|
This is a great thing for the people in NYC. Smoking is an extremely addictive and harmful habit and the second hand smoke from it is terrible as well. Finally we will not have to worry about inhaling this disgusting and terribly smelling drug. I am so glad that people do not have to worry about second hand smoke anymore. NYC WIN!
|
On May 24 2011 19:44 EvilTeletubby wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 19:01 JayDee_ wrote:On May 24 2011 18:29 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 18:05 resilve wrote:
I dont get the litter argument either, why not stop people eating wrapped food outdoors too...why are smokers picked out and punished for using consumables outdoors. ? I dislike seeing food wrappers on the ground just as much as I dislike seeing cigarette butts. I'm not sure why you tried to make this analogy... both are bad.  The analogy makes complete logic sense to me. Cigarette butts are no different than any other litter so you can't use littering as an excuse to keep smokers out of open public areas. Sorry, that's a logical fallacy that children make (well he can do it so can I!)... "it's irrelevant if I throw this cigarette butt on the ground because people throw other trash on the ground" is just a horrible concept - it is absolutely related. People throwing any trash on the ground is unacceptable IMO, just because cigarette butts aren't the only thing you'll find on the ground doesn't make it less of a factor.
No, I think you've missed it. The main points being made in favor of the ban are:
1. Second hand smoke is harmful to others.
2. Cigarette butts are often left on the ground as litter.
People arguing against the ban are saying:
1. OUTDOOR second hand smoke is not dangerous, at least not in any measurable way.
2. Cigarette butt litter is bad, but so is litter from prepackaged food.
3. If litter is the only reason to ban outdoor smoking, we should also ban eating packaged food, drinking bottled water/canned drinks, and reading newspapers in public areas.
There's no logical fallacy here. No one is saying it's ok to leave cigarette butts on the ground just because people leave cans on the ground. They're saying that you shouldn't ban something just because people might litter, unless you're going to ban other products that contribute equally to litter. This is especially true since there's already a law covering all kinds of littering.
Here's what happened. Someone in New York decided they don't like smoking (or cigarette smoke, or smokers, or something like that). They decided they wanted to ban smoking anywhere that the city has the authority to ban it (plazas, parks, and beaches). AFTER this individual or group decided what they wanted to do (for personal reasons), they came up with a series of reasonable-sounding excuses for banning smoking. They make a lot of sense, if you don't think too hard about it.
If you're going to jump on someone, at least take a second to read what they're saying.
This is one of the easiest pieces of legislation to argue against, at least as long as people keep making weak arguments. If you want to ban smoking in public, but don't want to ban eating pre-packaged foods in those same areas, at least admit it's because you don't like smoke/smokers/whatever, or that you're trying to make people healthier by limiting their personal choices.
While I disagree with both of these reasons, at least they have the advantage of being intellectually honest. This litter/SHS (outside) crap just doesn't hold water.
|
Governments should waste their energy on things that actually matter. Why can't we just let the people sort this out for themselves? So if someone is smoking near you maybe its be a good idea to move, or ask the guy to move and see what ensues. If there is a bar in my city that stinks like crap whether it be smoking or the food they served and it bothered me THAT much i wouldn't go. I wouldn't go cry and write letters to my government.
Has society become so sensitive?Do we really need the government baby sitting us with trivial BS laws? While ignoring bigger pressing issues.
|
On May 25 2011 00:22 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 19:44 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 19:01 JayDee_ wrote:On May 24 2011 18:29 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 18:05 resilve wrote:
I dont get the litter argument either, why not stop people eating wrapped food outdoors too...why are smokers picked out and punished for using consumables outdoors. ? I dislike seeing food wrappers on the ground just as much as I dislike seeing cigarette butts. I'm not sure why you tried to make this analogy... both are bad. The analogy makes complete logic sense to me. Cigarette butts are no different than any other litter so you can't use littering as an excuse to keep smokers out of open public areas. Sorry, that's a logical fallacy that children make (well he can do it so can I!)... "it's irrelevant if I throw this cigarette butt on the ground because people throw other trash on the ground" is just a horrible concept - it is absolutely related. People throwing any trash on the ground is unacceptable IMO, just because cigarette butts aren't the only thing you'll find on the ground doesn't make it less of a factor. No, I think you've missed it. The main points being made in favor of the ban are: 1. Second hand smoke is harmful to others. 2. Cigarette butts are often left on the ground as litter. People arguing against the ban are saying: 1. OUTDOOR second hand smoke is not dangerous, at least not in any measurable way. 2. Cigarette butt litter is bad, but so is litter from prepackaged food. 3. If litter is the only reason to ban outdoor smoking, we should also ban eating packaged food, drinking bottled water/canned drinks, and reading newspapers in public areas. There's no logical fallacy here. No one is saying it's ok to leave cigarette butts on the ground just because people leave cans on the ground. They're saying that you shouldn't ban something just because people might litter, unless you're going to ban other products that contribute equally to litter. This is especially true since there's already a law covering all kinds of littering. Here's what happened. Someone in New York decided they don't like smoking (or cigarette smoke, or smokers, or something like that). They decided they wanted to ban smoking anywhere that the city has the authority to ban it (plazas, parks, and beaches). AFTER this individual or group decided what they wanted to do (for personal reasons), they came up with a series of reasonable-sounding excuses for banning smoking. They make a lot of sense, if you don't think too hard about it. If you're going to jump on someone, at least take a second to read what they're saying. This is one of the easiest pieces of legislation to argue against, at least as long as people keep making weak arguments. If you want to ban smoking in public, but don't want to ban eating pre-packaged foods in those same areas, at least admit it's because you don't like smoke/smokers/whatever, or that you're trying to make people healthier by limiting their personal choices. While I disagree with both of these reasons, at least they have the advantage of being intellectually honest. This litter/SHS (outside) crap just doesn't hold water.
It is also irritating to have to breathe in cigarette smoke whether it is harmless or not. It makes my eyes water, it makes my clothes smell bad, and I don't want smoke being in my face at all.
So, you missed a point. Please edit your post in an attempt to refute my personal preferences, which (If we're going by the argument of rights for everyone) should outweigh your right to smoke wherever you please, as smoking is a vice not necessary to sustain life.
|
On May 25 2011 00:49 RoosterSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 00:22 Omnipresent wrote:On May 24 2011 19:44 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 19:01 JayDee_ wrote:On May 24 2011 18:29 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 18:05 resilve wrote:
I dont get the litter argument either, why not stop people eating wrapped food outdoors too...why are smokers picked out and punished for using consumables outdoors. ? I dislike seeing food wrappers on the ground just as much as I dislike seeing cigarette butts. I'm not sure why you tried to make this analogy... both are bad. The analogy makes complete logic sense to me. Cigarette butts are no different than any other litter so you can't use littering as an excuse to keep smokers out of open public areas. Sorry, that's a logical fallacy that children make (well he can do it so can I!)... "it's irrelevant if I throw this cigarette butt on the ground because people throw other trash on the ground" is just a horrible concept - it is absolutely related. People throwing any trash on the ground is unacceptable IMO, just because cigarette butts aren't the only thing you'll find on the ground doesn't make it less of a factor. No, I think you've missed it. The main points being made in favor of the ban are: 1. Second hand smoke is harmful to others. 2. Cigarette butts are often left on the ground as litter. People arguing against the ban are saying: 1. OUTDOOR second hand smoke is not dangerous, at least not in any measurable way. 2. Cigarette butt litter is bad, but so is litter from prepackaged food. 3. If litter is the only reason to ban outdoor smoking, we should also ban eating packaged food, drinking bottled water/canned drinks, and reading newspapers in public areas. There's no logical fallacy here. No one is saying it's ok to leave cigarette butts on the ground just because people leave cans on the ground. They're saying that you shouldn't ban something just because people might litter, unless you're going to ban other products that contribute equally to litter. This is especially true since there's already a law covering all kinds of littering. Here's what happened. Someone in New York decided they don't like smoking (or cigarette smoke, or smokers, or something like that). They decided they wanted to ban smoking anywhere that the city has the authority to ban it (plazas, parks, and beaches). AFTER this individual or group decided what they wanted to do (for personal reasons), they came up with a series of reasonable-sounding excuses for banning smoking. They make a lot of sense, if you don't think too hard about it. If you're going to jump on someone, at least take a second to read what they're saying. This is one of the easiest pieces of legislation to argue against, at least as long as people keep making weak arguments. If you want to ban smoking in public, but don't want to ban eating pre-packaged foods in those same areas, at least admit it's because you don't like smoke/smokers/whatever, or that you're trying to make people healthier by limiting their personal choices. While I disagree with both of these reasons, at least they have the advantage of being intellectually honest. This litter/SHS (outside) crap just doesn't hold water. It is also irritating to have to breathe in cigarette smoke whether it is harmless or not. It makes my eyes water, it makes my clothes smell bad, and I don't want smoke being in my face at all. So, you missed a point. Please edit your post in an attempt to refute my personal preferences, which (If we're going by the argument of rights for everyone) should outweigh your right to smoke wherever you please, as smoking is a vice not necessary to sustain life. It is really irritating when people wear bright yellow t-shirts, they hurt my eyes in the light and hurts my sense of fashion. Bright yellow t-shirts is a vice not necessary to sustain life. Arguing you think something is annoying to support a ban is not a valid argument, because it can be made for just about everything. Should those things be banned as long as enough people are annoyed by it? Where goes the line with such reasoning? If you believe it goes here that is fine, but it that is not a valid logical argument to support a ban, just an opinion.
|
On May 25 2011 01:03 Clearout wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 00:49 RoosterSamurai wrote:On May 25 2011 00:22 Omnipresent wrote:On May 24 2011 19:44 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 19:01 JayDee_ wrote:On May 24 2011 18:29 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 18:05 resilve wrote:
I dont get the litter argument either, why not stop people eating wrapped food outdoors too...why are smokers picked out and punished for using consumables outdoors. ? I dislike seeing food wrappers on the ground just as much as I dislike seeing cigarette butts. I'm not sure why you tried to make this analogy... both are bad. The analogy makes complete logic sense to me. Cigarette butts are no different than any other litter so you can't use littering as an excuse to keep smokers out of open public areas. Sorry, that's a logical fallacy that children make (well he can do it so can I!)... "it's irrelevant if I throw this cigarette butt on the ground because people throw other trash on the ground" is just a horrible concept - it is absolutely related. People throwing any trash on the ground is unacceptable IMO, just because cigarette butts aren't the only thing you'll find on the ground doesn't make it less of a factor. No, I think you've missed it. The main points being made in favor of the ban are: 1. Second hand smoke is harmful to others. 2. Cigarette butts are often left on the ground as litter. People arguing against the ban are saying: 1. OUTDOOR second hand smoke is not dangerous, at least not in any measurable way. 2. Cigarette butt litter is bad, but so is litter from prepackaged food. 3. If litter is the only reason to ban outdoor smoking, we should also ban eating packaged food, drinking bottled water/canned drinks, and reading newspapers in public areas. There's no logical fallacy here. No one is saying it's ok to leave cigarette butts on the ground just because people leave cans on the ground. They're saying that you shouldn't ban something just because people might litter, unless you're going to ban other products that contribute equally to litter. This is especially true since there's already a law covering all kinds of littering. Here's what happened. Someone in New York decided they don't like smoking (or cigarette smoke, or smokers, or something like that). They decided they wanted to ban smoking anywhere that the city has the authority to ban it (plazas, parks, and beaches). AFTER this individual or group decided what they wanted to do (for personal reasons), they came up with a series of reasonable-sounding excuses for banning smoking. They make a lot of sense, if you don't think too hard about it. If you're going to jump on someone, at least take a second to read what they're saying. This is one of the easiest pieces of legislation to argue against, at least as long as people keep making weak arguments. If you want to ban smoking in public, but don't want to ban eating pre-packaged foods in those same areas, at least admit it's because you don't like smoke/smokers/whatever, or that you're trying to make people healthier by limiting their personal choices. While I disagree with both of these reasons, at least they have the advantage of being intellectually honest. This litter/SHS (outside) crap just doesn't hold water. It is also irritating to have to breathe in cigarette smoke whether it is harmless or not. It makes my eyes water, it makes my clothes smell bad, and I don't want smoke being in my face at all. So, you missed a point. Please edit your post in an attempt to refute my personal preferences, which (If we're going by the argument of rights for everyone) should outweigh your right to smoke wherever you please, as smoking is a vice not necessary to sustain life. It is really irritating when people wear bright yellow t-shirts, they hurt my eyes in the light and hurts my sense of fashion. Bright yellow t-shirts is a vice not necessary to sustain life. Arguing you think something is annoying to support a ban is not a valid argument, because it can be made for just about everything. Should those things be banned as long as enough people are annoyed by it? Where goes the line with such reasoning? If you believe it goes here that is fine, but it that is not a valid logical argument to support a ban, just an opinion.
I like how you skip over one point you cannot refute with such childish, stupid arguments:
Cigarette smoke makes your clothes smell bad.
Do bright yellow shirts make your clothes smell bad?
|
On May 25 2011 00:22 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 19:44 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 19:01 JayDee_ wrote:On May 24 2011 18:29 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 18:05 resilve wrote:
I dont get the litter argument either, why not stop people eating wrapped food outdoors too...why are smokers picked out and punished for using consumables outdoors. ? I dislike seeing food wrappers on the ground just as much as I dislike seeing cigarette butts. I'm not sure why you tried to make this analogy... both are bad. The analogy makes complete logic sense to me. Cigarette butts are no different than any other litter so you can't use littering as an excuse to keep smokers out of open public areas. Sorry, that's a logical fallacy that children make (well he can do it so can I!)... "it's irrelevant if I throw this cigarette butt on the ground because people throw other trash on the ground" is just a horrible concept - it is absolutely related. People throwing any trash on the ground is unacceptable IMO, just because cigarette butts aren't the only thing you'll find on the ground doesn't make it less of a factor. No, I think you've missed it. The main points being made in favor of the ban are: 1. Second hand smoke is harmful to others. 2. Cigarette butts are often left on the ground as litter. People arguing against the ban are saying: 1. OUTDOOR second hand smoke is not dangerous, at least not in any measurable way. 2. Cigarette butt litter is bad, but so is litter from prepackaged food. 3. If litter is the only reason to ban outdoor smoking, we should also ban eating packaged food, drinking bottled water/canned drinks, and reading newspapers in public areas.There's no logical fallacy here. No one is saying it's ok to leave cigarette butts on the ground just because people leave cans on the ground. They're saying that you shouldn't ban something just because people might litter, unless you're going to ban other products that contribute equally to litter. This is especially true since there's already a law covering all kinds of littering. Here's what happened. Someone in New York decided they don't like smoking (or cigarette smoke, or smokers, or something like that). They decided they wanted to ban smoking anywhere that the city has the authority to ban it (plazas, parks, and beaches). AFTER this individual or group decided what they wanted to do (for personal reasons), they came up with a series of reasonable-sounding excuses for banning smoking. They make a lot of sense, if you don't think too hard about it. If you're going to jump on someone, at least take a second to read what they're saying. This is one of the easiest pieces of legislation to argue against, at least as long as people keep making weak arguments. If you want to ban smoking in public, but don't want to ban eating pre-packaged foods in those same areas, at least admit it's because you don't like smoke/smokers/whatever, or that you're trying to make people healthier by limiting their personal choices. While I disagree with both of these reasons, at least they have the advantage of being intellectually honest. This litter/SHS (outside) crap just doesn't hold water.
i don't understand this line of thinking. smoking has been shown to be a directly addictive activity. so is marijuana, other drugs of abuse. but also, so are many of the other medications (ie painkillers) as well as a lot of activities that we do (one might argue compulsive eating and gaming are addictions since they have similar activation of neural circuitries). so if we're not going to ban excessive eating, gaming, painkillers, then we shouldn't ban smoking and drugs of abuse either?
just because there are OTHER things that may be just as bad or worse DOESN'T CHANGE the fact that smoking and second hand smoke is BAD. so how is it wrong to take this one step at a time?
btw, comparing shs to pollution (in other posts) is just absurd. we're not talking about cigarette smoke as a POLLUTANT in the atmosphere. we're talking even brief exposure to smokers in parks and recreational areas. don't go around saying this doesn't happen, because whipping out a smoke in the vicinity of children playing or pregnant mothers or just other people in general DOES expose them to at least nicotine - a psychoactive drug. i've posted papers showing what a single puff can do in the brain, there is no "concentration" problem here. it doesn't NEED to be at a certain concentration in the atmosphere to be a problem.
|
On May 25 2011 00:49 RoosterSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 00:22 Omnipresent wrote:On May 24 2011 19:44 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 19:01 JayDee_ wrote:On May 24 2011 18:29 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 18:05 resilve wrote:
I dont get the litter argument either, why not stop people eating wrapped food outdoors too...why are smokers picked out and punished for using consumables outdoors. ? I dislike seeing food wrappers on the ground just as much as I dislike seeing cigarette butts. I'm not sure why you tried to make this analogy... both are bad. The analogy makes complete logic sense to me. Cigarette butts are no different than any other litter so you can't use littering as an excuse to keep smokers out of open public areas. Sorry, that's a logical fallacy that children make (well he can do it so can I!)... "it's irrelevant if I throw this cigarette butt on the ground because people throw other trash on the ground" is just a horrible concept - it is absolutely related. People throwing any trash on the ground is unacceptable IMO, just because cigarette butts aren't the only thing you'll find on the ground doesn't make it less of a factor. No, I think you've missed it. The main points being made in favor of the ban are: 1. Second hand smoke is harmful to others. 2. Cigarette butts are often left on the ground as litter. People arguing against the ban are saying: 1. OUTDOOR second hand smoke is not dangerous, at least not in any measurable way. 2. Cigarette butt litter is bad, but so is litter from prepackaged food. 3. If litter is the only reason to ban outdoor smoking, we should also ban eating packaged food, drinking bottled water/canned drinks, and reading newspapers in public areas. There's no logical fallacy here. No one is saying it's ok to leave cigarette butts on the ground just because people leave cans on the ground. They're saying that you shouldn't ban something just because people might litter, unless you're going to ban other products that contribute equally to litter. This is especially true since there's already a law covering all kinds of littering. Here's what happened. Someone in New York decided they don't like smoking (or cigarette smoke, or smokers, or something like that). They decided they wanted to ban smoking anywhere that the city has the authority to ban it (plazas, parks, and beaches). AFTER this individual or group decided what they wanted to do (for personal reasons), they came up with a series of reasonable-sounding excuses for banning smoking. They make a lot of sense, if you don't think too hard about it. If you're going to jump on someone, at least take a second to read what they're saying. This is one of the easiest pieces of legislation to argue against, at least as long as people keep making weak arguments. If you want to ban smoking in public, but don't want to ban eating pre-packaged foods in those same areas, at least admit it's because you don't like smoke/smokers/whatever, or that you're trying to make people healthier by limiting their personal choices. While I disagree with both of these reasons, at least they have the advantage of being intellectually honest. This litter/SHS (outside) crap just doesn't hold water. It is also irritating to have to breathe in cigarette smoke whether it is harmless or not. It makes my eyes water, it makes my clothes smell bad, and I don't want smoke being in my face at all. So, you missed a point. Please edit your post in an attempt to refute my personal preferences, which (If we're going by the argument of rights for everyone) should outweigh your right to smoke wherever you please, as smoking is a vice not necessary to sustain life.
If you read carefully, this is this is exactly the kind of arguments I think you SHOULD be making. I'm willing to argue about this, and it's a lot more honest than arguing about the dangers of outdoor second hand smoke or littering as an excuse for banning things.
So here we go.
At what point does something become annoying enough to ban it in public areas? I have a hard time with colognes, perfumes, and a lot of hair products. I have a hard time breathing around people who have recently applied hairspray, for example. It's not a problem after a few hours. Should we ban people from walking in a public park within 1 hour of applying hairspray? What about cologne? Deodorant? Should we simply ban people from applying these products in public?
What about peanuts? I love peanuts, but a lot (a really surprising number) of people are allergic to them, and I mean seriously allergic. If you eat peanuts near them, they can have serious complications. Should we limit where people can eat peanuts? Most US airlines have already done it. BAN THE PEANUTS.
Tell me where the line is. Should we ban public smoking, but allow fuel-inefficient cars (with potent exhaust) to be driven at will? What about other sources of smoke or air particulates. Should Pizza places with wood burning ovens move their ovens away from the door to limit smoke out on the street?
I'll argue about this, but you have to draw the line. What should be illegal and why?
|
On May 25 2011 00:45 splinter9 wrote:
Governments should waste their energy on things that actually matter. Why can't we just let the people sort this out for themselves? So if someone is smoking near you maybe its be a good idea to move, or ask the guy to move and see what ensues. If there is a bar in my city that stinks like crap whether it be smoking or the food they served and it bothered me THAT much i wouldn't go. I wouldn't go cry and write letters to my government.
Has society become so sensitive?Do we really need the government baby sitting us with trivial BS laws? While ignoring bigger pressing issues.
The government likes to have very sensitive citizens because it gives the introduction of their laws a bit more legitimacy. You know, we need to regulate the internet because child pornography exists that sort of thing.
|
Cigarettes doesn't do anyone anything good, they should be banned all over the world.
|
On May 25 2011 01:07 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 00:49 RoosterSamurai wrote:On May 25 2011 00:22 Omnipresent wrote:On May 24 2011 19:44 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 19:01 JayDee_ wrote:On May 24 2011 18:29 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 18:05 resilve wrote:
I dont get the litter argument either, why not stop people eating wrapped food outdoors too...why are smokers picked out and punished for using consumables outdoors. ? I dislike seeing food wrappers on the ground just as much as I dislike seeing cigarette butts. I'm not sure why you tried to make this analogy... both are bad. The analogy makes complete logic sense to me. Cigarette butts are no different than any other litter so you can't use littering as an excuse to keep smokers out of open public areas. Sorry, that's a logical fallacy that children make (well he can do it so can I!)... "it's irrelevant if I throw this cigarette butt on the ground because people throw other trash on the ground" is just a horrible concept - it is absolutely related. People throwing any trash on the ground is unacceptable IMO, just because cigarette butts aren't the only thing you'll find on the ground doesn't make it less of a factor. No, I think you've missed it. The main points being made in favor of the ban are: 1. Second hand smoke is harmful to others. 2. Cigarette butts are often left on the ground as litter. People arguing against the ban are saying: 1. OUTDOOR second hand smoke is not dangerous, at least not in any measurable way. 2. Cigarette butt litter is bad, but so is litter from prepackaged food. 3. If litter is the only reason to ban outdoor smoking, we should also ban eating packaged food, drinking bottled water/canned drinks, and reading newspapers in public areas. There's no logical fallacy here. No one is saying it's ok to leave cigarette butts on the ground just because people leave cans on the ground. They're saying that you shouldn't ban something just because people might litter, unless you're going to ban other products that contribute equally to litter. This is especially true since there's already a law covering all kinds of littering. Here's what happened. Someone in New York decided they don't like smoking (or cigarette smoke, or smokers, or something like that). They decided they wanted to ban smoking anywhere that the city has the authority to ban it (plazas, parks, and beaches). AFTER this individual or group decided what they wanted to do (for personal reasons), they came up with a series of reasonable-sounding excuses for banning smoking. They make a lot of sense, if you don't think too hard about it. If you're going to jump on someone, at least take a second to read what they're saying. This is one of the easiest pieces of legislation to argue against, at least as long as people keep making weak arguments. If you want to ban smoking in public, but don't want to ban eating pre-packaged foods in those same areas, at least admit it's because you don't like smoke/smokers/whatever, or that you're trying to make people healthier by limiting their personal choices. While I disagree with both of these reasons, at least they have the advantage of being intellectually honest. This litter/SHS (outside) crap just doesn't hold water. It is also irritating to have to breathe in cigarette smoke whether it is harmless or not. It makes my eyes water, it makes my clothes smell bad, and I don't want smoke being in my face at all. So, you missed a point. Please edit your post in an attempt to refute my personal preferences, which (If we're going by the argument of rights for everyone) should outweigh your right to smoke wherever you please, as smoking is a vice not necessary to sustain life. If you read carefully, this is this is exactly the kind of arguments I think you SHOULD be making. I'm willing to argue about this, and it's a lot more honest than arguing about the dangers of outdoor second hand smoke or littering as an excuse for banning things. So here we go. At what point does something become annoying enough to ban it in public areas? I have a hard time with colognes, perfumes, and a lot of hair products. I have a hard time breathing around people who have recently applied hairspray, for example. It's not a problem after a few hours. Should we ban people from walking in a public park within 1 hour of applying hairspray? What about cologne? Deodorant? Should we simply ban people from applying these products in public? What about peanuts? I love peanuts, but a lot (a really surprising number) of people are allergic to them, and I mean seriously allergic. If you eat peanuts near them, they can have serious complications. Should we limit where people can eat peanuts? Most US airlines have already done it. BAN THE PEANUTS. Tell me where the line is. Should we ban public smoking, but allow fuel-inefficient cars (with potent exhaust) to be driven at will? What about other sources of smoke or air particulates. Should Pizza places with wood burning ovens move their ovens away from the door to limit smoke out on the street? I'll argue about this, but you have to draw the line. What should be illegal and why?
I'll start off by stating that my university (as well as many others) has banned perfumes, colognes, etc because there are a lot of people who get sick, or have allergic reactions as a result of it. Schools have banned peanuts (There is a thread about this on TL), and cars that emit too much exhaust will eventually fail a vehicle emission test (All cars in the US have to do this test).
Second hand smoke can cause allergic reactions, asthma attacks, and above all else, can simply be downright invasive. Is it your right to smoke in public? Or is it my right to not have to be smoked on?
I think you can see where this is going...
|
On May 25 2011 01:06 fush wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 00:22 Omnipresent wrote:On May 24 2011 19:44 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 19:01 JayDee_ wrote:On May 24 2011 18:29 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 18:05 resilve wrote:
I dont get the litter argument either, why not stop people eating wrapped food outdoors too...why are smokers picked out and punished for using consumables outdoors. ? I dislike seeing food wrappers on the ground just as much as I dislike seeing cigarette butts. I'm not sure why you tried to make this analogy... both are bad. The analogy makes complete logic sense to me. Cigarette butts are no different than any other litter so you can't use littering as an excuse to keep smokers out of open public areas. Sorry, that's a logical fallacy that children make (well he can do it so can I!)... "it's irrelevant if I throw this cigarette butt on the ground because people throw other trash on the ground" is just a horrible concept - it is absolutely related. People throwing any trash on the ground is unacceptable IMO, just because cigarette butts aren't the only thing you'll find on the ground doesn't make it less of a factor. No, I think you've missed it. The main points being made in favor of the ban are: 1. Second hand smoke is harmful to others. 2. Cigarette butts are often left on the ground as litter. People arguing against the ban are saying: 1. OUTDOOR second hand smoke is not dangerous, at least not in any measurable way. 2. Cigarette butt litter is bad, but so is litter from prepackaged food. 3. If litter is the only reason to ban outdoor smoking, we should also ban eating packaged food, drinking bottled water/canned drinks, and reading newspapers in public areas.There's no logical fallacy here. No one is saying it's ok to leave cigarette butts on the ground just because people leave cans on the ground. They're saying that you shouldn't ban something just because people might litter, unless you're going to ban other products that contribute equally to litter. This is especially true since there's already a law covering all kinds of littering. Here's what happened. Someone in New York decided they don't like smoking (or cigarette smoke, or smokers, or something like that). They decided they wanted to ban smoking anywhere that the city has the authority to ban it (plazas, parks, and beaches). AFTER this individual or group decided what they wanted to do (for personal reasons), they came up with a series of reasonable-sounding excuses for banning smoking. They make a lot of sense, if you don't think too hard about it. If you're going to jump on someone, at least take a second to read what they're saying. This is one of the easiest pieces of legislation to argue against, at least as long as people keep making weak arguments. If you want to ban smoking in public, but don't want to ban eating pre-packaged foods in those same areas, at least admit it's because you don't like smoke/smokers/whatever, or that you're trying to make people healthier by limiting their personal choices. While I disagree with both of these reasons, at least they have the advantage of being intellectually honest. This litter/SHS (outside) crap just doesn't hold water. i don't understand this line of thinking. smoking has been shown to be a directly addictive activity. so is marijuana, other drugs of abuse. but also, so are many of the other medications (ie painkillers) as well as a lot of activities that we do (one might argue compulsive eating and gaming are addictions since they have similar activation of neural circuitries). so if we're not going to ban excessive eating, gaming, painkillers, then we shouldn't ban smoking and drugs of abuse either?
That's not the point I'm making, but no, we shouldn't ban smoking or drug use.
There is however a case to be made. There's a big difference between heroine and fatty foods, both in their addictive nature and harm to the body. It's reasonable to make a case that there's a point where a product is either addictive enough or harmful enough that it should be banned, as long as you can create an objective way of measuring these things.
All litter, on the other hand, is litter. In fact, cigarette butts aren't as bad as plastic bottles. remaining tobacco and paper will degrade quickly, as will many parts of the filter. Plastic bottles are essentially permanent.
It's fine to take incremental steps, but at least be consistent. If you want to ban smoking in public places because of litter, you should at least be thinking about banning bottled water. The smoking ban should also not include other types of smoking. Cigar and pipe smokers can only leave ash and biodegradable tobacco leaves behind.
You can argue the point about litter, but you have to be consistent.
|
On May 25 2011 00:22 Omnipresent wrote:
3. If litter is the only reason to ban outdoor smoking, we should also ban eating packaged food, drinking bottled water/canned drinks, and reading newspapers in public areas.
There's no logical fallacy here. You REALLY cannot understand the logical fallacy in what you just said? Honestly? How many wrongs make one right in your opinion? That's like saying pot should be legal because no one is trying to make cigarettes illegal lol
It's a ridiculously childish argument with zero logic to back it up.
|
On May 25 2011 01:12 RoosterSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 01:07 Omnipresent wrote:On May 25 2011 00:49 RoosterSamurai wrote:On May 25 2011 00:22 Omnipresent wrote:On May 24 2011 19:44 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 19:01 JayDee_ wrote:On May 24 2011 18:29 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 18:05 resilve wrote:
I dont get the litter argument either, why not stop people eating wrapped food outdoors too...why are smokers picked out and punished for using consumables outdoors. ? I dislike seeing food wrappers on the ground just as much as I dislike seeing cigarette butts. I'm not sure why you tried to make this analogy... both are bad. The analogy makes complete logic sense to me. Cigarette butts are no different than any other litter so you can't use littering as an excuse to keep smokers out of open public areas. Sorry, that's a logical fallacy that children make (well he can do it so can I!)... "it's irrelevant if I throw this cigarette butt on the ground because people throw other trash on the ground" is just a horrible concept - it is absolutely related. People throwing any trash on the ground is unacceptable IMO, just because cigarette butts aren't the only thing you'll find on the ground doesn't make it less of a factor. No, I think you've missed it. The main points being made in favor of the ban are: 1. Second hand smoke is harmful to others. 2. Cigarette butts are often left on the ground as litter. People arguing against the ban are saying: 1. OUTDOOR second hand smoke is not dangerous, at least not in any measurable way. 2. Cigarette butt litter is bad, but so is litter from prepackaged food. 3. If litter is the only reason to ban outdoor smoking, we should also ban eating packaged food, drinking bottled water/canned drinks, and reading newspapers in public areas. There's no logical fallacy here. No one is saying it's ok to leave cigarette butts on the ground just because people leave cans on the ground. They're saying that you shouldn't ban something just because people might litter, unless you're going to ban other products that contribute equally to litter. This is especially true since there's already a law covering all kinds of littering. Here's what happened. Someone in New York decided they don't like smoking (or cigarette smoke, or smokers, or something like that). They decided they wanted to ban smoking anywhere that the city has the authority to ban it (plazas, parks, and beaches). AFTER this individual or group decided what they wanted to do (for personal reasons), they came up with a series of reasonable-sounding excuses for banning smoking. They make a lot of sense, if you don't think too hard about it. If you're going to jump on someone, at least take a second to read what they're saying. This is one of the easiest pieces of legislation to argue against, at least as long as people keep making weak arguments. If you want to ban smoking in public, but don't want to ban eating pre-packaged foods in those same areas, at least admit it's because you don't like smoke/smokers/whatever, or that you're trying to make people healthier by limiting their personal choices. While I disagree with both of these reasons, at least they have the advantage of being intellectually honest. This litter/SHS (outside) crap just doesn't hold water. It is also irritating to have to breathe in cigarette smoke whether it is harmless or not. It makes my eyes water, it makes my clothes smell bad, and I don't want smoke being in my face at all. So, you missed a point. Please edit your post in an attempt to refute my personal preferences, which (If we're going by the argument of rights for everyone) should outweigh your right to smoke wherever you please, as smoking is a vice not necessary to sustain life. If you read carefully, this is this is exactly the kind of arguments I think you SHOULD be making. I'm willing to argue about this, and it's a lot more honest than arguing about the dangers of outdoor second hand smoke or littering as an excuse for banning things. So here we go. At what point does something become annoying enough to ban it in public areas? I have a hard time with colognes, perfumes, and a lot of hair products. I have a hard time breathing around people who have recently applied hairspray, for example. It's not a problem after a few hours. Should we ban people from walking in a public park within 1 hour of applying hairspray? What about cologne? Deodorant? Should we simply ban people from applying these products in public? What about peanuts? I love peanuts, but a lot (a really surprising number) of people are allergic to them, and I mean seriously allergic. If you eat peanuts near them, they can have serious complications. Should we limit where people can eat peanuts? Most US airlines have already done it. BAN THE PEANUTS. Tell me where the line is. Should we ban public smoking, but allow fuel-inefficient cars (with potent exhaust) to be driven at will? What about other sources of smoke or air particulates. Should Pizza places with wood burning ovens move their ovens away from the door to limit smoke out on the street? I'll argue about this, but you have to draw the line. What should be illegal and why? I'll start off by stating that my university (as well as many others) has banned perfumes, colognes, etc because there are a lot of people who get sick, or have allergic reactions as a result of it. Schools have banned peanuts (There is a thread about this on TL), and cars that emit too much exhaust will eventually fail a vehicle emission test (All cars in the US have to do this test). Second hand smoke can cause allergic reactions, asthma attacks, and above all else, can simply be downright invasive. Is it your right to smoke in public? Or is it my right to not have to be smoked on? I think you can see where this is going...
I do see what's going on. You're avoiding the question.
It's my position that none of these things should be banned in public. It's your job to decide which should be banned and why. If you choose to ban one and not another, what's different about them? These don't even have to be black-and-white distinctions. I'm willing to accept degrees of "baddness," as long as you can somehow demonstrate that those degrees are not arbitrary.
|
On May 25 2011 01:17 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 01:06 fush wrote:On May 25 2011 00:22 Omnipresent wrote:On May 24 2011 19:44 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 19:01 JayDee_ wrote:On May 24 2011 18:29 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 18:05 resilve wrote:
I dont get the litter argument either, why not stop people eating wrapped food outdoors too...why are smokers picked out and punished for using consumables outdoors. ? I dislike seeing food wrappers on the ground just as much as I dislike seeing cigarette butts. I'm not sure why you tried to make this analogy... both are bad. The analogy makes complete logic sense to me. Cigarette butts are no different than any other litter so you can't use littering as an excuse to keep smokers out of open public areas. Sorry, that's a logical fallacy that children make (well he can do it so can I!)... "it's irrelevant if I throw this cigarette butt on the ground because people throw other trash on the ground" is just a horrible concept - it is absolutely related. People throwing any trash on the ground is unacceptable IMO, just because cigarette butts aren't the only thing you'll find on the ground doesn't make it less of a factor. No, I think you've missed it. The main points being made in favor of the ban are: 1. Second hand smoke is harmful to others. 2. Cigarette butts are often left on the ground as litter. People arguing against the ban are saying: 1. OUTDOOR second hand smoke is not dangerous, at least not in any measurable way. 2. Cigarette butt litter is bad, but so is litter from prepackaged food. 3. If litter is the only reason to ban outdoor smoking, we should also ban eating packaged food, drinking bottled water/canned drinks, and reading newspapers in public areas.There's no logical fallacy here. No one is saying it's ok to leave cigarette butts on the ground just because people leave cans on the ground. They're saying that you shouldn't ban something just because people might litter, unless you're going to ban other products that contribute equally to litter. This is especially true since there's already a law covering all kinds of littering. Here's what happened. Someone in New York decided they don't like smoking (or cigarette smoke, or smokers, or something like that). They decided they wanted to ban smoking anywhere that the city has the authority to ban it (plazas, parks, and beaches). AFTER this individual or group decided what they wanted to do (for personal reasons), they came up with a series of reasonable-sounding excuses for banning smoking. They make a lot of sense, if you don't think too hard about it. If you're going to jump on someone, at least take a second to read what they're saying. This is one of the easiest pieces of legislation to argue against, at least as long as people keep making weak arguments. If you want to ban smoking in public, but don't want to ban eating pre-packaged foods in those same areas, at least admit it's because you don't like smoke/smokers/whatever, or that you're trying to make people healthier by limiting their personal choices. While I disagree with both of these reasons, at least they have the advantage of being intellectually honest. This litter/SHS (outside) crap just doesn't hold water. i don't understand this line of thinking. smoking has been shown to be a directly addictive activity. so is marijuana, other drugs of abuse. but also, so are many of the other medications (ie painkillers) as well as a lot of activities that we do (one might argue compulsive eating and gaming are addictions since they have similar activation of neural circuitries). so if we're not going to ban excessive eating, gaming, painkillers, then we shouldn't ban smoking and drugs of abuse either? That's not the point I'm making, but no, we shouldn't ban smoking or drug use. There is however a case to be made. There's a big difference between heroine and fatty foods, both in their addictive nature and harm to the body. It's reasonable to make a case that there's a point where a product is either addictive enough or harmful enough that it should be banned, as long as you can create an objective way of measuring these things. All litter, on the other hand, is litter. In fact, cigarette butts aren't as bad as plastic bottles. remaining tobacco and paper will degrade quickly, as will many parts of the filter. Plastic bottles are essentially permanent. It's fine to take incremental steps, but at least be consistent. If you want to ban smoking in public places because of litter, you should at least be thinking about banning bottled water. The smoking ban should also not include other types of smoking. Cigar and pipe smokers can only leave ash and biodegradable tobacco leaves behind. You can argue the point about litter, but you have to be consistent.
I definitely agree about the consistency. However, tossing a water bottle on the ground is illegal, but to my knowledge, there is no law against flicking a cigarette on the ground.
I think they should actually use the litter laws...Then people might at least think twice before tossing their trash on the ground. I've never once, in my entire life, heard of anyone being fined for littering.
|
On May 25 2011 01:05 RoosterSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 01:03 Clearout wrote:On May 25 2011 00:49 RoosterSamurai wrote:On May 25 2011 00:22 Omnipresent wrote:On May 24 2011 19:44 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 19:01 JayDee_ wrote:On May 24 2011 18:29 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 18:05 resilve wrote:
I dont get the litter argument either, why not stop people eating wrapped food outdoors too...why are smokers picked out and punished for using consumables outdoors. ? I dislike seeing food wrappers on the ground just as much as I dislike seeing cigarette butts. I'm not sure why you tried to make this analogy... both are bad. The analogy makes complete logic sense to me. Cigarette butts are no different than any other litter so you can't use littering as an excuse to keep smokers out of open public areas. Sorry, that's a logical fallacy that children make (well he can do it so can I!)... "it's irrelevant if I throw this cigarette butt on the ground because people throw other trash on the ground" is just a horrible concept - it is absolutely related. People throwing any trash on the ground is unacceptable IMO, just because cigarette butts aren't the only thing you'll find on the ground doesn't make it less of a factor. No, I think you've missed it. The main points being made in favor of the ban are: 1. Second hand smoke is harmful to others. 2. Cigarette butts are often left on the ground as litter. People arguing against the ban are saying: 1. OUTDOOR second hand smoke is not dangerous, at least not in any measurable way. 2. Cigarette butt litter is bad, but so is litter from prepackaged food. 3. If litter is the only reason to ban outdoor smoking, we should also ban eating packaged food, drinking bottled water/canned drinks, and reading newspapers in public areas. There's no logical fallacy here. No one is saying it's ok to leave cigarette butts on the ground just because people leave cans on the ground. They're saying that you shouldn't ban something just because people might litter, unless you're going to ban other products that contribute equally to litter. This is especially true since there's already a law covering all kinds of littering. Here's what happened. Someone in New York decided they don't like smoking (or cigarette smoke, or smokers, or something like that). They decided they wanted to ban smoking anywhere that the city has the authority to ban it (plazas, parks, and beaches). AFTER this individual or group decided what they wanted to do (for personal reasons), they came up with a series of reasonable-sounding excuses for banning smoking. They make a lot of sense, if you don't think too hard about it. If you're going to jump on someone, at least take a second to read what they're saying. This is one of the easiest pieces of legislation to argue against, at least as long as people keep making weak arguments. If you want to ban smoking in public, but don't want to ban eating pre-packaged foods in those same areas, at least admit it's because you don't like smoke/smokers/whatever, or that you're trying to make people healthier by limiting their personal choices. While I disagree with both of these reasons, at least they have the advantage of being intellectually honest. This litter/SHS (outside) crap just doesn't hold water. It is also irritating to have to breathe in cigarette smoke whether it is harmless or not. It makes my eyes water, it makes my clothes smell bad, and I don't want smoke being in my face at all. So, you missed a point. Please edit your post in an attempt to refute my personal preferences, which (If we're going by the argument of rights for everyone) should outweigh your right to smoke wherever you please, as smoking is a vice not necessary to sustain life. It is really irritating when people wear bright yellow t-shirts, they hurt my eyes in the light and hurts my sense of fashion. Bright yellow t-shirts is a vice not necessary to sustain life. Arguing you think something is annoying to support a ban is not a valid argument, because it can be made for just about everything. Should those things be banned as long as enough people are annoyed by it? Where goes the line with such reasoning? If you believe it goes here that is fine, but it that is not a valid logical argument to support a ban, just an opinion. I like how you skip over one point you cannot refute with such childish, stupid arguments: Cigarette smoke makes your clothes smell bad. Do bright yellow shirts make your clothes smell bad? So because cigarettes makes your clothes smell bad, your entire argument does not mount up to being just your opinion? Excactly like my opinion regarding bright yellow t-shirts? Or are you now arguing that because cigarettes makes your clothes smell bad it is worse than bright yellow t-shirts, therefore your argument is more valid than mine regarding t-shirts? If it is a childish argument, so is your argument for why smoking should be banned in public places like parks. Both are just as viable, and as I said "not a valid logical argument to support a ban, just an opinion".
|
On May 25 2011 01:20 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 00:22 Omnipresent wrote:
3. If litter is the only reason to ban outdoor smoking, we should also ban eating packaged food, drinking bottled water/canned drinks, and reading newspapers in public areas.
There's no logical fallacy here. You REALLY cannot understand the logical fallacy in what you just said? Honestly? How many wrongs make one right in your opinion? That's like saying pot should be legal because no one is trying to make cigarettes illegal lol It's a ridiculously childish argument with zero logic to back it up.
Again, the argument isn't "people litter all the time, so it's ok if smokers do it." Littering is bad.
The argument is, "if you want to ban smoking in public because of litter, you should also want to ban these other things." I'm not saying they need to be banned first, or even at the same time. By all means, ban public smoking first and then get to the other stuff. The trouble is, you don't want to ban the other stuff. You've created a purpose-built argument for banning smoking, but refuse to apply those conclusions to other (very similar) situations. In essence, you don't even believe your own argument.
If I'm wrong, let me know. Should we also ban drinking bottled water in public? If not, why? Remember, we're talking about littering here. What makes litter from cigarettes worse than litter from plastic bottles?
I'm saying that people who argue for this ban based on littering are making a dishonest argument. Be consistent, and maybe there's something to argue about.
|
On May 25 2011 01:29 Clearout wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 01:05 RoosterSamurai wrote:On May 25 2011 01:03 Clearout wrote:On May 25 2011 00:49 RoosterSamurai wrote:On May 25 2011 00:22 Omnipresent wrote:On May 24 2011 19:44 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 19:01 JayDee_ wrote:On May 24 2011 18:29 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 18:05 resilve wrote:
I dont get the litter argument either, why not stop people eating wrapped food outdoors too...why are smokers picked out and punished for using consumables outdoors. ? I dislike seeing food wrappers on the ground just as much as I dislike seeing cigarette butts. I'm not sure why you tried to make this analogy... both are bad. The analogy makes complete logic sense to me. Cigarette butts are no different than any other litter so you can't use littering as an excuse to keep smokers out of open public areas. Sorry, that's a logical fallacy that children make (well he can do it so can I!)... "it's irrelevant if I throw this cigarette butt on the ground because people throw other trash on the ground" is just a horrible concept - it is absolutely related. People throwing any trash on the ground is unacceptable IMO, just because cigarette butts aren't the only thing you'll find on the ground doesn't make it less of a factor. No, I think you've missed it. The main points being made in favor of the ban are: 1. Second hand smoke is harmful to others. 2. Cigarette butts are often left on the ground as litter. People arguing against the ban are saying: 1. OUTDOOR second hand smoke is not dangerous, at least not in any measurable way. 2. Cigarette butt litter is bad, but so is litter from prepackaged food. 3. If litter is the only reason to ban outdoor smoking, we should also ban eating packaged food, drinking bottled water/canned drinks, and reading newspapers in public areas. There's no logical fallacy here. No one is saying it's ok to leave cigarette butts on the ground just because people leave cans on the ground. They're saying that you shouldn't ban something just because people might litter, unless you're going to ban other products that contribute equally to litter. This is especially true since there's already a law covering all kinds of littering. Here's what happened. Someone in New York decided they don't like smoking (or cigarette smoke, or smokers, or something like that). They decided they wanted to ban smoking anywhere that the city has the authority to ban it (plazas, parks, and beaches). AFTER this individual or group decided what they wanted to do (for personal reasons), they came up with a series of reasonable-sounding excuses for banning smoking. They make a lot of sense, if you don't think too hard about it. If you're going to jump on someone, at least take a second to read what they're saying. This is one of the easiest pieces of legislation to argue against, at least as long as people keep making weak arguments. If you want to ban smoking in public, but don't want to ban eating pre-packaged foods in those same areas, at least admit it's because you don't like smoke/smokers/whatever, or that you're trying to make people healthier by limiting their personal choices. While I disagree with both of these reasons, at least they have the advantage of being intellectually honest. This litter/SHS (outside) crap just doesn't hold water. It is also irritating to have to breathe in cigarette smoke whether it is harmless or not. It makes my eyes water, it makes my clothes smell bad, and I don't want smoke being in my face at all. So, you missed a point. Please edit your post in an attempt to refute my personal preferences, which (If we're going by the argument of rights for everyone) should outweigh your right to smoke wherever you please, as smoking is a vice not necessary to sustain life. It is really irritating when people wear bright yellow t-shirts, they hurt my eyes in the light and hurts my sense of fashion. Bright yellow t-shirts is a vice not necessary to sustain life. Arguing you think something is annoying to support a ban is not a valid argument, because it can be made for just about everything. Should those things be banned as long as enough people are annoyed by it? Where goes the line with such reasoning? If you believe it goes here that is fine, but it that is not a valid logical argument to support a ban, just an opinion. I like how you skip over one point you cannot refute with such childish, stupid arguments: Cigarette smoke makes your clothes smell bad. Do bright yellow shirts make your clothes smell bad? So because cigarettes makes your clothes smell bad, your entire argument does not mount up to being just your opinion? Excactly like my opinion regarding bright yellow t-shirts? Or are you now arguing that because cigarettes makes your clothes smell bad it is worse than bright yellow t-shirts, therefore your argument is more valid than mine regarding t-shirts? If it is a childish argument, so is your argument for why smoking should be banned in public places like parks. Both are just as viable, and as I said "not a valid logical argument to support a ban, just an opinion".
I'd like you to show me an instance where a bright yellow shirt has given anyone an allergic reaction, or asthma attack.
Show me where a bright yellow shirt has left a lingering affect on you, such as your clothes smelling like smoke until you wash them.
If you can't show me either of these, then your argument is simply stupidly liberal, and you're just trying to sound cute.
|
On May 25 2011 01:33 Omnipresent wrote:
The argument is, "if you want to ban smoking in public because of litter, you should also want to ban these other things." I know that's your argument, it's what I'm talking about. It's a childish silly argument that no one will take seriously. Throwing water bottles on the floor is wrong and we should do what's in your power to stop it. That is wrong. Throwing cigarette butts is also wrong. Two wrongs don't make one right.
If you think we should have better regulation to control who litters the park with bottled water. Then go lobby for it. This thread is about controlling a different type of litter. One that constitutes 75% of the litter in NYC parks (according to OP). Which is cigarette butts.
|
Why not ban alcohol? Hate seeing drunk people, and they smell of alcohol which bothers my sensitive ass :/ Which reminds me of daddy...
all the beatings, oh my...the beatings...
All the arguments saying this law is great just sound like a bunch of brats that throw those crappy answers around when the only reason they agree with it is that mommy toldem smoking is bad but leting your dog shit in the park is ok. There chance of 0.01% of having a heart atack when you're 50 is increased by 50% ! Well that's still just 0.015% so fuck off with the convenient antismoke propaganda you'll have a higher chance of having your aorta burst if you eat beef then smoke.
Nicotine is adictive indeed but it's very repulsive for a beginer, so the risk of you making somebody start smoking by smoking yourself is pretty much nill unless he actually wants to try it... several times untill he gets used to it. As for making somebody sick with second hand smoke, that's pretty much 0.00000000000000000000000000000001% probable IF the guy sits in your face and blows his smoke up your nose.
Clothes smell, cool story but that's only going to happen in clubs where everybody smokes and you can cut through the smoke with a knife, never gona happen in the street.
And the bad smell argument ? Are you serious? If that's even remotely serious imo fat people, fast food, outdoor trashdumps, SUV's, babies, public breast feeding and fuck all the pet owners too.
10 years penalty for farting in public, 5 years if you just REALLY had to go since it's obv not malicious doing, and if your dog does it tough luck, there's only one jail for pets and it's in the sky.
Should just add a death penalty for every fat fuck driving an SUV while eating a Sloppy Joe with his wife in the front seat breast feeding her kid, and keeping a dog that just went to the bathroom in the back. Because the guy behind them and the one in front of them looking in the mirror is JUST SO MOTHERFUCKING INCONVENIENCED.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
