EPTOnly if you're illiterate
Smoking Ban in NYC - Page 27
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
MozzarellaL
United States822 Posts
Only if you're illiterate | ||
|
MozzarellaL
United States822 Posts
On May 25 2011 04:14 iCCup.Nove wrote: They could just make this easy and ban the selling of cigarettes in the state. As a smoker something like this is a slap in the face. "Hey we're going to tax you a lot on those cigarettes that you spend so much money on…but don't smoke them outside. Or inside." chicago better not adopt this. fuck. Banning the sale of cigarettes would likely be unconstitutional. | ||
|
SichuanPanda
Canada1542 Posts
On May 25 2011 04:45 MozzarellaL wrote: Banning the sale of cigarettes would likely be unconstitutional. Yea because they never banned alcohol or cannabis for no reason and still maintain one of those bans even against massive evidence supporting that it is no worse than the one that was unbanned. That never happened. | ||
|
Tachyon
Denmark146 Posts
| ||
|
fush
Canada563 Posts
On May 25 2011 04:09 4lko wrote: Oh yeah, that's great. Blame the companies for the fact that you smoke and can't quit. You brought this upon yourself, now take it like a man instead of blaming others for your own poor decisions. It's like blaming a knife salesman for cutting yourself while making dinner. A little responsibility for your own actions, please... PS Just for the laughs: Anyone knows where and when did the first anti-tobacco campaign kick off ?  are you suggesting that we're not allowed to blame companies that market and sell substances that is known to have a wide range of detrimental health effects for their own profit? | ||
|
SichuanPanda
Canada1542 Posts
On May 25 2011 04:52 fush wrote: are you suggesting that we're not allowed to blame companies that market and sell substances that is known to have a wide range of detrimental health effects for their own profit? That's exactly what he's saying. If you're so concerned with health problems - look up liver cancer, liver sclerosis, etc. Fun. | ||
|
fush
Canada563 Posts
On May 25 2011 04:50 SichuanPanda wrote: I'd just like to point out that if people are so concerned with inhaling smoke and liter from cigarette butts there's a couple of things that could be done in general. First of all, simply don't walk past people smoking, intentionally to give them a glaring look, just avoid us, and you won't inhale anything. Secondly, the main reason I personally out my cigarette on the ground is quite simple - there is no receptacles provided - even in the public areas you still can smoke - to put them in. What am I supposed to do? Spit out the heater and put the butt in my pocket? I don't think so that would just be disgusting. Yea because they never banned alcohol or cannabis for no reason and still maintain one of those bans even against massive evidence supporting that it is no worse than the one that was unbanned. That never happened. so why should the majority of people have to avoid areas of the street, or take alternative routes so you can indulge in a smoke? how does that make any sense? | ||
|
fush
Canada563 Posts
On May 25 2011 04:53 SichuanPanda wrote: That's exactly what he's saying. If you're so concerned with health problems - look up liver cancer, liver sclerosis, etc. Fun. i have said this like 10 times in this thread, and it's been echoed by many others. clearly you put no effort into reading what has already been discussed and just decided to come in with some random statements. how are the diseases you mention at all related to the topic at hand? do their existence make smoking any less dangerous for you? do their existence justify the companies that market and sell a harmful substance to the public? so let me ask you. what is your point? | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On May 25 2011 03:56 fush wrote: nowhere did anyone say science is sure on this matter. in fact, in the op ed piece that you cited he didn't decisively say that transient exposure to shs DOESN'T have health effects. his stance is much like what most people here are saying, which is that there isn't sufficient science to back this up directly - which i can't disagree with here. there's 2 points though that we can still argue: 1. mike siegel's main argument is that there's not enough evidence to conclusively say transient shs directly causes x or y health issues. - these direct experiments may never be done. as i've mentioned before, the effects of transient exposure to lower doses of shs will likely have long-term effects. how do you do a long term effect in humans and directly make a link to causation? the only thing that we can do now is probably a meta-analysis with questionnaires rating shs exposure over many years and correlating with health conditions now. these studies are generally harder to gauge as well, because there are so many other factors at play in everyone's life. now take the cautious stance taken by siegel and we're likely never to go anywhere. 2. there are so many other effects of the components of a cigarette than heart disease or lung cancer. There’s an abundant collection of work that documents all these, and a lot of recent work has shown transient effects of low doses of shs CAN lead to similar risks to health. Again, these aren’t direct causation studies, which is Siegel’s primary concern, but there’s only so much we can do at the moment. Again, I think there is good reason to believe that minimizing outdoor smoking is a good preventative measure despite us not having decisive evidence, simply based on the pieces we do have. so i think while it's important to exercise some restraint and prudence going forward with these types of laws (and perhaps the NYC law may be a little too sudden and too harsh at this point in time) as siegel suggests, i wouldn't say there are absolutely no health benefits possible from this. I agree that any shs is probably not good for you, all I'm saying is that there is such a thing as going too far in the anti-smoking crusade. Construction sites, hummers, swimming pools, burning trash, you name it, there is a substantial amount of carcenogenics (and fine particulates) in any urban environment already. Compared to this, the amount of shs you're exposed to over your lifetime while you're in parks or on a beach is absolutely nothing. It's not comparable to workplaces, bars, schools, any of that, mainly because it was never really an issue to begin with. I can't remember the last time I was bothered by smoke either on a beach or in a park, and it's hard to imagine circumstances where you can't get away (or ask the smoker to move) from the shs easily. The point here is, should we really try to regulate in cases where exposure is so limited in the first place? And after the experiences in europe with banning smoking from bars, do you actually expect anyone to adhere to the policy? It just becomes countproductive. This is just symbolic, and if you really want to apply the 'all shs is bad' logic, just ban smoking everywhere except for people's homes. | ||
|
4lko
Poland76 Posts
On May 25 2011 04:52 fush wrote: are you suggesting that we're not allowed to blame companies that market and sell substances that is known to have a wide range of detrimental health effects for their own profit? Yes. I'm not even suggesting, that's an understatement. I'm saying that thinking that way stands in contradiction to free will and takes away the responsibility from people. It's like sueing General Motors for being able to travel faster than 5mph because some idiot killed a pedestrian on a sidewalk using his car. Tobacco companies are not earning money because they sell. It's because people buy. It's your own damn choice. The same goes for booze or drugs. Nobody asks you to take them. Your freedom ends in the exact spot where the freedom of another human begins. Being prosecuted for the sole fact of smoking a joint, cigarette or doing coke is just ignorant left-wing nonsense. [QUOTE]On May 25 2011 04:54 fush wrote: [QUOTE]On May 25 2011 04:50 SichuanPanda wrote: I'd just like to point out that if people are so concerned with inhaling smoke and liter from cigarette butts there's a couple of things that could be done in general. First of all, simply don't walk past people smoking, intentionally to give them a glaring look, just avoid us, and you won't inhale anything. Secondly, the main reason I personally out my cigarette on the ground is quite simple - there is no receptacles provided - even in the public areas you still can smoke - to put them in. What am I supposed to do? Spit out the heater and put the butt in my pocket? I don't think so that would just be disgusting. [QUOTE]On May 25 2011 04:45 MozzarellaL wrote: so why should the majority of people have to avoid areas of the street, or take alternative routes so you can indulge in a smoke? how does that make any sense? [/QUOTE] Ofc that it shouldn't be that way. I'm a smoker and I respect the fact that other people might not like the smell, so I just go around them and not blow smoke when I'm passing by ;p. It's not that smokers should go around doing whatever they wan't. It's the fact that the whole anti-smoking stuff is going way over the top at this point and people should just chill out. Make smoking zones, provide some bins for buds and fine any asshole who smokes in someone's face when someone asks him not to (In a public place - excluding private locales ofc) and all will be well. | ||
IntoTheWow
is awesome32277 Posts
On May 25 2011 04:09 4lko wrote: Oh yeah, that's great. Blame the companies for the fact that you smoke and can't quit. You brought this upon yourself, now take it like a man instead of blaming others for your own poor decisions. It's like blaming a knife salesman for cutting yourself while making dinner. A little responsibility for your own actions, please... No it's not? | ||
|
Deja Thoris
South Africa646 Posts
On May 25 2011 02:04 Cyba wrote: Oh ye i bet you get to see actual non biased research about smoking all day every day everywhere. Specially since it's been like what 5 years? since the actual mechanism with which smoking affects your heart became fully understood. Not to mention some studies always say smoking causes cancer and some say there's no conection. EDIT: Remember how we're told coffee is bad for your BP? Just this month there was some report that having 4+ cups of coffee a day won't significantly affect you in any way. 2 things to say. One, your country is far behind on the smoking issue. If the world took its lead from Romania in other areas we'd see a lot more horse drawn carts on our roads (Go on, tell me its progressive and your contribution to lower pollution!) Your country is a major lagger in this area, not a leader. Two, shockingly, drinking too much water can kill you. Theres studies on everything you can think of, chocolate, potatoes and so on. Many you think "where do people come up with this crap?" but I can sort of seperate the smoking from the coffee and most people with unclouded judgement can too. | ||
|
fush
Canada563 Posts
On May 25 2011 05:13 4lko wrote: Yes. I'm not even suggesting, that's an understatement. I'm saying that thinking that way stands in contradiction to free will and takes away the responsibility from people. It's like sueing General Motors for being able to travel faster than 5mph because some idiot killed a pedestrian on a sidewalk using his car. Tobacco companies are not earning money because they sell. It's because people buy. It's your own damn choice. The same goes for booze or drugs. Nobody asks you to take them. Your freedom ends in the exact spot where the freedom of another human begins. Being prosecuted for the sole fact of smoking a joint, cigarette or doing coke is just ignorant left-wing nonsense. so hypothetically, if a company started to sell firearms in schools to your children, or hard drugs like coke, acid, heroin, for a hefty profit... it's not their fault that other children in the school get shot, or get hooked on these drugs? all i see is "freedom". no one is being prosecuted for anything, you're still allowed to smoke. they're are just not allowed to smoke in public areas, much like how you're not allowed to wield firearms in public - both share an inherent danger in putting another's health and well-being at risk. there's a limit to how much "freedom" a society can handle. how much are you advocating exactly? | ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
Ruining your health now effects more than just yourself since it costs everyone elses money to treat you. Society is about everyone helping each other so that everyone wins. Balancing free will against civil responsibility is always slightly tricky but in this case I think this is a good move. It doesn't make sense for weed to be illegal but tobacco to be legal. Attempting to reduce tobacco smoking is a sensible goal for any Country right now. | ||
|
Azalie
New Zealand117 Posts
I always thought you know crime's of poverty and guns were more of a problem and inbreeding might want to look at that first. Just saying. I cant wait to move to the state's normally if you try heckle people in NZ you just get a smack in the face for being rude (don't get me wrong if someone walks up to me smoking out side a school or other place's you should respect then comon smokers you cant really have a bitch just walk down the road abit) | ||
|
Karok
Netherlands142 Posts
| ||
|
fush
Canada563 Posts
On May 25 2011 05:08 Derez wrote: I agree that any shs is probably not good for you, all I'm saying is that there is such a thing as going too far in the anti-smoking crusade. Construction sites, hummers, swimming pools, burning trash, you name it, there is a substantial amount of carcenogenics (and fine particulates) in any urban environment already. Compared to this, the amount of shs you're exposed to over your lifetime while you're in parks or on a beach is absolutely nothing. It's not comparable to workplaces, bars, schools, any of that, mainly because it was never really an issue to begin with. I can't remember the last time I was bothered by smoke either on a beach or in a park, and it's hard to imagine circumstances where you can't get away (or ask the smoker to move) from the shs easily. The point here is, should we really try to regulate in cases where exposure is so limited in the first place? And after the experiences in europe with banning smoking from bars, do you actually expect anyone to adhere to the policy? It just becomes countproductive. This is just symbolic, and if you really want to apply the 'all shs is bad' logic, just ban smoking everywhere except for people's homes. 1. it's a small component of the carcinogenics found in air 2. it's detrimental to health even through transient exposure in air i still don't see how statement 1 should change anything if the effects of statement 2 is being controlled through regulation. regardless of how much of the total toxic pollutants in air SHS comprises of, it still is harmful and should be regulated. sure, other pollutants would be regulated in a perfect world where we don't need electricity, or when we don't need to travel, or air condition our rooms on hot summer days. but until the technology is there, are you willing to drop all of these things? the fact of the matter is, we CAN control SHS, NYC chose to accomplish this through radical means. it's a risk, but it's a risk worth taking if it means there's a chance of reducing the taxation on healthcare that is cigarette smoking / second hand smoke. as for your last statement - i hope the day comes when nothing needs to be banned, and the populace is well educated enough to make the decision not to smoke. | ||
|
vasculaR
Malaysia791 Posts
I'm no smoker and while I have nothing against them, I really detest the smell of smoke. (also makes my eye teary) But most smokers I know, not that I know many, always refrain from smoking around non-smoking friends and they usually go outside to the pavement or curb to light one up. I'd like to believe they are just as understanding as the non-smokers about their habit. | ||
|
4lko
Poland76 Posts
On May 25 2011 05:20 fush wrote: so hypothetically, if a company started to sell firearms in schools to your children, or hard drugs like coke, acid, heroin, for a hefty profit... it's not their fault that other children in the school get shot, or get hooked on these drugs? all i see is "freedom". no one is being prosecuted for anything, you're still allowed to smoke. they're are just not allowed to smoke in public areas, much like how you're not allowed to wield firearms in public - both share an inherent danger in putting another's health and well-being at risk. there's a limit to how much "freedom" a society can handle. how much are you advocating exactly? That's something else - every kid is basically stupid (or "lacks experience"), that's the reason why every child has a legal guardian. I'm talking about adults, minors are out of the equation. Depends on what you define as a "public area". Check my last post. How much freedom do I advocate ? Depends on a specific part of life, but in general according to the words: "Your freedom ends where mine begins". Ofc, full-blown anarchy is just plain stupid ;p. I'm more of a libertarian. | ||
|
MozzarellaL
United States822 Posts
On May 25 2011 04:50 SichuanPanda wrote: Yea because they never banned alcohol or cannabis for no reason and still maintain one of those bans even against massive evidence supporting that it is no worse than the one that was unbanned. That never happened. You're a funny guy. They had to amend the constitution in order to ban alcohol. And cannabis never reached the height of manufacture or industry that tobacco did in the States. You're from Canada, so I don't expect you to know about things like the Commerce Clause or Federal Pre-emption. There are more ways to strike down a law for being unconstitutional than saying that it violates a Constitutional admendment. | ||
| ||
