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

12357

Comments

  • The AthenianThe Athenian Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    All I know is, smoking has a 100% chance of being damaging to you, and also a 200% chance of being disgusting.



  • generatorgenerator Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    i wanna hop on this bandwagon..

    other smoking statistics:

    37% chance of being cooler
    79% chance of gaining much-needed color to your teeth
    64% chance of turning off the opposite sex
    2% chance it will make your bologna sandwich taste better
    98% chance it will make your bologna sandwich taste worse
    0% chance of finding cigarettes as the free toy in lucky charms
    100% chance you could be spending your money more productively


    in conclusion, there is a 99% chance you get the picture. ?sarcasm.gif
  • 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"1) 37% chance of being cooler
    2) 79% chance of gaining much-needed color to your teeth
    3) 64% chance of turning off the opposite sex
    4) 2% chance it will make your bologna sandwich taste better
    5) 98% chance it will make your bologna sandwich taste worse
    6) 0% chance of finding cigarettes as the free toy in lucky charms
    7) 100% chance you could be spending your money more productively

    in conclusion, there is a 99% chance you get the picture. sarcasm.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    1) Does that not clash with #2 and 3?
    3) Would have thought it to be higher. By my calculations, it is 78%.
    4) For those of you who don't like the taste of bologna!
    5) For those of you who do like the taste of bologna!
    6) You never know. Them Leprechauns be tricky! And didn't you know, smoking is magically delicious!
    7) Unless your goal is a slow, painful, cancerous death. tounge.gif
    Walken1.jpg
  • The AthenianThe Athenian 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"98% chance it will make your bologna sandwich taste worse[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Okay, now we're getting ridiculous -- nothing can make balogna taste worse than it already does.
  • LordBrianLordBrian Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    Bologna is quite tasty.
  • generatorgenerator 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"1) Does that not clash with #2 and 3?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    yes sir, that's why it was given a sub-50% percentage.. but your concern is much appreciated. ?biggrin.gif

    folks, i'd like to point out that these studies i conducted were extremely thorough, and looking back, it was definitely worth the three minutes i spent on it.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Okay, now we're getting ridiculous -- nothing can make balogna taste worse than it already does.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    while not my top choice of coldcut, i feel bologna has a wonderful flavor. ?it tastes better at room temperature than cold though.
  • DarkZitanDarkZitan Banned Banned Users
    edited April 2003
    Personally I don't mind it. I smoke, I drink, BUT I am also considerate of those around me. I think it's a good idea to ban smoking from inside of restraunts and bars. If you're to lazy to step outside and smoke a cigarette then you shouldn't be smoking at all.
  • VargasVargas Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (LordBrian @ April 03 2003,00:12)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Bologna is quite tasty.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Now I know how you picked your title. tounge.gif
    That low-grade sandwich meat gives me nasty acid.
  • fergus the lesserfergus the lesser Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (LordBrian @ April 03 2003,14:12)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Bologna is quite tasty.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    at this point i think i would agree to LB that Bologna is tasty.. hmmm how many percent of the board members would say that Bologna is tasty...
  • fergus the lesserfergus the lesser Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (generator @ April 03 2003,03:44)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"79% chance of gaining much-needed color to your teeth[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    in these times its easier to acquire a "gold" teeth full of tooth cavities etc...
  • PhatosePhatose Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    You know, the more I read threads like these, and the 'information' put out by the anti-smoking campaigns, the more I become convinced that these new laws are morally abhorrent. To some extent, I would agree that non-smokers do have a right to be 'protected' from the risks of tobacco smoking, but what I see is a campaign intended not to protect non-smokers from being forced to partake in a habit they did not choose, but a semi-well disguised attempt to bully smokers into quitting through regulatory hell.

    I'm sorry, but non-smokers do NOT have that right. Any arguements about the benefits of risks of smoking to the smoker are moot - as long as it is the smokers will that they smoke, then it is a benefit, preserving the freedom of an individual. As far as the non-smokers rights go, as far as I'm concerned, the second the right to not be exposed to tobacco smoke is used as a way to enforce the non-smokers will on the smokers, instead of simply protecting the non-smokers, they cede those rights voluntarily. If you're going to use your shield as a sword, it's a sword, and you no longer have the right to it.
  • fergus the lesserfergus the lesser Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Phatose @ April 04 2003,18:01)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"I'm sorry, but non-smokers do NOT have that right. ?Any arguements about the benefits of risks of smoking to the smoker are moot - as long as it is the smokers will that they smoke, then it is a benefit, preserving the freedom of an individual. ?As far as the non-smokers rights go, as far as I'm concerned, the second the right to not be exposed to tobacco smoke is used as a way to enforce the non-smokers will on the smokers, instead of simply protecting the non-smokers, they cede those rights voluntarily. ?If you're going to use your shield as a sword, it's a sword, and you no longer have the right to it.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    yeah your right.. non-smokers are really at risk cause they are the one who'll inhale that.. sidestream smoke in other words..
  • PhatosePhatose Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (fergus the lesser @ April 04 2003,02:05)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"wow.gif1--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Phatose @ April 04 2003,18wow.gif1)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"I'm sorry, but non-smokers do NOT have that right. ?Any arguements about the benefits of risks of smoking to the smoker are moot - as long as it is the smokers will that they smoke, then it is a benefit, preserving the freedom of an individual. ?As far as the non-smokers rights go, as far as I'm concerned, the second the right to not be exposed to tobacco smoke is used as a way to enforce the non-smokers will on the smokers, instead of simply protecting the non-smokers, they cede those rights voluntarily. ?If you're going to use your shield as a sword, it's a sword, and you no longer have the right to it.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    yeah your right.. non-smokers are really at risk cause they are the one who'll inhale that.. sidestream smoke in other words..[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Which, as I remind you AGAIN, gives you only the right to take reasonable action to protect yourself. Not the right to attempt to force smokers to quit.

    Not to mention that you seem to imply that smokers, while smoking, cease to breathe, which is what would be neccessary to avoid this sidestream smoke your so worked up about.
  • 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"Which, as I remind you AGAIN, gives you only the right to take reasonable action to protect yourself. Not the right to attempt to force smokers to quit.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    What exactly is "reasonable action". I believe that would entail not going to most restaurants, and bars, and pool-halls, and some malls, and my school, and the list goes on. "Reasonable action" would then involve not going anywhere outside of your own home.
    I think that is a little extreme just to let other people suck on burning plant matter in peace.
    Walken1.jpg
  • TrueGamerTrueGamer 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"You know, the more I read threads like these, and the 'information' put out by the anti-smoking campaigns, the more I become convinced that these new laws are morally abhorrent. To some extent, I would agree that non-smokers do have a right to be 'protected' from the risks of tobacco smoking, but what I see is a campaign intended not to protect non-smokers from being forced to partake in a habit they did not choose, but a semi-well disguised attempt to bully smokers into quitting through regulatory hell.

    I'm sorry, but non-smokers do NOT have that right. Any arguements about the benefits of risks of smoking to the smoker are moot - as long as it is the smokers will that they smoke, then it is a benefit, preserving the freedom of an individual. As far as the non-smokers rights go, as far as I'm concerned, the second the right to not be exposed to tobacco smoke is used as a way to enforce the non-smokers will on the smokers, instead of simply protecting the non-smokers, they cede those rights voluntarily. If you're going to use your shield as a sword, it's a sword, and you no longer have the right to it.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    So...suicide should be made legal?
  • DarkZitanDarkZitan Banned Banned Users
    edited April 2003
    OK, so to the point above, who cares if they are bullying them? no one here can tell them to stop, who cares if it's our freedom to smoke? no one here is putting it in our mouths but us. Just because restraunts and bars did allow it doesn't mean they can't take it away. Kinda like walking into a friends house, which is a non-smokers house and lighting up. Sure you have the right to do it but is it really nessisary to expose everyone else to your bad habit? no. I believe it actually is EVERYONES right to want to preserve their health. What they are doing is right, more power to these laws for wanting to preserve the human race. Second hand smoke kills enough people each year.
  • The Big BangThe Big Bang 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"So...suicide should be made legal? [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Errr....If you kill yourself I doubt you will be arrested or tried through the judicial system.
  • The AthenianThe Athenian Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    You know, I just can't conceive of any system of morality or logical arguments that would actually approve of smoking as an acceptable thing to do.
    You can try to argue about the immorality of taking away smokers' rights, but since when do you care about doing the right thing if you're out there polluting everyone else's lungs? You can try to come up with some sort of a logical argument of why people should be allowed to smoke if they want to, but exactly what logical argument brought you to the conclusion that smoking was a wise decision in the first place?

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"but what I see is a campaign intended not to protect non-smokers from being forced to partake in a habit they did not choose, but a semi-well disguised attempt to bully smokers into quitting through regulatory hell.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Whether or not you have a good argument here, do you realize that you are fighting for a person's right to introduce various harmful toxins into their system? Does one gain a lot of satisfaction from standing tall and shouting "Yes, I must be allowed to harm myself if I choose"? Even if you were the only person around, what makes you think that you should be able to slowly destroy your own body? I've heard of golden rules such as "don't harm others," but I can't say I'm familiar with any religions or moral codes that say "It's okay to harm yourself. Do whatever you want to your own body, it doesn't matter."
    I'm also a little confused on what you consider to be a "right". You say that smokers have a "right" to smoke. This is a vague concept to me, as it stands so far -- on its own, it seems to suggest that if you have the "right" to do something, then nothing can stand in your way once you've made your decision to do that. But who decides whether you have that "right" to begin with? You only had the "right" to smoke in public places because the government said it is okay. If they say it's not okay, then *POOF* -- there go your rights, bucko.
    If, on the other hand, you are speaking of some profound, mystical, universal "rights" that all humans should have (but, in practice, do not), then I would also have to ask who decides these rights. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when a person decides to smoke it is also breathed in by anyone else in the area, and probably stays around in the air for quite some time afterward. If not harming others is the rule of thumb, how on earth are you going to make sure all your hazardous waste gets completely isolated and disposed of without harming others? Just because you think you're alone, or are outside, does not mean that your smoke isn't going to harm other people. "Being outside" is not some kind of magical safety zone in which people are invincible, nor is it a seperate society where smokers rule over non-smokers with claims of "Ha ha, we're outside, so I can blow smoke in your face all I want to!"
    You say we don't have the "right" to stop you from smoking? I say you never had the "right" to smoke in the first place.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"the second the right to not be exposed to tobacco smoke is used as a way to enforce the non-smokers will on the smokers, instead of simply protecting the non-smokers, they cede those rights voluntarily.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    How, exactly, does one protect non-smokers without stopping the smokers? Last time I checked, non-smokers and smokers lived on the same planet, and intermingled on numerous occasions. As I see it, there is a choice to be made:
    a)Get the smokers to stop smoking, which may infringe on the rights they currently have, but which are harmful both to them and the non-smokers.
    b)Radically change society in some way, so that all the non-smokers must either walk around wearing gas masks, or perhaps are segregated to live in giant dome cities.

    I'll let you decide which is the greater injustice. But, as I see it, your stance seems to be that non-smokers should basically just be doormats for smokers. If a non-smoker wants to go to a restaurant and sees someone inside smoking, then -- whoops! -- guess it's time to turn around and go home! And if the non-smoker was there first, and suddenly some smoking guy enters, then -- whoops! -- looks like the non-smoker's lunch will be cut short today! Gosh, it would be awful to bother the smoker and take away his right to smoke. What an infringement of rights that would be.
  • PhatosePhatose Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (The Athenian @ April 04 2003,17:33)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"You know, I just can't conceive of any system of morality or logical arguments that would actually approve of smoking as an acceptable thing to do.
    You can try to argue about the immorality of taking away smokers' rights, but since when do you care about doing the right thing if you're out there polluting everyone else's lungs? ?You can try to come up with some sort of a logical argument of why people should be allowed to smoke if they want to, but exactly what logical argument brought you to the conclusion that smoking was a wise decision in the first place?

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"but what I see is a campaign intended not to protect non-smokers from being forced to partake in a habit they did not choose, but a semi-well disguised attempt to bully smokers into quitting through regulatory hell.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Whether or not you have a good argument here, do you realize that you are fighting for a person's right to introduce various harmful toxins into their system? ?Does one gain a lot of satisfaction from standing tall and shouting "Yes, I must be allowed to harm myself if I choose"? ?Even if you were the only person around, what makes you think that you should be able to slowly destroy your own body? ?I've heard of golden rules such as "don't harm others," but I can't say I'm familiar with any religions or moral codes that say "It's okay to harm yourself. ?Do whatever you want to your own body, it doesn't matter."
    I'm also a little confused on what you consider to be a "right". ?You say that smokers have a "right" to smoke. ?This is a vague concept to me, as it stands so far -- on its own, it seems to suggest that if you have the "right" to do something, then nothing can stand in your way once you've made your decision to do that. ?But who decides whether you have that "right" to begin with? ?You only had the "right" to smoke in public places because the government said it is okay. ?If they say it's not okay, then *POOF* -- there go your rights, bucko.
    If, on the other hand, you are speaking of some profound, mystical, universal "rights" that all humans should have (but, in practice, do not), then I would also have to ask who decides these rights. ?Correct me if I'm wrong, but when a person decides to smoke it is also breathed in by anyone else in the area, and probably stays around in the air for quite some time afterward. ?If not harming others is the rule of thumb, how on earth are you going to make sure all your hazardous waste gets completely isolated and disposed of without harming others? ?Just because you think you're alone, or are outside, does not mean that your smoke isn't going to harm other people. ?"Being outside" is not some kind of magical safety zone in which people are invincible, nor is it a seperate society where smokers rule over non-smokers with claims of "Ha ha, we're outside, so I can blow smoke in your face all I want to!"
    You say we don't have the "right" to stop you from smoking? ?I say you never had the "right" to smoke in the first place.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"the second the right to not be exposed to tobacco smoke is used as a way to enforce the non-smokers will on the smokers, instead of simply protecting the non-smokers, they cede those rights voluntarily.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    How, exactly, does one protect non-smokers without stopping the smokers? ?Last time I checked, non-smokers and smokers lived on the same planet, and intermingled on numerous occasions. ?As I see it, there is a choice to be made:
    a)Get the smokers to stop smoking, which may infringe on the rights they currently have, but which are harmful both to them and the non-smokers.
    b)Radically change society in some way, so that all the non-smokers must either walk around wearing gas masks, or perhaps are segregated to live in giant dome cities.

    I'll let you decide which is the greater injustice. ?But, as I see it, your stance seems to be that non-smokers should basically just be doormats for smokers. ?If a non-smoker wants to go to a restaurant and sees someone inside smoking, then -- whoops! -- guess it's time to turn around and go home! ?And if the non-smoker was there first, and suddenly some smoking guy enters, then -- whoops! -- looks like the non-smoker's lunch will be cut short today! ?Gosh, it would be awful to bother the smoker and take away his right to smoke. ?What an infringement of rights that would be.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    On "Polluting everyone elses lungs" -

    Given the number of potentially toxic substances, bacteria, not to mention that basic human respiration requires changing that precious oxygen to carbon dioxide, every living being on this planet is guilty of polluting everyone elses lungs with microbe and other potentially harmful substances. To be blunt, everyone and everything does that.

    Whether or not smoking was a wise decision to begin with is irrelevant. Societies place is not to make value judgements for individuals unneccessairly. If their value system says that enjoying a cigarette is worth a chance of dying down the road, then that is their soveriegn right, just as it's their soverign right to drive even though they may die in a car accident.

    On morality -

    It's very simple. Individuals retain all rights to do as they will except in cases where it's absolutely neccessary for the reasonable protection of others. Note the use of the word 'reasonable' - under your 'no harm others at all' system, no action would be possible AT ALL, on the off chance that somehow, at some point, it might cause others. Your morality system is entirely useless, as it requires complete omniscience to be able to take any action whatsoever, including doing nothing. It can perscribe no action whatsoever, nor can it perscribe that you should take no action, therefore all it says it that 'you lose, game over.

    I don't buy it. Your system is inheriently flawed. Being outside is, for all intents and purposes, a magical safety zone, seeing as how the anti-smoking advocates have never once been able to show any measurable risk attached to it. Every study, EVERY SINGLE ONE, deals with indoor areas. Seeing as how non-smokers exposed to bits of ciggarette smoke outdoors do not instantly drop dead 100% of the time, the burden of proof lies with the anti-smoking advocates. Provide it or hush.

    On the radical change to society -

    It's no radical change at all. Look around you. Despite your claims, people DO have the right to pollute the air. People drive cars which pollute the entire atmosphere. People cough, spreading disease into the atmosphere. People fart, spreading toxic methane into the atmosphere. People use obnoxious perfumes, putting god only knows what in the atmosphere. You are simply wrong. Your do not have any sovereign right to decide the exact contents of the entire atmosphere.

    A non-smoker doesn't magically gain the right to claim the entire atmosphere as his own by labeling his personal desires for that atmosphere 'clean' any more then I have the right to prevent people from driving, farting, or breathing by labeling my version of atmospheric preferences 'clean'. Sorry, but you're incorrect.

    You want protection? You can have REASONABLE protection, equivalent to what anyone else gets from other people's farts, car exhausts, germs, carbon dioxide, backyard barbecues and toxic fumes from hair dies. That's IT. No more. By taking the absolute stance that you have taken, you have ensured that no reasonable protection can be given you, therefore you have cede ALL protection.

    Your choices are either to meet us halfway, and do your part in protecting yourself, compromise to reach a reasonable balance between our soverign rights as individuals, and your rights to be protected. Refuse to do so, and your claims are moot, since you've refused to take the action required.
  • The AthenianThe Athenian 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"Being outside is, for all intents and purposes, a magical safety zone, seeing as how the anti-smoking advocates have never once been able to show any measurable risk attached to it. Every study, EVERY SINGLE ONE, deals with indoor areas. Seeing as how non-smokers exposed to bits of ciggarette smoke outdoors do not instantly drop dead 100% of the time, the burden of proof lies with the anti-smoking advocates. Provide it or hush.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Oh, okay, you're right. I'm so sorry -- the outdoors are a magical safety zone, and because I do not instantly die on contact with smoke, that means they are not doing any long-term harm to me, even if that contact persists over time. Hey, come to think of it, even indoor smoking does not actually kill people instantly -- so I guess that's okay too. I don't know what I was so worked-up about -- I have seen the light. Smoking is awesome, because there is apparently no "proof" that it is bad for us. Maybe I should let you just keep hitting me with a hammer, too -- after all, it would be pretty hard to prove that it hurts me, wouldn't it.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Despite your claims, people DO have the right to pollute the air. People drive cars which pollute the entire atmosphere. People cough, spreading disease into the atmosphere. People fart, spreading toxic methane into the atmosphere. People use obnoxious perfumes, putting god only knows what in the atmosphere.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Ever notice that these things all actually have a purpose? It's a sacrifice, I suppose, but these things do have some use, in a way. Also, I have never heard of anyone getting any sort of disease from exposure to farts.
    Car exhaust is probably the worst one, but even that has been regulated and changed over the years to reduce the harm it causes. Once we have the technology to make it feasible, cars will probably not pollute nearly as much.
    What, exactly, is the useful function of cigarettes? Why are they so precious that they must be kept for society to function?

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"You want protection? You can have REASONABLE protection[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    You seem to have repeatedly overlooked that "reasonable protection" has not been defined so far. Perhaps Sin and I were too subtle for you? I will spell it out now, in capital letters. WHAT THE BLOODY HECK IS "REASONABLE PROTECTION?!!"

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"equivalent to what anyone else gets from other people's farts, car exhausts, germs, carbon dioxide, backyard barbecues and toxic fumes from hair dies. That's IT. No more.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    ....Oh, okay, I get it now. "Reasonable protection" is "no protection at all."

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"By taking the absolute stance that you have taken, you have ensured that no reasonable protection can be given you, therefore you have cede ALL protection.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Ah... by being against smoking, I have volunteered to allow smokers to do whatever they want! Genius!

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Your choices are either to meet us halfway, and do your part in protecting yourself, compromise to reach a reasonable balance between our soverign rights as individuals, and your rights to be protected. Refuse to do so, and your claims are moot, since you've refused to take the action required.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    So, basically, it is the smoker's right to smoke wherever and whenever they want to, regardless of the wishes of anyone else. And the non-smoker's right is to sit there and take it, or migrate to some undiscovered island and begin a new life as a coconut harvester. Thanks for your patience and understanding, you smoking jerks!

    I think that the next time I see someone smoking, I will standing right beside them and scream as loud as I can into their ear. If they don't like it, they can opt for Phatose's suggestion of "reasonable protection" and move away from me, hoping that I don't follow them.
  • MonCapitan2002MonCapitan2002 Avatar Captured Full Members
    edited April 2003
    As a non smoker I have to side with The Athenian on this issue. ?In my opinion smokers should not be allowed to smoke where ever and whenever they choose. ?If it they wouldn't be able to smoke in public at all. ?The habit is filthy and disgusting and I for one see no redeemable features in smoking cigarettes. ?
    LordBilbanes.png
    Please help my city grow. Estharopolis - Population | Industry | Transportation | Security | Environment | Business
  • PhatosePhatose Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (The Athenian @ April 05 2003,10:42)</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"Oh, okay, you're right. I'm so sorry -- the outdoors are a magical safety zone, and because I do not instantly die on contact with smoke, that means they are not doing any long-term harm to me, even if that contact persists over time. Hey, come to think of it, even indoor smoking does not actually kill people instantly -- so I guess that's okay too. I don't know what I was so worked-up about -- I have seen the light. Smoking is awesome, because there is apparently no "proof" that it is bad for us. Maybe I should let you just keep hitting me with a hammer, too -- after all, it would be pretty hard to prove that it hurts me, wouldn't it.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Again, your claims have no merit. You have specifically chosen to limit all your research to a very particular catergory. Even under those extrememly limited results, what was the end result? What's that? A .1% change in the death rate? Wow. And that's for what, 40 YEARS of extended indoor exposure? Wow. I wonder what exactly would happen if we took that 40 years of extended indoor exposure, and made it 40 years outdoor in the diluted air. The phrase "Statistically insignifigant" comes to mind. If you have no results, then again, Hush. Claiming things you have no evidence for only weakens your claim, and strengthens my point that evidence and protection are not your concerns at all, but a moral crusade.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Ever notice that these things all actually have a purpose? It's a sacrifice, I suppose, but these things do have some use, in a way. Also, I have never heard of anyone getting any sort of disease from exposure to farts.
    Car exhaust is probably the worst one, but even that has been regulated and changed over the years to reduce the harm it causes. Once we have the technology to make it feasible, cars will probably not pollute nearly as much.
    What, exactly, is the useful function of cigarettes? Why are they so precious that they must be kept for society to function?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>


    Apparently smokers enjoy it. And that is all it takes, else driving around for no reason would be illegal - no more nice drives 'just to relax'. Sorry, but it is not the individuals duty to prove their freedoms are useful to society, it is societies duty it is neccessary to have freedoms taken away. Under your system, each and every action is subject to complete review by society, and if society judges it to be 'useless', it goes away. How does that fare for other venues, like say, playing video games, or free speech? "Useless speech" will be banned too, neh?

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"You seem to have repeatedly overlooked that "reasonable protection" has not been defined so far. Perhaps Sin and I were too subtle for you? I will spell it out now, in capital letters. WHAT THE BLOODY HECK IS "REASONABLE PROTECTION?!!"[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>


    Reasonable protection is the creation a system where prolonged indoor smoke exposure is not a neccesitty of living, with every intent made to minimize the effects on smokers freedoms. IE, you can have all the public workplaces, most of the bars (though, there should be designated smoking allowed zones, since if you actively seek out a smoking bar, you are an accomplice, and therefore cede any rights of protection). You can not ban smoking outside unless signifigant data exposing it as a genuine risk is present, and unless you can prove that you are not being an accomplice in outdoor exposure by refusal to take voluntairy steps. In situations where prolonged outdoor exposure would be completely unavoidable to non-smokers, and where a signifigant risk is implied, then smoking would be curtailed in those areas. At every juncture, the actual risk to non-smokers would be measured against smokers freedoms, and a balance would be maintained.

    Or in short, reasonable protection is acknowleding that this risk isn't exactly equivalent to a bullet to the head, and that reasonable people make compromises.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"....Oh, okay, I get it now. "Reasonable protection" is "no protection at all."[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    As long as you're intent on pushing your protection beyond reasonable limits, yessirrie bob. You can either negotiate or you be a blockade, and since you're unwilling to negotiate, you've given up your claims to protection.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Ah... by being against smoking, I have volunteered to allow smokers to do whatever they want! Genius![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Incorrect. By refusing to take any part in a genuine attempt to please both sides, you have volunteered to allow smokers to do whatever they want. Sorry, you don't get to play "I'm gonna make sure it goes my way and that no compromise can be reached, and if I don't get my way, I'm a horrible victim." Your intent in turning any attempt to protect you into an attempt to outright stamp out smoking no matter what has invalidated your claims.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"So, basically, it is the smoker's right to smoke wherever and whenever they want to, regardless of the wishes of anyone else. And the non-smoker's right is to sit there and take it, or migrate to some undiscovered island and begin a new life as a coconut harvester. Thanks for your patience and understanding, you smoking jerks!

    I think that the next time I see someone smoking, I will standing right beside them and scream as loud as I can into their ear. If they don't like it, they can opt for Phatose's suggestion of "reasonable protection" and move away from me, hoping that I don't follow them.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    AGAIN, NO. It is the smokers right to smoke, and your right to have some protection, and guess what? This is a complicated world and rights sometimes clash. When that happens, we make a genuine attempt to negotiate and reach an acceptable solution.

    But you're not doing that. You're going out of your way to block any attempt at a reasonable solution, because you have issues with other peoples choices. You're using your claim of protection as an attempt to take away their rights, and if you're not going to try to accomidate both, then you surrender your rights.


    Or, in short, if you're going to claim to be out for 'protection', then make every attempt to ensure that it's not about protection you but imposing on other people, then your protection claims are tyranny in a guise.
  • TrueGamerTrueGamer 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"So...suicide should be made legal? ?


    Errr....If you kill yourself I doubt you will be arrested or tried through the judicial system.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    "Attempted Suicide" if you prefer. If you try-and fail-you will be arrested and thrown in a mental institution for a few years. Since smoking is pretty much the same thing (and smokers are aware of the risks) , then I ask why it should be allowed under these circumstances? What makes smoking so different? It's longer? So? The only thing that happens when you smoke is you lose money and you die some years later. Oh, and you affect other people as well. I just can't understand why this 100% useless item which does nothing more than harm people is accepted.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Under your system, each and every action is subject to complete review by society, and if society judges it to be 'useless', it goes away. ?How does that fare for other venues, like say, playing video games, or free speech? ?"Useless speech" will be banned too, neh?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Although this is Athenian's fight, I just had to interject here: video games do not harm people. Yes, there is radiation, but radiation can be reduced, and it has been significantly reduced over the years. The newest TV screens releases something like 1/40th the radiation TVs from the '80s released (that's something a guy at a TV store told me. He was probably exaggerating) , and flat-screens produce even less. Now, cigarettes have a large number of chemicals in them that CAN'T be reduced. If they were, it wouldn't be a cigarette anymore, huh?

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"AGAIN, NO. ?It is the smokers right to smoke, and your right to have some protection, and guess what? This is a complicated world and rights sometimes clash. ?When that happens, we make a genuine attempt to negotiate and reach an acceptable solution.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    I know what you mean. So, if a lot of people do something hazardous, then a compromise should be worked out with those who don't like it? Law can be a good thing, but this time, it doesn't make sense. What if the majority feel it should be removed entirely? Also, what about back in WW2? Hitler was murdering thousands of Jews everyday, but did the majority compromise with the minority? Did we allow Hitler to stay in power and only kill less Jews everyday? NO! It only fueled the Allies anger some more! A compromise is a compromise, but only when the situation is within reasonable limits. Cigarettes-an item with absolutely no use other than to drain human resources-is not within those reasonable limits.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Or, in short, if you're going to claim to be out for 'protection', then make every attempt to ensure that it's not about protection you but imposing on other people, then your protection claims are tyranny in a guise.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Ah, but the Athenian is just part of a majority of people who say it is not right. What is it you smokers say? "We're adults too! We can make informed decisions!" So are we, and we're not talking through government, it's just regular people here-and more of them-who believe smoking should be banned. We're making an informed decision too, and under the same argument: it's within our rights to do so. Thus, as a single person agreeing with an already popular public opinion, it's reasonable, and, therefore, cannot be considered tyrannical.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Again, your claims have no merit. ?You have specifically chosen to limit all your research to a very particular catergory. ?Even under those extrememly limited results, what was the end result? ?What's that? ?A .1% change in the death rate? ?Wow. ?And that's for what, 40 YEARS of extended indoor exposure?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Those stats. are loaded. In comparison to the overall death rate, it's around a measly .1%. However, if you only look at people who live with smokers, you will see that the number is around 35%. So, for those who actually live with smokers, there is a good chance you will die, but this number is not high enough to be apparent in the overall national death rate-this is what is being said in the quote above.

    Oh, and for those who say you can't die in a few puffs of smoke: try smoking around a severe asthmatic. I assure you a single puff can be deadly for them (and asthma rates have been rising in the last few years) .

    Edit: You know, the usual: typos, grammer, some more points, clarification on some arguments...



  • The AthenianThe Athenian 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"Again, your claims have no merit. ?You have specifically chosen to limit all your research to a very particular catergory. ?Even under those extrememly limited results, what was the end result? ?What's that? ?A .1% change in the death rate? ?Wow. ?And that's for what, 40 YEARS of extended indoor exposure? ?Wow. ?I wonder what exactly would happen if we took that 40 years of extended indoor exposure, and made it 40 years outdoor in the diluted air. ?The phrase "Statistically insignifigant" comes to mind.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Um... I'm sorry, what? ?Was this my claim? ?Did I do this research? ?You've lost me. ?What, exactly, are you referring to? ?...And is True Gamer correct in his interpretation of this mystery data?

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"If you have no results, then again, Hush. ?Claiming things you have no evidence for only weakens your claim[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    ...If I have no results? ?Why do I, personally, have to provide you with research of the effects of smoking? ?Unless you've been living under a rock, I'm sure you've encountered various stats from a variety of sources over the course of your life. ?That would count as "evidence," would it not? ?Why does it have to come from me?
    But, if you really want me to go searching around the internet for a few tidbits, here's something from the World Health Organization's database on the United States, dealing with Mortality from Tobacco Use:
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Lung cancer mortality is increasing steadily among women but appears to be levelling off among men. Substantial decreases in ischemic heart disease mortality rates for men are noted since 1980 (more than 50%). It is estimated that in 1995, around 529,000 deaths were attributable to smoking (24% of total mortality). Among females, smoking attributable mortality in middle age (35-69 years) increased from 5% of all deaths at these ages in 1965 to 31% in 1995. An estimated 52% of all cancer deaths among middleage males (35-69 years) in 1990 were due to smoking.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    If that's not enough, here's a snippet from the Health Canada website:
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Using data from the National Population Health Survey and the Canadian Mortality Database, we applied the Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Morbidity and Economic Cost method to estimate national and regional smoking-attributable mortality for 1994 and 1996. The results indicate that 29,229 men and 15,986 women died in 1996 as a result of smoking, including 105 children under the age of 1. This total of approximately 45,200 deaths represents an increase of 3,807 deaths since 1991, of which 2,445 occurred in women. The increase in female mortality is almost entirely due to adult diseases, divided between cancers (1,026), cardiovascular diseases (743) and respiratory diseases (870).[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    I'm sure you'll come up with dozens of fantastic reasons why the data is flawed, or why it is some kind of government conspiracy against you, but it sure beats the pro-smoking data I came across during my brief stroll through the internet... ?Their research, which was done by tobacco companies, included such rock-solid points as "science is not infallible."
    But, when all is said and done, I don't need a national study to tell me that smoking is unhealthy. ?Why do you think people cough when they breath in smoke? ?It's just not something we're supposed to do. ?If natural reactions are not your cup of tea, maybe you could do something really radical and ASK YOUR DOCTOR. ?Jeez, I can't believe you smokers think you need "evidence" that smoking is bad for you. ?And when evidence if provided, even though it admittedly is hard to prove (because, conveniently for you, it deals with the mysterious notion of death), it is labelled as "flawed" or "biased" or government propaganda. ?Why the heck the government would want to try and get people to stop buying cigarettes that fuel the economy is beyond me... you'd almost think they were concerned about the population's health, or something crazy like that.
    You know, if I were a smoker, and I was one day presented with the idea that smoking may or may not be linked to DEATH, I would find cigarettes to be significantly less attractive as a way to spend my money and time. ?But, that's just me, you know.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Apparently smokers enjoy it. ?And that is all it takes, else driving around for no reason would be illegal - no more nice drives 'just to relax'. ?Sorry, but it is not the individuals duty to prove their freedoms are useful to society, it is societies duty it is neccessary to have freedoms taken away. ?Under your system, each and every action is subject to complete review by society, and if society judges it to be 'useless', it goes away. ?How does that fare for other venues, like say, playing video games, or free speech? ?"Useless speech" will be banned too, neh?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    I almost thought you had a good point, there, for a minute. ?Dealing with so many pro-smoking arguments has somehow taken away my perspective, and caused my brain to melt into mush. ?Luckily, True Gamer had the common sense to mention that "video games do not harm people."
    As you seem to be fond of doing, you have distracted me from the real issue of smoking by comparing it to unrelated activities such as farting, or trying to make me seem like a dictator who takes away everyone's legal rights for the purposes of some crazed "moral crusade." ?But, of course, I am not one to take away the right to drive, fart, play video games, eat candy, or whatever non-smoking-related topic you can come up with. ?Smoking is NOT like any of these things at all. ?Smoking is an activity that does provide some kind of enjoyment, or so I'm told, but it also does damage to both smokers and non-smokers. ?Getting rid of smoking does not create some kind of Orwellian nightmare, and it does not open the door for taking away the right to drive. ?It's just smoking. ?When people smoke, they are forcing others to smoke -- thus taking away their right to not smoke. ?How is it that people can have rights to do things, but they can't have rights to not do things?
    ...Or, I could be more direct about your comment about "enjoyment" being the reason for making it legal, and cite hundreds of sick and perverted things that different people enjoy but are illegal.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Reasonable protection is the creation a system where prolonged indoor smoke exposure is not a neccesitty of living, with every intent made to minimize the effects on smokers freedoms. ?IE, you can have all the public workplaces, most of the bars (though, there should be designated smoking allowed zones, since if you actively seek out a smoking bar, you are an accomplice, and therefore cede any rights of protection).[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    See, prolonged indoor smoke exposure is already not a necessity of living, because being indoors at all is not a necessity of living. ?And, if that's too literal for you, then let's water it down a little -- going to bars is not necessary. ?Going to restaurants is not necessary. ?Going to the movies is not necessary. ?Going anywhere other than your home, job, and a few basic amenities is, basically, not necessary.
    You say we "can have most of the bars," but what the heck kind of bars are smoke-free? ?Up where I live, in Ottawa (Canada), the bi-law to ban smoking in bars was just passed in the last year or so. ?Is this the case for most regions?
    You also say "there should be designated smoking allowed zones". ?What this really translates to is "Ha ha, there's still smoking in this bar." ?Smoking sections are a joke, and not a particularly funny one. ?You know as well as I do that smoking sections are divided from the rest of the place by -- well, nothing, actually. ?Unless they have some magical, invisible force field that I am not aware of...
    You mention that if I go to a smoking bar, I cede all rights, etc. etc. etc. ?You sure like to tell me that I cede so many rights. ?But, ignoring that -- unless some law forces them to do so, there really are no non-smoking bars, are there? ?In fact, unless the laws force any place to ban smoking, they wouldn't ban it, simply because it would drive away the smoking customers. ?Never mind that smokers are the minority -- they're still customers, and a lot of non-smokers are willing to put up with a lot of crap to go to a nice place to eat or drink, rather than plan their movements and activities around the smokers. ?It seems to me that no matter what way you put it, non-smokers are being herded around like cattle if they want to avoid smoke, and that this does not bother smokers in the least. ?You say that we have to come to a compromise to expect any results? ?We've been putting up with your smoke all this time. ?We've been letting people die (both smokers and non-smokers). ?How much of a compromize do you need?

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"You can not ban smoking outside unless signifigant data exposing it as a genuine risk is present, and unless you can prove that you are not being an accomplice in outdoor exposure by refusal to take voluntairy steps.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Steps? ?...As in, "steps away from any areas smokers are occupying"? ?What, exactly, is my "reasonable protection" in outdoor areas? ?Smoke is not instantly repelled from me, you know. ?Where smokers gather, smoke lingers and hangs in the air. ?It does not fly upward at great speed, and it does not escape my lungs. ?It's better than being inside, true, but it still sucks -- particularly if it is an outdoor area with any kind of roof or shelter. ?Have you seen my example, further back, about my workplace? ?What is your advice there?

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"At every juncture, the actual risk to non-smokers would be measured against smokers freedoms, and a balance would be maintained.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Hmm... health VS freedom. ?Preventing a lethal disease, versus the right to inhale the toxic contents of a smoking tube of chemicals. ?Smoking may make my life shorter, but dammit, I'll enjoy those few years more, because... um... well, I don't know. ?I'll probably just suffer from some kind of lung disease for the last few years...

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"It is the smokers right to smoke, and your right to have some protection, and guess what? This is a complicated world and rights sometimes clash. ?When that happens, we make a genuine attempt to negotiate and reach an acceptable solution.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Forgive my idealistic and stubborn ways, but any solution that involves the majority of the population being bullied around with the threat of disease and difficulty with breathing is NOT acceptable.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"You're using your claim of protection as an attempt to take away their rights[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Yeah, that's what I'm doing. ?I actually have no beef with smoking at all -- I just like taking away people's rights.


    Some day, years from now, people will vote to have smoking banned. ?Undeniable evidence will pop up somewhere that smoking really does cause disease and death, and it IS bad for you. ?Even smokers will be convinced. ?Ask yourself: ?Will you be genuinely surprised?

    Also, I am not religious -- at all. ?But, I like to think that at some point we have to face all the crap we've done in our lives. ?Will you be proud of all your pro-smoking arguments? ?Is fighting for the right to smoke something you will be proud of, or will make you feel like a hero? ?At the very end, will your arguments really sound all that convincing? ?...Just something to think about.



  • 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"Under your system, each and every action is subject to complete review by society, and if society judges it to be 'useless', it goes away. How does that fare for other venues, like say, playing video games, or free speech? "Useless speech" will be banned too, neh?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    I think it fares horribly, personally. But that's the system we have now, like it or not. Of course, it depends on who you are -- or more precisely, it depends upon your race and gender. When, as a white male, I have no standing in court to contest a discrimination lawsuit, I'd be fored to say that my freedom of speech has already been pretty damn limited. So sure, as long as we're taking away inalienable rights, let's take away some alienable rights as well.
  • PhatosePhatose Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (TrueGamer @ April 06 2003,11:00)</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""Attempted Suicide" if you prefer. If you try-and fail-you will be arrested and thrown in a mental institution for a few years. Since smoking is pretty much the same thing (and smokers are aware of the risks) , then I ask why it should be allowed under these circumstances? What makes smoking so different? It's longer? So? The only thing that happens when you smoke is you lose money and you die some years later. Oh, and you affect other people as well. I just can't understand why this 100% useless item which does nothing more than harm people is accepted.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Again, I reiterate, that the fact that smokers enjoy doing it is a measure of utility. Interestingly, your claim that when you smoke, you lose money and you die some years later can be applied, accurately, to other little things - like, oh "When you LIVE, you lose money and dies some years laters". No exactly an impressive sound bite if its true of everyone on the planet, is it?

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Although this is Athenian's fight, I just had to interject here: video games do not harm people. Yes, there is radiation, but radiation can be reduced, and it has been significantly reduced over the years. The newest TV screens releases something like 1/40th the radiation TVs from the '80s released (that's something a guy at a TV store told me. He was probably exaggerating) , and flat-screens produce even less. Now, cigarettes have a large number of chemicals in them that CAN'T be reduced. If they were, it wouldn't be a cigarette anymore, huh?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Care to comment on a) The growing evidence that a sedientary lifestyle cause heart disease and b) The growing link between agressive hostile behavior and violent media (like, say, videogames)? So, actually, they are quite harmful - sitting your butt in front of the TV for so long damages your health, and since they may trump up violence, they can damage other people too. All with no redeeming points. Isn't your stance that anything that puts risk to others and yourself and has no redeeming value should be banned?

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE" know what you mean. So, if a lot of people do something hazardous, then a compromise should be worked out with those who don't like it? Law can be a good thing, but this time, it doesn't make sense. What if the majority feel it should be removed entirely? Also, what about back in WW2? Hitler was murdering thousands of Jews everyday, but did the majority compromise with the minority? Did we allow Hitler to stay in power and only kill less Jews everyday? NO! It only fueled the Allies anger some more! A compromise is a compromise, but only when the situation is within reasonable limits. Cigarettes-an item with absolutely no use other than to drain human resources-is not within those reasonable limits.

    Funny you should mention hitler and Jews and activists and cigarrette in the same post. Germany - a majority of the German people decide that Jews are a threat, and exterminate them. So, under your 'majority' system, bye bye jews. Nor is it your right to decide from the get go that no reasonable conclusion can be reached, then to undermine all attempts by anyone to reach one. Democracy isn't mob rule.
    Ah, but the Athenian is just part of a majority of people who say it is not right. What is it you smokers say? "We're adults too! We can make informed decisions!" So are we, and we're not talking through government, it's just regular people here-and more of them-who believe smoking should be banned. We're making an informed decision too, and under the same argument: it's within our rights to do so. quote]

    Sure, it's within your rights to make any decision you feel. When you attempt to undermine any portion of societies regular processes to protect you based on it, then it becomes a problem.
    Thus, as a single person agreeing with an already popular public opinion, it's reasonable, and, therefore, cannot be considered tyrannical.
    <span id='postcolor'>

    So as long as everybody else agrees with you, it's ok? Look again, to germany, 1939. Was it "OK" to be in favor of gassing all the jews simply because that was the majority of public opinion?

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Those stats. are loaded. In comparison to the overall death rate, it's around a measly .1%. However, if you only look at people who live with smokers, you will see that the number is around 35%. So, for those who actually live with smokers, there is a good chance you will die, but this number is not high enough to be apparent in the overall national death rate-this is what is being said in the quote above.
    <span id='postcolor'>

    Picking and choosing your statistics carefully, aren't you? Considering how banning smoking on private residences, which is the only thing that would 'protect' those who live with smokers, hasn't even been discussed, kind of irrelevant, ain't it?

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Oh, and for those who say you can't die in a few puffs of smoke: try smoking around a severe asthmatic. I assure you a single puff can be deadly for them (and asthma rates have been rising in the last few years).
    <span id='postcolor'>

    At the end of which time, you'll certainly be convinced that smoking is dangerous and secer asthmatha should be completely ignored as health risk and not at all relevant to the situation at hand. Funny, looking at it from where I stand, I'd say severe asthmatha can kill someone quickly, not smoke puff.



    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Um... I'm sorry, what? Was this my claim? Did I do this research? You've lost me. What, exactly, are you referring to? ...And is True Gamer correct in his interpretation of this mystery data?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Your claim is that smoking outdoors is a quantifiable risk. Where's your evidence?

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"...If I have no results? Why do I, personally, have to provide you with research of the effects of smoking? Unless you've been living under a rock, I'm sure you've encountered various stats from a variety of sources over the course of your life. That would count as "evidence," would it not? Why does it have to come from me?
    But, if you really want me to go searching around the internet for a few tidbits, here's something from the World Health Organization's database on the United States, dealing with Mortality from Tobacco Use:[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    You're advancing the position, you're accountable for the stats. Oh, incidentally, your statistics there are again based only on prolonged indoor expose - I've seen them before. How is this helping your claim that 'outside isn't a magical security zone'?

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"
    I'm sure you'll come up with dozens of fantastic reasons why the data is flawed, or why it is some kind of government conspiracy against you, but it sure beats the pro-smoking data I came across during my brief stroll through the internet... Their research, which was done by tobacco companies, included such rock-solid points as "science is not infallible."
    But, when all is said and done, I don't need a national study to tell me that smoking is unhealthy. Why do you think people cough when they breath in smoke? It's just not something we're supposed to do. If natural reactions are not your cup of tea, maybe you could do something really radical and ASK YOUR DOCTOR. Jeez, I can't believe you smokers think you need "evidence" that smoking is bad for you. And when evidence if provided, even though it admittedly is hard to prove (because, conveniently for you, it deals with the mysterious notion of death), it is labelled as "flawed" or "biased" or government propaganda. Why the heck the government would want to try and get people to stop buying cigarettes that fuel the economy is beyond me... you'd almost think they were concerned about the population's health, or something crazy like that.
    You know, if I were a smoker, and I was one day presented with the idea that smoking may or may not be linked to DEATH, I would find cigarettes to be significantly less attractive as a way to spend my money and time. But, that's just me, you know.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Thank you for the moral tirade. I won't return it, though perhaps I should. I will however, point out, that yes, every single one of us knows that they're risky. And yes, we enjoy them, so we keep doing it. That is our right.

    Would you still be so sure about how you'd evaluate things if it's not something you had a moral problem with? Care to estimate how many biking accidents kill people? Bicycling is linked to DEATH. Change your feeling about biking? How about driving? Drinking? How come this miracle test only applies to smoking?

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"I almost thought you had a good point, there, for a minute. Dealing with so many pro-smoking arguments has somehow taken away my perspective, and caused my brain to melt into mush. Luckily, True Gamer had the common sense to mention that "video games do not harm people."
    As you seem to be fond of doing, you have distracted me from the real issue of smoking by comparing it to unrelated activities such as farting, or trying to make me seem like a dictator who takes away everyone's legal rights for the purposes of some crazed "moral crusade." But, of course, I am not one to take away the right to drive, fart, play video games, eat candy, or whatever non-smoking-related topic you can come up with. Smoking is NOT like any of these things at all. Smoking is an activity that does provide some kind of enjoyment, or so I'm told, but it also does damage to both smokers and non-smokers. Getting rid of smoking does not create some kind of Orwellian nightmare, and it does not open the door for taking away the right to drive. It's just smoking. When people smoke, they are forcing others to smoke -- thus taking away their right to not smoke. How is it that people can have rights to do things, but they can't have rights to not do things?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    You do have rights to not do things. You just don't have the right to arbitrarily force your decisions on others without signifigant cause. It's no 'distraction' to point out that you apply this particular evauluation system only to smoking. Video games do harm people, by leaving them sessile. Cheeseburgers contain large amounts of cholesterol, and cause heart disease. It's ONLY in this case where you want to apply the standards you apply here.

    And that IS an orwellian nightmare.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"I could be more direct about your comment about "enjoyment" being the reason for making it legal, and cite hundreds of sick and perverted things that different people enjoy but are illegal.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Which things in particular do you mean? I hope you do realize that civilized people do in fact make negotiations.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"See, prolonged indoor smoke exposure is already not a necessity of living, because being indoors at all is not a necessity of living. And, if that's too literal for you, then let's water it down a little -- going to bars is not necessary. Going to restaurants is not necessary. Going to the movies is not necessary. Going anywhere other than your home, job, and a few basic amenities is, basically, not necessary.
    You say we "can have most of the bars," but what the heck kind of bars are smoke-free? Up where I live, in Ottawa (Canada), the bi-law to ban smoking in bars was just passed in the last year or so. Is this the case for most regions?
    You also say "there should be designated smoking allowed zones". What this really translates to is "Ha ha, there's still smoking in this bar." Smoking sections are a joke, and not a particularly funny one. You know as well as I do that smoking sections are divided from the rest of the place by -- well, nothing, actually. Unless they have some magical, invisible force field that I am not aware of...
    You mention that if I go to a smoking bar, I cede all rights, etc. etc. etc. You sure like to tell me that I cede so many rights. But, ignoring that -- unless some law forces them to do so, there really are no non-smoking bars, are there? In fact, unless the laws force any place to ban smoking, they wouldn't ban it, simply because it would drive away the smoking customers. Never mind that smokers are the minority -- they're still customers, and a lot of non-smokers are willing to put up with a lot of crap to go to a nice place to eat or drink, rather than plan their movements and activities around the smokers. It seems to me that no matter what way you put it, non-smokers are being herded around like cattle if they want to avoid smoke, and that this does not bother smokers in the least. You say that we have to come to a compromise to expect any results? We've been putting up with your smoke all this time. We've been letting people die (both smokers and non-smokers). How much of a compromize do you need?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Sure, you get some exposure outdoors. You have no data to show its a threat, so it goes straight into the 'deal with it' pile, along with car exhaust and those same chemicals when they come from your barbeque.

    While I do feel the need to point out that it's awfully stange that most of you think that smoking is a huge enough problem to merit a ban, but not a huge enough problem to forgo a steak, I'll say this instead. I'm willing to negotiate, are you? Yes, there should indeed be some laws regulating smoking, even in bars. Contrary to what you seem to think, I'm neither insane nor unreasonable. But I'm not going to attempt to reason with someone who's sole goal is to eliminate smoking. There's no sense in trying to work out an agreement that pleases both sides if the other side is bent on having you elimanated. If you're willing, I'm game, lets figure this one out?
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Steps? ...As in, "steps away from any areas smokers are occupying"? What, exactly, is my "reasonable protection" in outdoor areas? Smoke is not instantly repelled from me, you know. Where smokers gather, smoke lingers and hangs in the air. It does not fly upward at great speed, and it does not escape my lungs. It's better than being inside, true, but it still sucks -- particularly if it is an outdoor area with any kind of roof or shelter. Have you seen my example, further back, about my workplace? What is your advice there?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    'steps' meaning 'I didn't look at the big red sign that said SMOKING AREA, walk directly for it, and the complain about the smoke'. Steps meaning we'll make every effort to get out of your way and not expose you any more then is completely unavoidable, and you'll equally, make every effort to stay out of our way and not expose yourself.
    It seems as though your intent is to ensure that smokers have no areas to smoke in by following them wherever they go. Don't you think you have a little bit of responsibility in that area?

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Hmm... health VS freedom. Preventing a lethal disease, versus the right to inhale the toxic contents of a smoking tube of chemicals. Smoking may make my life shorter, but dammit, I'll enjoy those few years more, because... um... well, I don't know. I'll probably just suffer from some kind of lung disease for the last few years...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    And what's next on your list of freedoms which you're willing to sacrifice for everyone so you can avoid a slight chance of death? hmmm?
  • 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"Forgive my idealistic and stubborn ways, but any solution that involves the majority of the population being bullied around with the threat of disease and difficulty with breathing is NOT acceptable.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Then sit down at the table and ditch the 'I'm going to wipe out smoking by any means neccessary' attitude. You want protection, fine, we'll find you some protection. But you don't get to use that as a way to bully other people around. Which was my original point, huh?

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Yeah, that's what I'm doing. I actually have no beef with smoking at all -- I just like taking away people's rights.
    Some day, years from now, people will vote to have smoking banned. Undeniable evidence will pop up somewhere that smoking really does cause disease and death, and it IS bad for you. Even smokers will be convinced. Ask yourself: Will you be genuinely surprised?
    At the very end, will your arguments really sound all that convincing? ...Just something to think about.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    I quite convinced it's bad for you now. And yes, I'll feel like a hero. Cause I know full well that by protecting people's right to do even the most stupid, insane things, I'm protecting peoples rights to do everything.

    Anyway, I'm going to call you all out now. You want protection? Lets take this off the metaphysical 'moral' grounds where we'll never agree and to the real world. Give me a day or so, I'll give you a comprehensive proposal for your protection, and behave like civilized people, huh?
  • LordBrianLordBrian Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    You know what I like? People who take it upon themselves to be the "voice of the people," regardless whether the people want that person as their voice. Like Jesse Jackson!

    Edit: By the way, Phatose -- good job calling everyone on these boards psychotic fatasses up there. Real class act. *Thumbs up!*



  • PhatosePhatose Member Full Members
    edited April 2003
    You mean like this whole thread has involved large portions of the populace of this board calling a large portion of the American population suicidal murders intent on poisoning everyone else? I thought the stance here was "If the studies show it, then its true". Am I mistaken?
  • The AthenianThe Athenian 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"a) The growing evidence that a sedientary lifestyle cause heart disease[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    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.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"b) The growing link between agressive hostile behavior and violent media (like, say, videogames)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    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.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"smoking is dangerous and secer asthmatha should be completely ignored as health risk and not at all relevant to the situation at hand. Funny, looking at it from where I stand, I'd say severe asthmatha can kill someone quickly, not smoke puff.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    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.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"So as long as everybody else agrees with you, it's ok?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    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?

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Look again, to germany, 1939. Was it "OK" to be in favor of gassing all the jews simply because that was the majority of public opinion?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Um... gassing the Jews was a bad thing because it killed them. Why do you think people don't like smoking?
    Also, I fail to see what Hitler's nazi regime has to do with a hypothetical public opinion vote to ban a product they feel is too dangerous to keep around. How about we just don't play the Hitler card?

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Your claim is that smoking outdoors is a quantifiable risk. Where's your evidence?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    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.
    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.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"I will however, point out, that yes, every single one of us knows that they're risky.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Past posts by various people in this thread prove otherwise.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Care to estimate how many biking accidents kill people? Bicycling is linked to DEATH. Change your feeling about biking? How about driving? Drinking? How come this miracle test only applies to smoking?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    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.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"It's no 'distraction' to point out that you apply this particular evauluation system only to smoking. Video games do harm people, by leaving them sessile. Cheeseburgers contain large amounts of cholesterol, and cause heart disease. It's ONLY in this case where you want to apply the standards you apply here.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    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?

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Sure, you get some exposure outdoors. You have no data to show its a threat[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Smoke is a threat, regardless of its location. The only thing being outdoors changes is perhaps the density of the smoke in the immediate area. That means that some non-smokers may get disease slower than they would if they were inside. Wow, what a compromise.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"it goes straight into the 'deal with it' pile, along with car exhaust and those same chemicals when they come from your barbeque.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    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.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Anyway, I'm going to call you all out now. You want protection? Lets take this off the metaphysical 'moral' grounds where we'll never agree and to the real world. Give me a day or so, I'll give you a comprehensive proposal for your protection, and behave like civilized people, huh?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Well, okay, you do that. I'm looking forward to your proposal.
This discussion has been closed.