people bashing smoking i dont think get that there are a lot of benefits to smoking. the social aspects of it are great, not to mention how relaxing it can be to take a break from shit for 5 minutes and regroup your mind. helps your focus and reduces your appetite too..
Benefits to smoking? Surely you joke? I can't see any benefits unless you count taking a hit to reduce cravings as a benefit. Bashing your teeth in with a hammer reduces your appetite too. It's probably not as bad for you in the long term. Theres plenty of appetite suppreants that don't stink, harrass other people and cause cancer. Social aspects? Hanging out for 5 minutes with other addicts while they get their fix to reduce cravings is hardly "focussing the mind"
Whats next, an essay espousing the benefits of crack? It provides employment (for pimps, police and insurance people!)
On May 24 2011 08:19 esla_sol wrote:
the second hand smoking thing is just unwarranted too. nothing is going to happen to you if im smoking 10 feet away outdoors. if you have a personal issue where it does bother you, then move away, it is not a big deal.
How about if you want to smoke then you move away. (it is not a big deal!) Just google second hand smoke. The first page is full of articles from credible universities, institutions such as the CDC and so on. Don't say concerns about second hand smoke are unwarranted, a statement like yours is unwarranted and ignorant of the facts.
On May 24 2011 08:19 esla_sol wrote:
the litter is a big deal, though, and my guess was the primary reason for the ban. there is really no easy solution around it, except more designated areas with more trash cans.
You seriously think the biggest reason to ban smoking in certain places is litter?
Before you write me off as some anti smoking nut, I'm all for it, as long as I don't have to inhale your putrid air or contribute to your medical bills.
On May 24 2011 09:24 Clearout wrote: Let's tackle some things people are saying here and some positions some have. Secondhand smoke is dangerous to you in public.
Lets see then, from cancer.org's page about dangers of secondhand smoke, what they say about places you would be affected by it is: "Everyone can be exposed to secondhand smoke in public places, such as restaurants, shopping centers, public transportation, schools, and daycare centers." + Show Spoiler +
Hmm all right, no mention of being outdoors, strange if it is a danger. Let's check out what the NCI says: People can be exposed to secondhand smoke in homes, cars, the workplace, and public places, such as bars, restaurants, and recreational settings.
Here is actually a mention, recreational settings. Strange though none of their references or anything seem to link of dangers outdoors, it's all focusing on the dangers it presents in restaurants, bars, workplaces and homes. Those aren't even relevant for this discussion.
Is it too much to presume that the dangers presented by second hand smoke in outdoors public is miniscule, unnoticable even, compared to thedangers of the others? Seems strange to me to put so much backing into the secondhand smoke being dangerous to you in outdoor areas, while it does comparatively nothing when you look at just pollution in general.
The numbers I've seen thrown around here and read are that 46-50000 americans die each year because of it. How many of those would you guess are because of smoke in public areas such as parks? Compare that to the estimated 500000 linked with pollution, and it's a pretty weak thing to take a stance for. + Show Spoiler +
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution
I thought you guys were all about freedom to do with you life as you wish as long as it does not bring harm to others*, yet the anti tobacco "crusade" a lot of the world is into you support? Again this is regarding parks and other large outdoor areas, not indoors.
2. Regarding people calling for banning of tobacco at all.
Do you have this stance, yet with a much more intense passion, regarding a full ban of alchohol as well? Otherwise you're pretty much a hypocrite. I mean if you check out the facts it a lot more dangerous than tobacco, or even ecstacy, LSD and Cannabis. + Show Spoiler +
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/nov/02/david-nutt-dangerous-drug-list This man also wrote an awesome piece showing how horseback riding is more of public health concern than ecstacy (in britain)
I do however see the point of littering in parks, but is it that far fetched to fine people 500$ for that instead? Then use that money to put more ashtrays / garbage cans, making even normal littering less of an issue.
I am a smoker myself, I don't really bother others with it. I don't smoke indoors, I smoke in smoking areas at the university, bars restaurants etc., and ofcourse in public. The reason for writing this post is because of all the anti smoking in public shit is really getting out of hand, even borderline discrimination in certain places here in Norway.
* Bringing harm to others, meaning in this sense things that are illegal. Yet pregnant mothers won't be punished for smoking and / or drinking while pregnant. If you want to bring up a point of this, I really hate bright yellow t-shirts. If enough people agree with me, like say 80% of the population, should we have a fine for wearing bright yellow t-shirts in public too? Or does that then infringe upon "freedoms". Where is the line with something like this?
your whole argument boils down to the fact that because there's something that has an even larger negative impact on health compared to smoking, that we shouldn't bother regulating it?
dude. smoking is bad for you. second hand smoke is bad for other people. when you smoke in public, children, babies, other people, have to breathe in cigarette smoke containing nicotine and other substances, even if at lower concentrations than you, research has shown that it can be just as bad as within a smoker - i posted a citation earlier in this thread addressing this very issue - and the research was published only a few weeks ago. there have been so much research on the negative effects of second hand smoke.
it doesn't MATTER that there are other things worse than this, because what they're doing now is to limit the bad caused by THIS only. and just because other things may be "worse" for you, doesn't mean that this shouldn't be regulated.
the second hand smoking thing is just unwarranted too. nothing is going to happen to you if im smoking 10 feet away outdoors. if you have a personal issue where it does bother you, then move away, it is not a big deal.
How about if you want to smoke then you move away. (it is not a big deal!) Just google second hand smoke. The first page is full of articles from credible universities, institutions such as the CDC and so on. Don't say concerns about second hand smoke are unwarranted, a statement like yours is unwarranted and ignorant of the facts.
You should read my post regarding this on the previous page, since your statement is just as unwarrented and ignorant of facts.
On May 24 2011 09:24 Clearout wrote: Let's tackle some things people are saying here and some positions some have. Secondhand smoke is dangerous to you in public.
Lets see then, from cancer.org's page about dangers of secondhand smoke, what they say about places you would be affected by it is: "Everyone can be exposed to secondhand smoke in public places, such as restaurants, shopping centers, public transportation, schools, and daycare centers." + Show Spoiler +
Hmm all right, no mention of being outdoors, strange if it is a danger. Let's check out what the NCI says: People can be exposed to secondhand smoke in homes, cars, the workplace, and public places, such as bars, restaurants, and recreational settings.
Here is actually a mention, recreational settings. Strange though none of their references or anything seem to link of dangers outdoors, it's all focusing on the dangers it presents in restaurants, bars, workplaces and homes. Those aren't even relevant for this discussion.
Is it too much to presume that the dangers presented by second hand smoke in outdoors public is miniscule, unnoticable even, compared to thedangers of the others? Seems strange to me to put so much backing into the secondhand smoke being dangerous to you in outdoor areas, while it does comparatively nothing when you look at just pollution in general.
The numbers I've seen thrown around here and read are that 46-50000 americans die each year because of it. How many of those would you guess are because of smoke in public areas such as parks? Compare that to the estimated 500000 linked with pollution, and it's a pretty weak thing to take a stance for. + Show Spoiler +
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution
I thought you guys were all about freedom to do with you life as you wish as long as it does not bring harm to others*, yet the anti tobacco "crusade" a lot of the world is into you support? Again this is regarding parks and other large outdoor areas, not indoors.
2. Regarding people calling for banning of tobacco at all.
Do you have this stance, yet with a much more intense passion, regarding a full ban of alchohol as well? Otherwise you're pretty much a hypocrite. I mean if you check out the facts it a lot more dangerous than tobacco, or even ecstacy, LSD and Cannabis. + Show Spoiler +
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/nov/02/david-nutt-dangerous-drug-list This man also wrote an awesome piece showing how horseback riding is more of public health concern than ecstacy (in britain)
I do however see the point of littering in parks, but is it that far fetched to fine people 500$ for that instead? Then use that money to put more ashtrays / garbage cans, making even normal littering less of an issue.
I am a smoker myself, I don't really bother others with it. I don't smoke indoors, I smoke in smoking areas at the university, bars restaurants etc., and ofcourse in public. The reason for writing this post is because of all the anti smoking in public shit is really getting out of hand, even borderline discrimination in certain places here in Norway.
* Bringing harm to others, meaning in this sense things that are illegal. Yet pregnant mothers won't be punished for smoking and / or drinking while pregnant. If you want to bring up a point of this, I really hate bright yellow t-shirts. If enough people agree with me, like say 80% of the population, should we have a fine for wearing bright yellow t-shirts in public too? Or does that then infringe upon "freedoms". Where is the line with something like this?
your whole argument boils down to the fact that because there's something that has an even larger negative impact on health compared to smoking, that we shouldn't bother regulating it?
dude. smoking is bad for you. second hand smoke is bad for other people. when you smoke in public, children, babies, other people, have to breathe in cigarette smoke containing nicotine and other substances, even if at lower concentrations than you, research has shown that it can be just as bad as within a smoker - i posted a citation earlier in this thread addressing this very issue - and the research was published only a few weeks ago. there have been so much research on the negative effects of second hand smoke.
it doesn't MATTER that there are other things worse than this, because what they're doing now is to limit the bad caused by THIS only. and just because other things may be "worse" for you, doesn't mean that this shouldn't be regulated.
My whole argument boils down to second hand smoking in public means nothing. Read the quotes, the dangers from secondhand smoking is not really from outdoor public areas. I compare it pollution because taking a strong stance regarding a abyssmal bit of a problem (outdoor second hand smoking vs general second hand smoking) quite a bit smaller than pollution, makes it to me seem a rather ridiculous stance.
Edit: I mean seriously, they barely mention out door second hand smoking, I haven't seen anything to support that it is an actual danger compared to anything. Then why go all up removing the privileges of some because of something I've seen nowhere is shown as a problem. If you can back up that public smoking in outdoor areas produces enough of a problem, I will gladly retract my stance.
the second hand smoking thing is just unwarranted too. nothing is going to happen to you if im smoking 10 feet away outdoors. if you have a personal issue where it does bother you, then move away, it is not a big deal.
How about if you want to smoke then you move away. (it is not a big deal!) Just google second hand smoke. The first page is full of articles from credible universities, institutions such as the CDC and so on. Don't say concerns about second hand smoke are unwarranted, a statement like yours is unwarranted and ignorant of the facts.
You should read my post regarding this on the previous page, since your statement is just as unwarrented and ignorant of facts.
How about the fact that your habit makes the air that I breathe stink. You can't deny that and health factors aside, thats enough for me. My "right" to non stinky air outweighs your "right" to smoke where you please.
Personally, I'll smoke a cig on occasion though it's usually after smoking weed or just to relax and generally during these times I'm not in a public area.
On topic, I can definitely understand the reasons for imposing a ban of this nature, however, I think it would be ridiculously hard to enforce and instead would just upset a lot of people. I feel that many people would not realize this ban exists (this is the first I have heard of it and I live just outside the city) and unless it is heavily enforced, it will not have a huge effect on the amount of smoking in the city.
the second hand smoking thing is just unwarranted too. nothing is going to happen to you if im smoking 10 feet away outdoors. if you have a personal issue where it does bother you, then move away, it is not a big deal.
How about if you want to smoke then you move away. (it is not a big deal!) Just google second hand smoke. The first page is full of articles from credible universities, institutions such as the CDC and so on. Don't say concerns about second hand smoke are unwarranted, a statement like yours is unwarranted and ignorant of the facts.
You should read my post regarding this on the previous page, since your statement is just as unwarrented and ignorant of facts.
How about the fact that your habit makes the air that I breathe stink. You can't deny that and health factors aside, thats enough for me. My "right" to non stinky air outweighs your "right" to smoke where you please.
Again, I mentioned this in my post. I really hate yellow t-shirts, they make my eyes hurt in bright light. Where does one draw a line for such things.
On May 24 2011 09:37 Unifex wrote: As a smoker and a New Yorker. I cant tell you right away this won't change anything.
I've seen drug deals go down right behind a cops back.
I've seen people tag a cop car and run away.
Between the drugs, the bombs, the robberies and everything else going down in this crazy city. I seriously doubt this will be an issue.
... what does any of this have to do with a law about not smoking on a beach?
Basically people will keep on smoking on the beach. And this law won't do anything about it.
Smoking inside of public places is banned but if you know where to go in the city you'll find plenty of places who don't care. It'll be the same thing for parks and beaches.
On May 24 2011 09:24 Clearout wrote: Let's tackle some things people are saying here and some positions some have. Secondhand smoke is dangerous to you in public.
Lets see then, from cancer.org's page about dangers of secondhand smoke, what they say about places you would be affected by it is: "Everyone can be exposed to secondhand smoke in public places, such as restaurants, shopping centers, public transportation, schools, and daycare centers." + Show Spoiler +
Hmm all right, no mention of being outdoors, strange if it is a danger. Let's check out what the NCI says: People can be exposed to secondhand smoke in homes, cars, the workplace, and public places, such as bars, restaurants, and recreational settings.
Here is actually a mention, recreational settings. Strange though none of their references or anything seem to link of dangers outdoors, it's all focusing on the dangers it presents in restaurants, bars, workplaces and homes. Those aren't even relevant for this discussion.
Is it too much to presume that the dangers presented by second hand smoke in outdoors public is miniscule, unnoticable even, compared to thedangers of the others? Seems strange to me to put so much backing into the secondhand smoke being dangerous to you in outdoor areas, while it does comparatively nothing when you look at just pollution in general.
The numbers I've seen thrown around here and read are that 46-50000 americans die each year because of it. How many of those would you guess are because of smoke in public areas such as parks? Compare that to the estimated 500000 linked with pollution, and it's a pretty weak thing to take a stance for. + Show Spoiler +
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution
I thought you guys were all about freedom to do with you life as you wish as long as it does not bring harm to others*, yet the anti tobacco "crusade" a lot of the world is into you support? Again this is regarding parks and other large outdoor areas, not indoors.
2. Regarding people calling for banning of tobacco at all.
Do you have this stance, yet with a much more intense passion, regarding a full ban of alchohol as well? Otherwise you're pretty much a hypocrite. I mean if you check out the facts it a lot more dangerous than tobacco, or even ecstacy, LSD and Cannabis. + Show Spoiler +
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/nov/02/david-nutt-dangerous-drug-list This man also wrote an awesome piece showing how horseback riding is more of public health concern than ecstacy (in britain)
I do however see the point of littering in parks, but is it that far fetched to fine people 500$ for that instead? Then use that money to put more ashtrays / garbage cans, making even normal littering less of an issue.
I am a smoker myself, I don't really bother others with it. I don't smoke indoors, I smoke in smoking areas at the university, bars restaurants etc., and ofcourse in public. The reason for writing this post is because of all the anti smoking in public shit is really getting out of hand, even borderline discrimination in certain places here in Norway.
* Bringing harm to others, meaning in this sense things that are illegal. Yet pregnant mothers won't be punished for smoking and / or drinking while pregnant. If you want to bring up a point of this, I really hate bright yellow t-shirts. If enough people agree with me, like say 80% of the population, should we have a fine for wearing bright yellow t-shirts in public too? Or does that then infringe upon "freedoms". Where is the line with something like this?
your whole argument boils down to the fact that because there's something that has an even larger negative impact on health compared to smoking, that we shouldn't bother regulating it?
dude. smoking is bad for you. second hand smoke is bad for other people. when you smoke in public, children, babies, other people, have to breathe in cigarette smoke containing nicotine and other substances, even if at lower concentrations than you, research has shown that it can be just as bad as within a smoker - i posted a citation earlier in this thread addressing this very issue - and the research was published only a few weeks ago. there have been so much research on the negative effects of second hand smoke.
it doesn't MATTER that there are other things worse than this, because what they're doing now is to limit the bad caused by THIS only. and just because other things may be "worse" for you, doesn't mean that this shouldn't be regulated.
My whole argument boils down to second hand smoking in public means nothing. Read the quotes, the dangers from secondhand smoking is not really from outdoor public areas. I compare it pollution because taking a strong stance regarding a abyssmal bit of a problem (outdoor second hand smoking vs general second hand smoking) quite a bit smaller than pollution, makes it to me seem a rather ridiculous stance.
you ever walk behind a smoker? or have you actually never smelt smoke once you left a building? also, your examples from your sources seem more semantics than anything. you simply say that they don't mention the "outdoors". weak, because clearly they were meant to be examples rather than absolute locations.
besides, the logical flaw you have in your argument regarding pollution vs second hand smoke is still there. 1. from my original post : it doesn't MATTER that there are other things worse than this, because what they're doing now is to limit the bad caused by THIS only. and just because other things may be "worse" for you, doesn't mean that this shouldn't be regulate
2. how do you measure deaths by pollution? how do you know other factors aren't involved? we DO know that second hand smoking and smoking itself can directly lead to pathological conditions however. but pollution? what kind of pollution? at what concentration are the pollutants? you're pulling a really general term to argue a weak point... sorry.
the second hand smoking thing is just unwarranted too. nothing is going to happen to you if im smoking 10 feet away outdoors. if you have a personal issue where it does bother you, then move away, it is not a big deal.
How about if you want to smoke then you move away. (it is not a big deal!) Just google second hand smoke. The first page is full of articles from credible universities, institutions such as the CDC and so on. Don't say concerns about second hand smoke are unwarranted, a statement like yours is unwarranted and ignorant of the facts.
You should read my post regarding this on the previous page, since your statement is just as unwarrented and ignorant of facts.
How about the fact that your habit makes the air that I breathe stink. You can't deny that and health factors aside, thats enough for me. My "right" to non stinky air outweighs your "right" to smoke where you please.
Again, I mentioned this in my post. I really hate yellow t-shirts, they make my eyes hurt in bright light. Where does one draw a line for such things.
We could draw the line at common sense. Ah, but your definition of common sense is different from mine! Round and round we go....
You have my POV, I have yours. We can agree to disagree, but the law will agree with my POV soon.
Tax cig's more and more, while restricting it's use more and more. That's some nice two way pressure and confusion. Seems a tad unfair to tell what folks can and can not do in a public place when it's not really hurting anyone but the user.
I don't smoke, my father however did. I don't support it, but I don't condone restricting personal freedoms over it while still taxing the hell out of it. It just invites itself into other things such as food,drink, and whatever else they feel is bad for you. I can't support this.
It can be very vexing for others to be around smokers as they are being harmed by second hand smoke ( also significantly more harmful than first hand smoke )
some US court case from 1998+ where they concluded... * conspired to minimize, distort and confuse the public about the health hazards of smoking; * publicly denied, while internally acknowledging, that secondhand tobacco smoke is harmful to nonsmokers, and * destroyed documents relevant to litigation.
On May 24 2011 09:24 Clearout wrote: Let's tackle some things people are saying here and some positions some have. Secondhand smoke is dangerous to you in public.
Lets see then, from cancer.org's page about dangers of secondhand smoke, what they say about places you would be affected by it is: "Everyone can be exposed to secondhand smoke in public places, such as restaurants, shopping centers, public transportation, schools, and daycare centers." + Show Spoiler +
Hmm all right, no mention of being outdoors, strange if it is a danger. Let's check out what the NCI says: People can be exposed to secondhand smoke in homes, cars, the workplace, and public places, such as bars, restaurants, and recreational settings.
Here is actually a mention, recreational settings. Strange though none of their references or anything seem to link of dangers outdoors, it's all focusing on the dangers it presents in restaurants, bars, workplaces and homes. Those aren't even relevant for this discussion.
Is it too much to presume that the dangers presented by second hand smoke in outdoors public is miniscule, unnoticable even, compared to thedangers of the others? Seems strange to me to put so much backing into the secondhand smoke being dangerous to you in outdoor areas, while it does comparatively nothing when you look at just pollution in general.
The numbers I've seen thrown around here and read are that 46-50000 americans die each year because of it. How many of those would you guess are because of smoke in public areas such as parks? Compare that to the estimated 500000 linked with pollution, and it's a pretty weak thing to take a stance for. + Show Spoiler +
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution
I thought you guys were all about freedom to do with you life as you wish as long as it does not bring harm to others*, yet the anti tobacco "crusade" a lot of the world is into you support? Again this is regarding parks and other large outdoor areas, not indoors.
2. Regarding people calling for banning of tobacco at all.
Do you have this stance, yet with a much more intense passion, regarding a full ban of alchohol as well? Otherwise you're pretty much a hypocrite. I mean if you check out the facts it a lot more dangerous than tobacco, or even ecstacy, LSD and Cannabis. + Show Spoiler +
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/nov/02/david-nutt-dangerous-drug-list This man also wrote an awesome piece showing how horseback riding is more of public health concern than ecstacy (in britain)
I do however see the point of littering in parks, but is it that far fetched to fine people 500$ for that instead? Then use that money to put more ashtrays / garbage cans, making even normal littering less of an issue.
I am a smoker myself, I don't really bother others with it. I don't smoke indoors, I smoke in smoking areas at the university, bars restaurants etc., and ofcourse in public. The reason for writing this post is because of all the anti smoking in public shit is really getting out of hand, even borderline discrimination in certain places here in Norway.
* Bringing harm to others, meaning in this sense things that are illegal. Yet pregnant mothers won't be punished for smoking and / or drinking while pregnant. If you want to bring up a point of this, I really hate bright yellow t-shirts. If enough people agree with me, like say 80% of the population, should we have a fine for wearing bright yellow t-shirts in public too? Or does that then infringe upon "freedoms". Where is the line with something like this?
your whole argument boils down to the fact that because there's something that has an even larger negative impact on health compared to smoking, that we shouldn't bother regulating it?
dude. smoking is bad for you. second hand smoke is bad for other people. when you smoke in public, children, babies, other people, have to breathe in cigarette smoke containing nicotine and other substances, even if at lower concentrations than you, research has shown that it can be just as bad as within a smoker - i posted a citation earlier in this thread addressing this very issue - and the research was published only a few weeks ago. there have been so much research on the negative effects of second hand smoke.
it doesn't MATTER that there are other things worse than this, because what they're doing now is to limit the bad caused by THIS only. and just because other things may be "worse" for you, doesn't mean that this shouldn't be regulated.
My whole argument boils down to second hand smoking in public means nothing. Read the quotes, the dangers from secondhand smoking is not really from outdoor public areas. I compare it pollution because taking a strong stance regarding a abyssmal bit of a problem (outdoor second hand smoking vs general second hand smoking) quite a bit smaller than pollution, makes it to me seem a rather ridiculous stance.
you ever walk behind a smoker? or have you actually never smelt smoke once you left a building? also, your examples from your sources seem more semantics than anything. you simply say that they don't mention the "outdoors". weak, because clearly they were meant to be examples rather than absolute locations.
besides, the logical flaw you have in your argument regarding pollution vs second hand smoke is still there. 1. from my original post : it doesn't MATTER that there are other things worse than this, because what they're doing now is to limit the bad caused by THIS only. and just because other things may be "worse" for you, doesn't mean that this shouldn't be regulate
2. how do you measure deaths by pollution? how do you know other factors aren't involved? we DO know that second hand smoking and smoking itself can directly lead to pathological conditions however. but pollution? what kind of pollution? at what concentration are the pollutants? you're pulling a really general term to argue a weak point... sorry.
Well what we are disagreeing upon seems to be where the line should be drawn regarding things like this. I'm not saying ignore a problem because there are bigger ones, I'm pulling a bad comparison to show how much of a non issue this is to further my agrument about where a line should be drawn. The wikipedia page I linked have a rather hefty list of references from where they pull their numbers, also agruing about how to measure such a thing is irrelevant. I could flip the same argument regarding outdoor second hand smoke. Also I'm not arguing sematics, what you say about it not being an absolute list furthers my point. How can you get more general than the entire outdoors, and why don't they mention it if it is actually a problem?
the second hand smoking thing is just unwarranted too. nothing is going to happen to you if im smoking 10 feet away outdoors. if you have a personal issue where it does bother you, then move away, it is not a big deal.
How about if you want to smoke then you move away. (it is not a big deal!) Just google second hand smoke. The first page is full of articles from credible universities, institutions such as the CDC and so on. Don't say concerns about second hand smoke are unwarranted, a statement like yours is unwarranted and ignorant of the facts.
You should read my post regarding this on the previous page, since your statement is just as unwarrented and ignorant of facts.
How about the fact that your habit makes the air that I breathe stink. You can't deny that and health factors aside, thats enough for me. My "right" to non stinky air outweighs your "right" to smoke where you please.
Again, I mentioned this in my post. I really hate yellow t-shirts, they make my eyes hurt in bright light. Where does one draw a line for such things.
We could draw the line at common sense. Ah, but your definition of common sense is different from mine! Round and round we go....
You have my POV, I have yours. We can agree to disagree, but the law will agree with my POV soon.
Yes exactly! I'm happy agreeing to disagree. People will have differing opinions regarding grey areas such as this and it's wonderful that we can conclude our discussion like this.
EPT
