|
On May 25 2011 05:32 4lko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 05:20 fush wrote:On May 25 2011 05:13 4lko wrote:On May 25 2011 04:52 fush wrote: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? 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? 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.
how educated are most adults on the effects of smoking, or SHS? most here even seem to claim that SHS in air is "nothing" where there have been pretty concrete proof showing otherwise (and i've listed only a few of these in previous posts as well as many other posters). most adults know smoking causes cancer, but not the many other things it can do to your body/brain function. so no.. i won't say the kids are more "stupid" in the example i gave as compared to adults in the situation we have here.
but even so, a company sells hard drugs to the public - all ages, markets it, and makes huge profits. it's not their fault if drug addiction/drug related healthcare issues go through the roof?
what you're essentially implying is that companies needn't take responsibility for what they sell - regardless of how dangerous it can be. somehow i find that a bit disconcerting if put into practice.
|
On May 25 2011 05:26 fush wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 05:08 Derez wrote:On May 25 2011 03:56 fush wrote:On May 25 2011 03:29 Derez wrote:On May 25 2011 02:43 fush wrote:On May 25 2011 02:39 Tudi wrote:
It's incredible the amounth of slurs thrown around in this thread, without any mod taking action. Are all mods non-smokers or do people just get away with it?
I'm sorry, but if I say "<insert minority race here> are filthy" I'll get banned, yet when someone says "smokers are disgusting ashtrays" I should feel how exactly? I get it, you don't like smoking, you think it's incredibly dangerous (which to some extent it is). Yet you have no problem indulging in other incredibly dangerous activities (by the same standards that make smoking dangerous) like drinking alcohol or driving a car.
Trust me, my second-hand smoke you breathe in the park hurts nothing like a drunk driver hitting you head-on with a pick-up truck.
P.S. I'm smoking a cig while I write this. There. doesn't mean it's not harmful and shouldn't be regulated. Actually, science isn't exactly sure on that, spoiler is an article from the NYTimes, a professor who has testified regularly in favor of banning smoking in the workplace: + Show Spoiler +Inevitably, smoking-ban opponents ask me, “What’s next, banning smoking outdoors?” My answer has always been no: not only can people move around and thus avoid intense exposure, but smoke quickly disperses in the open air. True, there is evidence that being near someone smoking, even outdoors, can result in significant secondhand smoke exposure. Researchers at Stanford found that levels of tobacco smoke within three feet of a smoker outside are comparable to inside levels. But no evidence demonstrates that the duration of outdoor exposure — in places where people can move freely about — is long enough to cause substantial health damage. But that hasn’t stopped many opponents of smoking. Citing new research, they have argued that even transient exposure to tobacco smoke can cause severe health effects like heart disease and lung cancer. For example, last year the surgeon general’s office claimed that “even brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause cardiovascular disease and could trigger acute cardiac events, such as heart attack,” and that “inhaling even the smallest amount of tobacco smoke can also damage your DNA, which can lead to cancer.” However, the surgeon general’s statement conflates the temporary negative effects of secondhand smoke on the circulatory system, which have been shown to occur with short-term exposure, with heart disease, a process that requires repeated exposure and recurring damage to the coronary arteries. It also conflates one-time DNA damage, which occurs with any carcinogenic exposure, with cancer risk, which likewise generally requires repeated exposure. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/opinion/06siegel.htmlI honestly believe this is a step too far, the amount of carcenogenics the average person inhales from 2nd hand smoke in an outdoor setting is minimal, and incomparable to the amount of fine particles and other carcenogenics that are in the air (especially in a large city) already. Banning smoking in public places indoors is perfectly fine, understandable and justified, but outdoors it becomes a tad ridiculous. Have fun wading through the mass of smokers standing at the entrance of Central Park, that alone is going to be a bigger dose of 2nd hand smoke then what you would have inhaled on a normal visit, and you'll still have to get out after that. 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. 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.
But they're not actually regulating it consitently. They're regulating it in parks and on beaches, two of the places where in my view it wasn't much of an issue in the first place.
The strength of the smoking ban in the workplace is that you cannot escape shs there. You're stuck with it, and they extended this logic to restaurants and bars (all of which I agree with, altho I think bars should have the choice). The next step would be to ban smoking in situations where there's high exposure/little chance of avoiding, like sidewalks, the exit of a mall, whatever, but they chose situations where there is relatively low exposure and a high chance of avoiding.
This is simply the wrong way to go with the anti-smoking logic. Before you ban in large open spaces, you should be banning in small, crowded ones. Which is why this isn't a 'radical' chance, it's simply symbolic. Parks and beaches should have been the last places where the smoking ban should have hit next.
(Next to that, people are too concerned with the health risks from smoking, and too little with pretty much everything else, which is what I ment to point out. Just because smokers piss people off doesn't mean they're the root cause of everything cancer.)
|
On May 25 2011 05:39 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 05:26 fush wrote:On May 25 2011 05:08 Derez wrote:On May 25 2011 03:56 fush wrote:On May 25 2011 03:29 Derez wrote:On May 25 2011 02:43 fush wrote:On May 25 2011 02:39 Tudi wrote:
It's incredible the amounth of slurs thrown around in this thread, without any mod taking action. Are all mods non-smokers or do people just get away with it?
I'm sorry, but if I say "<insert minority race here> are filthy" I'll get banned, yet when someone says "smokers are disgusting ashtrays" I should feel how exactly? I get it, you don't like smoking, you think it's incredibly dangerous (which to some extent it is). Yet you have no problem indulging in other incredibly dangerous activities (by the same standards that make smoking dangerous) like drinking alcohol or driving a car.
Trust me, my second-hand smoke you breathe in the park hurts nothing like a drunk driver hitting you head-on with a pick-up truck.
P.S. I'm smoking a cig while I write this. There. doesn't mean it's not harmful and shouldn't be regulated. Actually, science isn't exactly sure on that, spoiler is an article from the NYTimes, a professor who has testified regularly in favor of banning smoking in the workplace: + Show Spoiler +Inevitably, smoking-ban opponents ask me, “What’s next, banning smoking outdoors?” My answer has always been no: not only can people move around and thus avoid intense exposure, but smoke quickly disperses in the open air. True, there is evidence that being near someone smoking, even outdoors, can result in significant secondhand smoke exposure. Researchers at Stanford found that levels of tobacco smoke within three feet of a smoker outside are comparable to inside levels. But no evidence demonstrates that the duration of outdoor exposure — in places where people can move freely about — is long enough to cause substantial health damage. But that hasn’t stopped many opponents of smoking. Citing new research, they have argued that even transient exposure to tobacco smoke can cause severe health effects like heart disease and lung cancer. For example, last year the surgeon general’s office claimed that “even brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause cardiovascular disease and could trigger acute cardiac events, such as heart attack,” and that “inhaling even the smallest amount of tobacco smoke can also damage your DNA, which can lead to cancer.” However, the surgeon general’s statement conflates the temporary negative effects of secondhand smoke on the circulatory system, which have been shown to occur with short-term exposure, with heart disease, a process that requires repeated exposure and recurring damage to the coronary arteries. It also conflates one-time DNA damage, which occurs with any carcinogenic exposure, with cancer risk, which likewise generally requires repeated exposure. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/opinion/06siegel.htmlI honestly believe this is a step too far, the amount of carcenogenics the average person inhales from 2nd hand smoke in an outdoor setting is minimal, and incomparable to the amount of fine particles and other carcenogenics that are in the air (especially in a large city) already. Banning smoking in public places indoors is perfectly fine, understandable and justified, but outdoors it becomes a tad ridiculous. Have fun wading through the mass of smokers standing at the entrance of Central Park, that alone is going to be a bigger dose of 2nd hand smoke then what you would have inhaled on a normal visit, and you'll still have to get out after that. 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. 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. But they're not actually regulating it consitently. They're regulating it in parks and on beaches, two of the places where in my view it wasn't much of an issue in the first place. The strength of the smoking ban in the workplace is that you cannot escape shs there. You're stuck with it, and they extended this logic to restaurants and bars (all of which I agree with, altho I think bars should have the choice). The next step would be to ban smoking in situations where there's high exposure/little chance of avoiding, like sidewalks, the exit of a mall, whatever, but they chose situations where there is relatively low exposure and a high chance of avoiding. This is simply the wrong way to go with the anti-smoking logic. Before you ban in large open spaces, you should be banning in small, crowded ones. Which is why this isn't a 'radical' chance, it's simply symbolic. Parks and beaches should have been the last places where the smoking ban should have hit next.
ok so you're just saying that there SHOULD be regulation, just that the order by which they are doing it may not be optimal. i can agree with that.
|
On May 25 2011 05:19 Deja Thoris wrote:Show nested quote +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.
You are from south-africa and make fun of someone being from Romania?! Really?!
|
On May 25 2011 05:42 BlackFlag wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 05:19 Deja Thoris wrote: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. You are from south-africa and make fun of someone being from Romania?! Really?!
how does one turn this topic into a nationalistic debate?
|
On May 25 2011 05:35 MozzarellaL wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 04:50 SichuanPanda wrote: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. 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.
Well, look at the Chech Republic - you can legally own heroine there. I wouldn't say that the tobacco industry there was small compared to the one dealing in heroine or any other drug for that matter.
Either way - you know very well what effect the prohibition had on crime rates. Every single thing you ban always leads to 2 things:
Mobs earning a ton of cash + delivering products that very well may be created with cheaper substitutes thus being far worse for your health than the real thing.
People going to jail.
The only thing that doesn't change on the other hand is the access to the banned stuff. Sure, it's illegal, but what real problem is there at this point to get some coke or weed?
Not to mention "the forbidden fruit tastes the sweetest".
On May 25 2011 05:37 fush wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 05:32 4lko wrote:On May 25 2011 05:20 fush wrote:On May 25 2011 05:13 4lko wrote:On May 25 2011 04:52 fush wrote: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? 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? 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. how educated are most adults on the effects of smoking, or SHS? most here even seem to claim that SHS in air is "nothing" where there have been pretty concrete proof showing otherwise (and i've listed only a few of these in previous posts as well as many other posters). most adults know smoking causes cancer, but not the many other things it can do to your body/brain function. so no.. i won't say the kids are more "stupid" in the example i gave as compared to adults in the situation we have here.
You can't deny the fact that the reasoning of 10 year old kid isn't at the same level as a 40 year old man. There is no other way to define responsibility than by the standard of age. Not saying it's 100% accurate but all in all there's a reason why kids should listen to their parents until they aren't mature.
|
On May 25 2011 05:42 BlackFlag wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 05:19 Deja Thoris wrote: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. You are from south-africa and make fun of someone being from Romania?! Really?!
I'm not making fun of where hes from. I'm just pointing out that his country isn't a good example when it comes to taking policies from. "I'm from Romania and we can smoke anywhere here" is pretty much what hes been saying in his posts. Hope this clarifies
|
On May 25 2011 05:54 4lko wrote:
You can't deny the fact that the reasoning of 10 year old kid isn't at the same level as a 40 year old man. There is no other way to define responsibility than by the standard of age. Not saying it's 100% accurate but all in all there's a reason why kids should listen to their parents until they aren't mature.
ok so what about the next part of my post?
On May 25 2011 05:37 fush wrote:
but even so, a company sells hard drugs to the public - all ages, markets it, and makes huge profits. it's not their fault if drug addiction/drug related healthcare issues go through the roof?
what you're essentially implying is that companies needn't take responsibility for what they sell - regardless of how dangerous it can be. somehow i find that a bit disconcerting if put into practice.
|
[QUOTE]On May 25 2011 05:13 4lko wrote:
[QUOTE]On May 25 2011 04:52 fush wrote:
[QUOTE]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 ?
[/QUOTE]
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? [/QUOTE]
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.
[/QUOTE]
theyre earning money because tobacco is extremely addictive and very very hard to quit
im not gonna reply anymore to you because nothing you say is intelligent or remotely accurate, i think you're probably a (really bad) troll
|
On May 25 2011 05:59 fush wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 05:54 4lko wrote:
You can't deny the fact that the reasoning of 10 year old kid isn't at the same level as a 40 year old man. There is no other way to define responsibility than by the standard of age. Not saying it's 100% accurate but all in all there's a reason why kids should listen to their parents until they aren't mature. ok so what about the next part of my post? Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 05:37 fush wrote:
but even so, a company sells hard drugs to the public - all ages, markets it, and makes huge profits. it's not their fault if drug addiction/drug related healthcare issues go through the roof?
what you're essentially implying is that companies needn't take responsibility for what they sell - regardless of how dangerous it can be. somehow i find that a bit disconcerting if put into practice.
I mentioned the Czech Republic in my last post. Spain has also allowed the possesion of hard drugs some time ago if I remember correctly. No rise in junkies and drug related issues from what I've read (a shitton of other at this point, but not related ;p).
I'm not saying they shouldn't take responsibility. They should - but only for the issues that they haven't informed the customer about. It's not about giving the public everything that's nice, healthy, fluffy and "good for them". It's about informing people what they get in the product - both good and bad. The decision to use it or not is up to them, not to up to the government.
Like I said - you could most surely close every hardware store in the world because every tool from a knife to a plunger can become a deadly weapon according to that logic. They're useful, yes - but for quite a lot of people smokes, alcohol or drugs are useful too.
|
On May 25 2011 06:10 FFGenerations wrote:
theyre earning money because tobacco is extremely addictive and very very hard to quit
im not gonna reply anymore to you because nothing you say is intelligent or remotely accurate, i think you're probably a (really bad) troll
I'll try not to cry my eyes out, thx.
edit:
Ah, you're the guy who blames cigarette companies for his own stupid decisions.
Oh man, now I'm really offended by your "intelligent" and "accurate" opinion.
|
When they're done with smoking I hope they go on with alcohol since more people die of car accidents due to alcoholic influence than of passive smoking. Then we'll go after the cars since even more people die due to car accidents caused by irresponsible drivers. Further we'll go to dangerous sports since you endanger yourself and health insurances won't take it anymore. After that we will have an hourly rate of gaming per day. Because sitting more than 2-3h in front of a computer playing a game is very unhealthy as well.
And once almost everything is banned into an underground scene, the people who started crying for all regulations and laws will find out that freedom and regulations/laws are inversely proportional dependend and you will stand in front of the door of the party and won't get in because someone recognizes that you cried out loud enough thus being banned from the "fun" of freedom.
|
On May 25 2011 06:14 4lko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 06:10 FFGenerations wrote:
theyre earning money because tobacco is extremely addictive and very very hard to quit
im not gonna reply anymore to you because nothing you say is intelligent or remotely accurate, i think you're probably a (really bad) troll I'll try not to cry my eyes out, thx. edit: Ah, you're the guy who blames cigarette companies for his own stupid decisions. Oh man, now I'm really offended by your "intelligent" and "accurate" opinion.
im the guy who says you should open your eyes to the reality where countless people are dying in misery because THEY cant cope with this monstrously addictive substance
you sound like the kind of angry privileged teenager who likes to say things like "they deserve to die".
well once you mature a bit and start living in the real world you'll realise things are more complicated and its possible to care for people you dont see eye to eye with..
|
On May 25 2011 06:10 4lko wrote:
Like I said - you could most surely close every hardware store in the world because every tool from a knife to a plunger can become a deadly weapon according to that logic. They're useful, yes - but for quite a lot of people smokes, alcohol or drugs are useful too. The difference is that less than 1% of adults buying knives at a hardware store will kill themselves with it. While over 99% of the people buying crack off a legalized crackstore are gonna kill themselves with it 
|
On May 25 2011 05:43 fush wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 05:42 BlackFlag wrote:On May 25 2011 05:19 Deja Thoris wrote: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. You are from south-africa and make fun of someone being from Romania?! Really?! how does one turn this topic into a nationalistic debate?
By missing a point completely and not reading all the posts before i'd say.
|
The way I see it is that if an adult has a developed brain and no major mental health defects he/she should be able to do anything he/she want as long as it does not directly harm or infringe the rights of others. I am all for educating them about the harmfulness of what they do, but they should still have the right to do it. Since second-hand smoke harms others, I agree that smoking should be banned in certain public areas, for the safety of others.
|
smoking is rediculously addictive. im pretty liberal but i know evil when i see it. ive tried to quit smoking 5 times, gone for 10-20 days each time. its psychologically damaging and people who sell it and promote it are indirectly murdering people for their own profit.
Humans are prone to addictions. Have you tried quitting gaming? A couple of other addictions people struggle with that are far more damaging psychologically (and financially): gambling, prostitution, drugs. Heck, some people even get addicted to shoplifting. Food? Sure,why not.
We can argue if smoking is more damaging on your health, but psychologically any addiction has the same result and is equally demanding to let go.
|
On May 25 2011 06:43 FFGenerations wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 06:14 4lko wrote:On May 25 2011 06:10 FFGenerations wrote:
theyre earning money because tobacco is extremely addictive and very very hard to quit
im not gonna reply anymore to you because nothing you say is intelligent or remotely accurate, i think you're probably a (really bad) troll I'll try not to cry my eyes out, thx. edit: Ah, you're the guy who blames cigarette companies for his own stupid decisions. Oh man, now I'm really offended by your "intelligent" and "accurate" opinion. im the guy who says you should open your eyes to the reality where countless people are dying in misery because THEY cant cope with this monstrously addictive substance you sound like the kind of angry privileged teenager who likes to say things like "they deserve to die". well once you mature a bit and start living in the real world you'll realise things are more complicated and its possible to care for people you dont see eye to eye with..
Well, you on the other hand sound like you just finished being a teenager, thus making that kind of statement valid (for you at least).
"Care for people you dont see eye to eye with" - that one's great. Caring doesn't mean making them "happy" if they don't follow my definition of "happy". Don't judge everyone by your own system of values because it may be (and is) slightly different for other people. Imposing your will on other people is just plain wrong.
I suppose "once you mature a bit" is gonna be when I start judging people on an internet forum not having even a shade of knowledge about them ? Or maybe - once again - blame others for my own mistakes ?
Your definition of maturity is kinda awkward.
On May 25 2011 06:48 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 06:10 4lko wrote:
Like I said - you could most surely close every hardware store in the world because every tool from a knife to a plunger can become a deadly weapon according to that logic. They're useful, yes - but for quite a lot of people smokes, alcohol or drugs are useful too. The difference is that less than 1% of adults buying knives at a hardware store will kill themselves with it. While over 99% of the people buying crack off a legalized crackstore are gonna kill themselves with it
I'm not saying they won't. So why isn't everyone a crackhead ? Because tbh there's no real problem in buying hard drugs even in countries where it's illegal. The fact that you can go to Prison ? I highly doubt that I would be afraid of prison when we're talking about facing death in a few years. Yet I'm no junkie. Go figure.
|
United States5162 Posts
On May 25 2011 07:09 Tudi wrote:Show nested quote +
smoking is rediculously addictive. im pretty liberal but i know evil when i see it. ive tried to quit smoking 5 times, gone for 10-20 days each time. its psychologically damaging and people who sell it and promote it are indirectly murdering people for their own profit.
Humans are prone to addictions. Have you tried quitting gaming? A couple of other addictions people struggle with that are far more damaging psychologically (and financially): gambling, prostitution, drugs. Heck, some people even get addicted to shoplifting. Food? Sure, why not. We can argue if smoking is more damaging on your health, but psychologically any addiction has the same result and is equally demanding to let go.
There's a difference between a psychological addition like games/sex/ect and physical additions like nicotine/caffeine/alcohol/cocaine/heroin/ect.
|
On May 25 2011 06:58 relyt wrote:
The way I see it is that if an adult has a developed brain and no major mental health defects he/she should be able to do anything he/she want as long as it does not directly harm or infringe the rights of others. I am all for educating them about the harmfulness of what they do, but they should still have the right to do it. Since second-hand smoke harms others, I agree that smoking should be banned in certain public areas, for the safety of others.
Yes that's the logical approach and by the same token if you designate certain areas for people to smoke in, provide receptacles to put the butts in - otherwise, they will end up on the ground. In Canada the law, where I am located (near Toronto, Ontario) the law is essentially such that smokers must be a minimum distance away from public entrances to buildings (15 meters, or approximately 25 feet). As a smoker I understand many people do not want to inhale what I'm smoking, and this law makes sense to me. What does not make sense is at that spot 15 meters away from the building there is nothing to put the cigarette butts in. The very same people who made the law and didn't put a trash receptacle in place for the smokers, are the ones complaining about the litter.
People treat smokers like the scum of the universe and its really quite telling of the attitude most people have in life (that is that what they believe is the end all be all of discussion and going beyond that is not allowed).
How about we just go around banning every single thing that exists that gives people any kind of enjoyment whatsoever, gaming(gambling), smoking, drinking, dangerous/full contact sports, hunting, fishing, every single 'extreme sport' - this includes kayaking by most peoples definitions, video games, movies, music, everything. Lets ban it all so we can all live in our bubbles and be safe, you know, because someone could get hurt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
