors.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    For now, I'd agree. ?Thing is, I'd also assert that it's hardly a leap to think that a less concentrated dose of a chemical which can and does cause death, may indeed represent no threat at all. ?There is always the question of whether or not cause is an appropriate term, but I see no reason to contest that at the moment.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Really, the counterfactual conditional wasn't intended to prove anything. ?It is merely a look at a fairly analogous situation that's preconstructed. ?This is helpful for the very reasons I prefaced it with: Although no situation can be perfectly analogous, it's an opportunity to construct arguments without being hung up on facts?A way to focus on what is valid instead of demanding that everything be sound despite the fact that available data is extremely limited. ?I would absolutely love it if smoking was as harmless in such situations as you describe it. ?It would make me quite a bit more comfortable, and probably lead to me being employed more often. ?However, my own experiences just being around second-hand smoke for a few hours a week, not counting walking around the city, have led me to think that this is not the case. ?The truth is likely in the middle of the believable arguments for each side. ?The bottom line is that both sides can really only talk in terms of counterfactual conditionals or restrict their topic solely to long-term, indoor smoking, which has already been pretty sufficiently covered.

    Discussing based on counterfactual conditionals or other hypothetical situations is not useless. ?If people can reach an agreement on what to do if smoking does x, and if smoking does y, or whatever inbetween, then as soon as reliable data comes out, we've already decided precisely what to do. ?There's nothing harmful about that.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Hmm. ?I'm not entirely convinced of the usefulness of such a process, since I see society making it's judgement in such issues based heavily if not entirely on those missing details. ?It seems as if the details are practically determining the issue entirely, as the local trash dump here can legally put 58 tons of cancer causing chemicals into the air per year, while I can not legally burn fiberglass in my backyard. ?I have to wonder if even the slightest change in the details is enough to tilt the balance, so to speak. ?But I suppose it can not hurt. ?I'll reconsider your original example without treating it as a parallel waiting to be drawn.



    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Okay, then illegalize the mass distribution of tobacco not purely the selling of it. Also, under this law it would be of no use to a company to grow and maintain tobacco plants in mass quantities if the distribution of tobacco was illegal. If they kept growing the plants, they would be highly suspect under this law. It would almost be like a drug front.

    This way you would not have to outlaw the growth and use of tobacco entirely.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Tobacco isn't exactly an all climates crop though. You'll have not outright banned it, but for all intents and purposes you would have to anyone in a region where they couldn't grow it themselves. It would seem you're essentially allowing the people in the south, west, and any climate where tobacco can be grown to have the tobacco, while anyone in the cooler northern climates is unable to grow it or to purchase it. Seems rather abritrarily discriminatory to me.



  • SinSin Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"I'd also assert that it's hardly a leap to think that a less concentrated dose of a chemical which can and does cause death, may indeed represent no threat at all. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Drink 1L of mercury in a sitting.
    You die.
    Drink 1/10mL of mercury every day for a year.
    See what happens. My guess: Brain damage, then you die.

    It may be a lower dose of it, but it will still kill or seriously harm you.
    Poison is Poison, and tobacco is no exception.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Oh no? Interesting, you seem rather convinced it will counteract the effects of overeating. A postive lifestyle offsets the negative effects of overeating, yet the two are not neccessairly the same thing. I'm wondering why an offset is allowed for one hurtful activity, but not another.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    You eat a cheeseburger.
    You go for a jog.
    You burn off the energy and fat that was in the cheeseburger.

    Now let's do the same for smoking:

    You smoke a cigarette
    You go for a jog.
    You cough and have to take a rest because your lungs hurt.

    When you can tell me the offset for smoking, maybe I'll agree with you on that. As far as I can tell, the offset to smoking is quitting smoking.


    Cars vs. Tobacco:
    1) Cars have a use.
    2) The only reason people continue to smoke is because they are addicted to it, not enjoyment or usefulness.

    Barbecues vs. Tobacco:
    Try not cooking your meat then. Just go to the store, buy a pork chop, rip open the package, and take a bite of it. You will more than likely get food poisoning.
    Again, it has a use.

    At least compare it to hings that have some similarities, not just one that is almost like it. So what is cars and barbecues both make smoke as well, at least they serve a purpose.
    I think that the story Rico had was quite accurate as to the risks, benefits, and how they interact with people and the environment.
    Walken1.jpg
  • TrueGamerTrueGamer Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    Darn, now I'm too far behind to respond. Oh well, I'll add a few points:

    -There is undeniable evidence that smoking causes disease and death. People who smoke have tar in their lungs, far more than non-smokers (since tar is an ingredient) . Tar is a very sticky, thick substance that coats the inner walls of the lungs very nicely. This restricts your breathing, and when it builds up enough, well...lung cancer, plus other things. There are other ways cigarrettes can kill you, but this is the only CONCLUSIVE AND COMPLETELY ACCURATE fact out there right now. Don't believe me? There are over hundreds of texts and websites that will confirm this, so go look.

    -Now deny this: nicotine is another ingredient in cigarettes. It is a well known FACT that nicotine is addictive. Once ex-smokers stop smoking and have the nicotine removed from their lungs, they ALWAYS wonder why they started in the first place. My step-father smoked for 25 years before he quit, and he wonders why he ever started in the first place. Anyway, if you removed the nicotine from cigarettes, nobody would want them.

    Well, I'm done here. There are just too many people who actually believe cigarettes shouldn't be banned, and all we do is argue. Why argue? They will get banned. Canada just announced a move to ban closed-room smoking in restaurants, and simply have them removed altogether (it was in the Toronto Star website) .
  • The AthenianThe Athenian Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    Okay, I'm gonna have to step in here for just a second...
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Interesting, you seem rather convinced it will counteract the effects of overeating. A postive lifestyle offsets the negative effects of overeating, yet the two are not neccessairly the same thing. I'm wondering why an offset is allowed for one hurtful activity, but not another.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    A healthy lifestyle DOES counteract over-eating, in a way, because it wouldn't include habitual over-eating in the first place. You cannot eat nothing but cheeseburgers and expect to be in top physical condition. Regular exercise is good for... well, just about everything, and burns off fat and calories and such. It does not burn off smoke from your lungs.
    Cheeseburgers are okay in moderation. There is no way to smoke healthily in moderation. Smoking will do some kind of damage to you, and these effects will be felt with repeated exposure over time. A cheeseburger once in a while will do absolutely zero damage. A cigarette once in a while can still do harm. Frankly, people smoke a lot more in real life than eat cheeseburgers.

    As for a ban on farting being impossible, you say:
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"That's kind of the whole point.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Perhaps I should have expanded on my point... Farting in necessary and uncontrollable. Smoking is neither. Farting has not been shown to be related to health problems. Smoking has. Why do you think there is no "farting section" in restaurants? And why do I need to point out these obvious points?

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Any morality which applies one set of standards to a very specific set of behaviors as a test of its acceptability, then applies a completely different set of standards for acceptibility to all other behaviors is a very dangerous one, is it not?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    I guess you have a point there, but it's also dangerous to take one set of standards carved in stone and apply in to everything. I kinda think everything should be considered as it is, and as I have stated smoking is not like anything else.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Nor do I see the relevance of banning what people can or can not eat.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    um... barbecues? If you ban barbecues, you ban certain methods of food preparation. Okay, so you could still eat the food, just not barbecued, if they were banned.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"The viability of a ban on what people can put into their bodies was a key point of your thrust, wasn't it?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Barbecued food is not linked to cancer and lung disease. No one dies from complications due to a steak. Of course, if you eat any food too much (just as if you do anything in an unsafe manner), you're asking for it. There is no way to smoke without it being unsafe, though.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Er. Well, yeah, under the 'is it neccessary? is it dangerous to you?' that I'm seeing being used on cigarettes yeah. Kinda makes you wonder if such a test is such a good idea, doesn't it?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Well, in retrospect, simply banning smoking because it is unnecessary was not such a great idea. But I still stand by my points against your various examples of other things which are unnecessary, like video games, etc. You say video games are dangerous, basically, because you can't exercise while playing them. I believe I already pointed out that there are several activities that don't let you exercise while doing them (reading, bathing, eating, etc). You are not expected to do these activities all the time, just as you are not expected to play games all the time. That is not the intended use of video games, just as riding until you faint from exhaustion is not the intended use of a bicycle.
    All these things are perfectly healthy activities in moderation. Smoking is cannot be healthy, no matter how you do it.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"More interestingly though, is your claim that everyone knows smoking is a darn good cause of lung diseases, cancer, ect - especially since these are facts that are established purely through scientific studies. Similarly, the link between violence and violent media, including games, is established by these scientific studies.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    If I knew as much as Rico, I'd probably point out that this is a glaring fallacy of some kind. Please note that you say that the danger of smoking has been evidenced through "scientific studies." You also say that video games promote violence, as evidenced by "scientific studies." But these are not the same kinds of scientific studies. One deals with mental effects, the other with physical. The physical risk of smoking is much more visible and subject to the realm of proof than the subjective world of the emotional or mental. As with foods, one can play video games without suffering adverse effects -- and once again, it's pretty hard to smoke and not be harmed by it in some way, over time.
    It should also be pointed out that many of these violent games being cited -- Mortal Kombat, Doom, etc. -- are competitive in nature. Heavy competition is conflict, and this alone can produce violent or aggressive behaviour. Just look at Hockey.
    I see that in one of the studies mentioned in the full article, "21% of these games portrayed violence towards women." What the heck? I must have missed those games, unless having Sonya or Mileena being present in Mortal Kombat games counts as "violence towards women." If that's the case, then I am not impressed.
    Also, an article about violent games that cites Columbine as a relevant example barely has any credibitility at all.
    Anywho, more on that later...

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Oh, the bacteria I had in mind was nothing quite so lethal as SARS. Given that it causes at most brief discomfort to the healthy and only a signifigant risk to those already weakened, something as common as the flu would fit.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Uh... I believe your exact words were: "Clearly, those in proximity to us will very likely become infected. Those people who pass by the us at a close to middling distance may experience momentary pain, but it is very unlikely they will become infected. However, in extremely young people and middle-older aged people, repeated momentary exposure, even spread out over the course of many, many years, can cause the same illness - especially those with weak immune systems." That sounds pretty bad to me, dude. Just passing by you means a low risk of being infected, and it causes momentary pain? That's horrible! And considering the fact that people will probably pass by you quite often during the course of the day, more and more people will become infected. And the more people who are infected, the more the uninfected are exposed to the risk area. Eventually, everyone will have this disease. Can this bacteria be fought against? If not, the human race seems to be doomed.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"And while they do not have the bacteria simpy because the derive pleasure from it, they do involve themselves in the spreading purely for the pleasure of it - it is 'we enjoy walking outside' after all.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    They do not spread the bacteria by choice. It occurs beyond their control. Smoking is not beyond your control. You can stop spreading it whenever you want to. Are you pretending not to recognize this difference, or is this some kind of wacky bacteria that is controllable by the host organism and which is pleasurable to spread?
    In any case, this bacteria example sounds like an awful situation. If your intent was to liken smoking to this nightmare, mission accomplished. You have shown me that smoking is much like this, except with the difference that smokers can actually stop, and thus have no excuse.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Yes, the data we currently have only applies to long-term, repeated, indoor exposure. However, it's hardly a leap to think that something which can and does cause death with repeated indoor exposure could have some highly adverse effects even outdoors.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    This is what I've been saying all this time. The damage adds up over time, and it may even accumulate slower outdoors -- but it still adds up. Why the heck wouldn't it?

    ...Well, that took longer than I hoped it would. Ta ta for now!
  • PhatosePhatose Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sin @ April 09 2003,08:18)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Drink 1L of mercury in a sitting.
    You die.
    Drink 1/10mL of mercury every day for a year.
    See what happens. My guess: Brain damage, then you die.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Take 200 aspirin in a sitting. You die.
    Take 1 aspirin a day for a year. You have no headaches.
    Poison is poison, and aspirin is no exception...wait, that doesn't work so good, now does it?

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Cars vs. Tobacco:
    1) Cars have a use.
    2) The only reason people continue to smoke is because they are addicted to it, not enjoyment or usefulness.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    I am truly amazed at your mind reading abilities, that allow you to tell why people choose their own actions.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Barbecues vs. Tobacco:
    Try not cooking your meat then. Just go to the store, buy a pork chop, rip open the package, and take a bite of it. You will more than likely get food poisoning.
    Again, it has a use.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Or, you could just eat an orange, and do away with that whole cooking bit entirely. Optionally, you could microwave that pork chop (using solar power, of course) and now you're neither getting food poisoning OR polluting the environment.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"-There is undeniable evidence that smoking causes disease and death. People who smoke have tar in their lungs, far more than non-smokers (since tar is an ingredient) . Tar is a very sticky, thick substance that coats the inner walls of the lungs very nicely. This restricts your breathing, and when it builds up enough, well...lung cancer, plus other things. There are other ways cigarrettes can kill you, but this is the only CONCLUSIVE AND COMPLETELY ACCURATE fact out there right now. Don't believe me? There are over hundreds of texts and websites that will confirm this, so go look.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    And yet, this tar, which causes death, seems to manage quite well at not killing a lot of smokers - not to mention a lot of non-smokers, who according to that same data, are exposed to it. Apparently this is some new meaning of the word 'cause' I hadn't heard of, where 'causing' something doesn't actually require it to happen.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"-Now deny this: nicotine is another ingredient in cigarettes. It is a well known FACT that nicotine is addictive. Once ex-smokers stop smoking and have the nicotine removed from their lungs, they ALWAYS wonder why they started in the first place. My step-father smoked for 25 years before he quit, and he wonders why he ever started in the first place. Anyway, if you removed the nicotine from cigarettes, nobody would want them.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Alchohol is addictive too. Not banned. There are signs that caffeine is addictive too. Not banned. According to runners, running causes a 'runners high', which is, you guessed it, addictive. You claim about ALWAYS wonder why the started is not only exagerration on your part, it's downright false - unless you're now going to claim that smoking also erases memories, like memories of 'why I started in the first place', which would of course, need to be completely erased from their memory for them to 'wonder why they started.'

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Well, I'm done here. There are just too many people who actually believe cigarettes shouldn't be banned, and all we do is argue. Why argue? They will get banned. Canada just announced a move to ban closed-room smoking in restaurants, and simply have them removed altogether (it was in the Toronto Star website).[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Ok, thank you for your input.




    Rico -

    I've been reconsidering your tale. Since this is a thought experiement, lets start at the begining.

    The first question should be - does either side have a completely and unalienable right that grants them direct favor? I'm not aware of any laws that grant unalienable right status to deafening oneself and others. However, similarly I look at society, and see not being exposed to deafining sound not as an unalienable right either - football crowds, large machinery, airplane launches - many deafening sounds are allowed to exist, so it's not as simple as an unalienable right. In this regard, both are on equal footing.

    The next question will be whether or not society has an interest in this affair. It would seem the answer is yes, on both sides, again. Society definitely has an interest in maintaining the health of it's members, not to mention protecting them from temporary pain - both directly affect the quality of life in the country, which is a prime concern of any government. However, society also has a vested interest in maintaining the ability of the noisers to engage in a pasttime they enjoy, without making it horribly inconvientient. Enjoyment of oneself, even in cases where it would by and large be called stupid, enhances quality of life, and thus the government has some interest in maintaining it.

    When the two come head to head, well, it seems to me that in this example the interest in health combined with an interest in quality of life outweigh the interest in the quality of life alone. It would seem then, that those who wish to limit the use of the device do have the greater claim.

    However, the fact that the interest of the quality of life of the noisers is outweighed does not equate to meaninglessness. While it may be insufficient to act as an Aegis against all action taken to control usage of the device, it does still carry enough weight to dictate how the control should proceed. The government should favor the non-noisers claim over the noisers claim, but should make every attempt possible to accomidate to both - from the standpoint of the government, it is far preferable to find a way of accomidating for the quality of life of both groups then it is to favor one over the other.

    In this example, there is a very simple, technological solution. Earmuffs, which will block the sound from passing out, at least enough to where it's within the normally expected volumes, can be mandated for this noise box. In doing so, all interested are served - the noisers can retain their ability to engage an activity they enjoy, as a public citizen on public lands - and the non-noisers can have their interests served by having a physical barrier which mitigates the effects of the sound.

    Would you tend to agree?
  • RicoRico Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Phatose @ April 09 2003,09:44)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Take 200 aspirin in a sitting. ?You die.
    Take 1 aspirin a day for a year. ?You have no headaches.
    Poison is poison, and aspirin is no exception...wait, that doesn't work so good, now does it?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    I don't think there's a single thing in the world that isn't dangerous to overdose on. ?The thing is, mercury is poisonous. ?Cigarettes are poisonous. ?These are known, objective facts. ?While aspirin, like almost all drugs, has the potential to be poisonous in certain situations, it is not a poison.
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"
    Alchohol is addictive too. ?Not banned. ?There are signs that caffeine is addictive too. ?Not banned. ?According to runners, running causes a 'runners high', which is, you guessed it, addictive.
    [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Alcohol, in most situations, is not physically addictive. ?It is psychosocially addictive. ?Nicotine, in most situations, is both physically and psychosocially addictive. ?We should not be in the practice of legislating based on psychological addiction, for all substances and activities have equal base potential to be psychologically or socially addictive. ?However, not all substances and activities have equal base potential to be physically addictive, which is, in my opinion, a crux of the argument.
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"
    Rico -
    .?.?.?Would you tend to agree?
    [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Yes, I would tend to agree. ?The issue, for me, is that examples of deafening such as you provided all, for the most part, involve willingly going into an area in which the noise is known to and expected to exist. ?Obviously, as you tried to get at in your earlier posts, one who consciously and knowingly enters into such a situation should expect the consequences of it, and cedes any real ground to object.

    This is currently not the situation with regards to being exposed to cigarette smoke. ?At least, almost all of my exposure to cigarette smoke is involuntary, and simply in the course of my daily routine. ?I would think it reasonable to expect that the smokers be moved rather than me repeatedly crossing the street to avoid those walking while smoking, or to take a longer, indirect route between classes because some people usually smoke in front of the building. ?The problem is, while I'm all for letting people do what they feel like, I tend to put some weight in the old axiom that your rights to swing a punch end where my nose begins. ?There are certainly ways to keep smoke from affecting unwilling people in public environments, however, I view them as being prohibitively costly for what they accomplish. ?I have no problem having my tax dollars funding handicapped accessibility and such in government buildings, but I do have a problem with my tax dollars funding an elaborate barrier and ventilation system pretty much just so that a bunch of people are too addicted to be able to wait a few extra hours to smoke without bothering people can indulge their vice. ?I hope it's fairly obvious where I'm coming from with this.
  • RDSRDS Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Tobacco isn't exactly an all climates crop though. You'll have not outright banned it, but for all intents and purposes you would have to anyone in a region where they couldn't grow it themselves. It would seem you're essentially allowing the people in the south, west, and any climate where tobacco can be grown to have the tobacco, while anyone in the cooler northern climates is unable to grow it or to purchase it. Seems rather abritrarily discriminatory to me.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'> Your point is kind of irrelevant since you can easily grow tobacco indoors, regardless of the regional climate.
  • PhatosePhatose Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    Interesting points, and ones I shall consider.

    Either way though, this has become entirely too demanding for me to continue. If you wish to take this as me ceding defeat, fine by me. I'm finished debating this though, so see y'all on the other side of the forums.
  • LordBrianLordBrian Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Alchohol is addictive too. Not banned.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    It's interesting to note that at one point, alcohol was banned in America. The social problems caused by the mentally unbalanced who couldn't legally drink their rotgut caused the ban to be repealed, however.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"I see that in one of the studies mentioned in the full article, "21% of these games portrayed violence towards women." What the heck? I must have missed those games, unless having Sonya or Mileena being present in Mortal Kombat games counts as "violence towards women." If that's the case, then I am not impressed.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    They count Bowser and Ganon's continual kidnapping of their respective princesses as violence towards women as well, not to mention the depiction of stereotypically weak and defenseless females. And yes, I'm shaking my head in disgust as much as the rest of you.
  • SinSin Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    Now they complain about 21% having violence toeards women, and complain about 79% not having women in them.
    Do you see complaints about violence towards men in games? Nooooo.
    But that's off-topic.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Or, you could just eat an orange, and do away with that whole cooking bit entirely. Optionally, you could microwave that pork chop (using solar power, of course) and now you're neither getting food poisoning OR polluting the environment.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    You see, no matter what people do, it will, in some way, pollute or harm the environment.
    You eat an orange. That orange was grown on a tree in a farm. The land used for that farm used to be natural land. The land is no longer able to be used by animals or native plants, not to mention all the fertilizers used on the trees themselves, and the pesticides.

    But again, I'm off-topic.
    I'm taking a nap now.
    Walken1.jpg
  • KamikazeKamikaze Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sin @ April 10 2003,10:40)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Now they complain about 21% having violence toeards women, and complain about 79% not having women in them.
    Do you see complaints about violence towards men in games? Nooooo.
    But that's off-topic.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Or, you could just eat an orange, and do away with that whole cooking bit entirely. ?Optionally, you could microwave that pork chop (using solar power, of course) and now you're neither getting food poisoning OR polluting the environment.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    You see, no matter what people do, it will, in some way, pollute or harm the environment.
    You eat an orange. That orange was grown on a tree in a farm. The land used for that farm used to be natural land. The land is no longer able to be used by animals or native plants, not to mention all the fertilizers used on the trees themselves, and the pesticides.

    But again, I'm off-topic.
    I'm taking a nap now.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    It's simply basic cause and effect. Everything you do causes something else to happen. Of course we cause harm by just simply sitting here and breathing, but we also do good things be simply sitting here and breathing.

    But that's just sitting and breathing, what about smoking? For the smoker, they're sure causing themselves harm by inhaling all that poison, but I can bet after a hard days work he's a helluva lot more relaxed, thus a positive effect.

    As has been debated, many would say that the negative effect of smoking would far outweigh any positive benefits, especially if the negative effects started to affect others. My stance on the whole issue is to let the smokers smoke all the want to, but just make sure that the non-smokers are able to breathe all the clean air they want to.

    Should we decide to ban tobacco, I guarantee a hearty black market will rise to meet the growing demand (since after all, when the government tells us NOT to do something, we're all going to want to do it). Then we'd have yet another illegal substance to deal with in our ridiculous drug war.
  • RDSRDS Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kamikaze @ April 10 2003,16:09)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Should we decide to ban tobacco, I guarantee a hearty black market will rise to meet the growing demand (since after all, when the government tells us NOT to do something, we're all going to want to do it). Then we'd have yet another illegal substance to deal with in our ridiculous drug war.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    I don't think the same thing would happen with smoking as what happens with drugs. When friends I have who smoke are unable to get smokes(no money,whatever) they don't resort to criminal means to aqquire them, like people who are addicted to some other drug. I don't think there would really be a black market like the drug kind. Most people I know who smoke when faced with no smoking just kinda don't care all too much.
  • MetacodMetacod Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    The funniest part of that PDF about video game violence was this:
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Even nonviolent games can increase aggressive affect, perhaps by producing high levels of frustration.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    So they're saying that all frustrating activities should be avoided? sarcasm.gif
  • KamikazeKamikaze Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RDS @ April 10 2003,18:59)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"wow.gif9--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kamikaze @ April 10 2003,16wow.gif9)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Should we decide to ban tobacco, I guarantee a hearty black market will rise to meet the growing demand (since after all, when the government tells us NOT to do something, we're all going to want to do it). Then we'd have yet another illegal substance to deal with in our ridiculous drug war.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    I don't think the same thing would happen with smoking as what happens with drugs. When friends I have who smoke are unable to get smokes(no money,whatever) they don't resort to criminal means to aqquire them, like people who are addicted to some other drug. I don't think there would really be a black market like the drug kind. Most people I know who smoke when faced with no smoking just kinda don't care all too much.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    That's because smoking has never been illegal in this country. And guess what, all those other drugs are illegal, thus any act of trying to obtain them is criminal anyway.

    I'm sure if you had lived in the 20s you'd have said the same thing about alcohol. But that was prohibited and look at what happened. It is a known fact that when an official (be it governmental or parental) tells you not to do something, you're going to want to do it for just that reason. There is thrill some people get in breaking the law, and most teenagers start on drugs as it is an easy way to rebel against their parents' authority.
  • KamikazeKamikaze Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Metacod @ April 10 2003,19:19)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"The funniest part of that PDF about video game violence was this:
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Even nonviolent games can increase aggressive affect, perhaps by producing high levels of frustration.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    So they're saying that all frustrating activities should be avoided? sarcasm.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Like dating? I'm continually frustrated by women, so I guess we should ban relations with the opposite sex then eh? Effing hypocrites.
  • MonCapitan2002MonCapitan2002 Avatar Captured Full Members
    edited April 2003
    I was reading some of the posts made by Phatose comparing cigarettes to other activities. ?I would like to comment on them. ?

    Cheeseburgers:If I eat a greasy cheesburger loaded with fat and calories the only person who would be affected is me. ?The only person who will feel the effects of eating that cheeseburger will be me. ?The effects to eating them in excess can be offset with exercise.
    Farting:As Athenian said this is a necessary and uncontrollable function of the body.
    Barbecues:This is a perfectly legitimite food preparation method and I don't particularly see how this is in any way relavent smoking.
    Video games:They are a form of entertainment so they do serve a purpose. ?If played in moderation they are harmless.
    Automobiles:Unless you live in a large city that has an extensive public transportation system they are a practical necessity. ?This past summer I spent a few days in Puerto Rico and one thing I noticed was that a car was an absolute necessity if one wanted to get around. ?There were no corner stores like there are where I live and all the commercial centers were too far away to get to from were I was staying. ?Some people also like to take joyrides in the things as well.
    Alchohol:If you drink and I don't the only person to get drunk would be you. ?The effects of alchohol would only effect the person consuming it. ?While alchohol can have very harmful effects it would only effect the individual consuming it. ?

    Cigarettes are not like that. ?If you smoke in the same area I am in I will be affected by it as well. ?The cigarette smoke will damage my body just as it would damage yours. ?To be completely honest I don't give a damn if you want to smoke until your lungs are as black as coal so long as it isn't around me. ?If you want to give yourself lung cancer, that is fine with me. ?Just don't do it where I can be affected as well. ?

    There isn't any way (as far as I know) to offset the negative effects of smoking. ?I don't see how the "benefits" of smoking outweigh all the harm they do. ?While they may not guarantee that you will get cancer they do in fact cause harm. ?As a result I have no sympathy whatsoever for anyone who experiences health problems (including cancer) as a result of taking up smoking.



    LordBilbanes.png
    Please help my city grow. Estharopolis - Population | Industry | Transportation | Security | Environment | Business
  • KamikazeKamikaze Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MonCapitan2002 @ April 10 2003,20:40)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Alchohol:If you drink and I don't the only person to get drunk would be you. ?The effects of alchohol would only effect the person consuming it. ?While alchohol can have very harmful effects it would only effect the individual consuming it. ?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Have you forgotten what happens when that drunk gets behind the wheel of a car? Or what happens when the alcoholic gets in an argument with his wife? I'd say alcohol affects more people than just the person drinking it.
  • MonCapitan2002MonCapitan2002 Avatar Captured Full Members
    edited April 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kamikaze @ April 10 2003,22:10)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Alchohol:If you drink and I don't the only person to get drunk would be you. ?The effects of alchohol would only effect the person consuming it. ?While alchohol can have very harmful effects it would only effect the individual consuming it. ?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Have you forgotten what happens when that drunk gets behind the wheel of a car? Or what happens when the alcoholic gets in an argument with his wife? I'd say alcohol affects more people than just the person drinking it.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Not at all. ?I was referring to the fact that the consumption only has a physical effect on the person consuming it. ?I am well aware of the fact that alcohol can greatly affect a person's behavior. ?By the way, the alchoholic could be the wife just as easily as the husband.

    As a side note. ?I don't consume alchohol for those reasons. ?I avoid the consumption of all drugs and that includes alchohol. ?I will not consume any substance that can radically alter my behavior. ?Again I was referring to the physical effects of alcohol and not the behavior of individuals under its influence.



    LordBilbanes.png
    Please help my city grow. Estharopolis - Population | Industry | Transportation | Security | Environment | Business
  • generatorgenerator Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    as a side note, i found this incredibly amusing:
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Barbecues:This is a perfectly legitimite food preparation method and I don't particularly see how this is in any way relavent smoking.
    [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    ----

    umm oh yeah, you shouldn't smoke, it's bad for you.
This discussion has been closed.