|
On October 07 2007 00:13 ManaBlue wrote:
The tax on all tabacco products should be directly proportional to the cost we incur in the medical system treating the diseases they cause.
Sure, and how about in return taxing non-smokers for all the diseases caused by not smoking? Like living way too long. Obesity. Depression. Alcoholism. Assholery. [Factually -- smokers have 10 year shorter life expectancy. As long as they are educated about it, what's it to me or you? So they live to 69 instead of 79. It's not like most 75 year olds are productive citizens anymore. Dying a bit earlier in their old age means using less public retirement money, less old age related drugs, treatments and procedures, and suffer less from age related diseases like Parkinson and Alzheimer]
I find most smokers are cooler to be around than non-smokers.
I'm all for everyone having their own private space, so I'm OK with smoking restrictions and large public non-smoking areas. But smokers are people too, and should to be given fair and reasonable accommodation. These are decent people who don't deserve the shyt the anti-smoking crusaders smear on them. Smoking doesn't cause anything like "reefer madness" or violent drunkenness. Smokers are normal, decent, functional people. But anti-smoking activists try to frame smokers as pariahs , lepers, rude, crude and inconsiderate idiots or worse, virtually guilty of premeditated mass physical assault, using their ever shriller psychological/public relations warfare and fear/hatemongering.
|
whos to say those old people wouldn't of lived longer had they not smoked, moot point really.
as an asthmatic I really hate being exposed to second hand smoke, I feel the effects a good day after if I inhale enough of it, and besides it fucking stinks. I do think people should have freedom to do what they want as long they aren't hurting anyone in the process, tell me what's wrong with that?
|
I love how conspiracy theorists always ignore the mountains of evidence that oppose their claim and choose to believe a minority of opinions that has far less evidence. The fact that the two oldest people both smoked does not prove that smoking is not harmful to your health. This is a mere two examples. Compared to the evidence from studies of thousands of people that show that smoking is harmful, these two examples don't mean much.
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
2 nortydog:
Stop being an idealist because idealists are unbelievably hard to deal with (much harder than smokers ^^). When you're driving a car, you're dangerous and you can hurt people in the process, when you drink, you can hurt people, when you inhale, you goddamn take the oxygen I might have taken. For god's sake, you can even kill someone when playing golf. It is reality. Nothing you do is safe. So don't be overzealous and stop that double standard bs as if smoking was the only thing that made people feel uncomfortable. Your existence makes other people feel uncomfortable, because you take up space, take up oxygen, spend people's money when you break your leg riding a bicycle (let's tax bicycle riding), buy that last portion of french fries I've longed so much to eat, create noise and (yes yes) you stink. Like any other human being does. Following your logic, the best thing for you is cease to exist. And, like smoking hurts asthmatic, your meaningless wandering around hurts paranoid people, and your big smile makes people with a strong inferiority complex commit suicide. Start feeling ashamed.
Dunno, if you want my definition of a healthy response in your situation, it would be just asking the smoker near you to go somewhere else, explaining your problem. Trust me, people are not all douche bags and noone wants to hurt you specifically. Running to daddy speaking some sissy stuff about freedoms and rights looks like an unhealthy response.
And btw, about bicycle riding. Those bastards are spending our hard-earned tax money to treat their absolutely unnecessary injuries. Let's tax bicycles, like 100$ per ride, ok?
|
On October 07 2007 01:28 BluzMan wrote:
2 nortydog:
Stop being an idealist because idealists are unbelievably hard to deal with (much harder than smokers ^^). When you're driving a car, you're dangerous and you can hurt people in the process, when you drink, you can hurt people, when you inhale, you goddamn take the oxygen I might have taken. For god's sake, you can even kill someone when playing golf. It is reality. Nothing you do is safe. So don't be overzealous and stop that double standard bs as if smoking was the only thing that made people feel uncomfortable. Your existence makes other people feel uncomfortable, because you take up space, take up oxygen, spend people's money when you break your leg riding a bicycle (let's tax bicycle riding), buy that last portion of french fries I've longed so much to eat, create noise and (yes yes) you stink. Like any other human being does. Following your logic, the best thing for you is cease to exist. And, like smoking hurts asthmatic, your meaningless wandering around hurts paranoid people, and your big smile makes people with a strong inferiority complex commit suicide. Start feeling ashamed.
Dunno, if you want my definition of a healthy response in your situation, it would be just asking the smoker near you to go somewhere else, explaining your problem. Trust me, people are not all douche bags and noone wants to hurt you specifically. Running to daddy speaking some sissy stuff about freedoms and rights looks like an unhealthy response.
And btw, about bicycle riding. Those bastards are spending our hard-earned tax money to treat their absolutely unnecessary injuries. Let's tax bicycles, like 100$ per ride, ok?
Your analogies do not make any sense.
Yes, there are some vague similarities, but vague similarities between two items does not constitute a good argument for their being treated the same. Nearly every person who posts in threads where there is a debate uses this kind of fallacious reasoning.
Let me refute all of your terrible analogies:
For one, do you really think someone else breathing affects your ability to take in enough oxygen or is harmful to your health? If you do, your belief is unbased and most likely wrong.
The fact that you can hurt someone when you drink does not make smoking tolerable, it merely means that smoking is equally hazardous.
Can you honestly say that the chances of harming someone while playing golf are anywhere near the chances of harming someone's health by smoking? If you smoke around someone, you're going to harm them, at least somewhat. The odds of harming someone's health playing golf are incredibly low, and I'm relatively certain that the number of deaths caused by golf are fewer than the deaths related to second hand smoke.
As for your bicycling analogy, more people ride bikes than smoke. Smokers also spend an incredibly large amount of taxpayers' money compared to bicyclers, at least in terms of medical bills. The two amounts are hardly even comparable.
I believe smokers should still be allowed in places like bars, and in smoking sections in restaurants and the like. I think it would be a good compromise if smokers were allowed to smoke anywhere they wanted, but with the restriction that if someone asked them not to smoke near them that they must relocate. Unfortunately, this is impossible to enforce, and I would much rather sacrifice the smokers' ability to smoke wherever they want than sacrifice non-smokers' right to not have people damage their health.
|
His analogies make perfect sense to me. Anything with a calculated risk (regardless of how severe or not) should be equally, justly, and appropriately taxed the same as smoking if they are going to use that logic. Trust me you have a much greater chance of dying in a car accident or some other motion/action related thing than smoking. The people dying from smoking have been smokers for like over 40 years, I guarantee you that in that 40 years you have a better chance of dying from something more asinine than lighting up a cig.
Honestly second hand smoke has never bothered me except when I was in a poorly ventilated room.
I seriously doubt that the smoke is as bad as they claim, except maybe for the aforementioned scenario and/or around children. The smell getting on your clothes is kind of annoying but hey I know I'm around it and its gonna happen, just like if I went to a BBQ or bonfire, my clothes are gonna reek.
Not being able to smoke even outside at a bar is ridiculous because they will lose a shit load of customers just for the fact that when you drink you crave cigerettes more often. The fact that smoking is a social thing. Its a conversation starter, its a conversation placeholder, its judge of character (do they share? do they smoke a lot out of nerves? etc.) etc It helps a lot socially. Especially at a place like a bar where most people are there to have a good time socializing and meeting new people.
Banning smoking everywhere is just ridiculous. And the other point about it causing pollution, I think that has more to do with the butts than the smoke because like someone else already mentioned Cars, machines, and basically anything using electricity that works from a coal based plant is far worse.
But lets not side track this on global warming or pollution.
|
Norway10161 Posts
In Norway people are only allowed to smoke outdoors, and nobody seems to care. It was the biggest non-happening since the millenium change. Smokers can smoke outdoors all they want imho, and from my experience that is the rule in most american states? (exceptions I remember: Nevada).
Everybody KNOWS smoking is dangerous, and it WILL (not may, not probably) hurt you and people around you. It is a stupid habit, but it is a part of our society right now. We should have laws that protects the non-smokers, because it is dangerous for them, and they don't have the choice. Fortunately smokers are a dying breed (I can't talk for US, only using my country as an example), and they will hopefully "die out" in a foreseable future. High taxes on cigarettes are rightfully explained by the massive health costs smokers inflict on the medical system.
But - the smokers themselves have to chose. Most of us damage our own bodies with something, usually alcohol, drugs or cigarettes (I belive overweight is a bigger problem in the US). But it is our choice, and we should be allowed to make it ourselves. The information is there, and people know that all these things are dangerous. There are however no logical reason to not have laws to protect the people who can't make the choice themselves.
EDIT: To Charlie: Cigarettes contains insanely dangerous chemicals. Do you know that for every cigarette you smoke you destroy something like 100 000 genes in your body?
|
There are so many stupid cig facts: like 'every one that you smoke you lose 15 minutes of your life' etc. What they don't mention in those is that other daily activities may have the same effects or the effects are not as bad as they sound. 100,000 does not seem like a lot compared to the sextillions of cells (did you mean cells?) and they grow back right?
|
On October 07 2007 04:31 ToKoreaWithLove wrote:
Cigarettes contains insanely dangerous chemicals. Do you know that for every cigarette you smoke you destroy something like 100 000 genes in your body?
Holy shit! That's like four or five times your entire genome!
...or possibly it's 4-5 cells. Hmm...
Not that I don't think cigarettes are bad for you, but if you don't know what something means, you probably shouldn't use it as an argument.
|
Tobacco is a lot different now then 50 years ago. Now its a hardcore drug, every year the tobacco companies come up with stronger strains that are more addictive/unhealthy.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well it is not a conspiracy. a bit difficult to describe, but these things are similar to the abolition campaign or the recycling thing.
a channeling of public moral energy through various institutional devices. conspiracies are only workable if they are political engineering efforts. things like the neo-con movement is a conspiracy, but i dont think this means too much to one who does not understand the political structure in the US.
|
Norway10161 Posts
On October 07 2007 05:09 Funchucks wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2007 04:31 ToKoreaWithLove wrote:
Cigarettes contains insanely dangerous chemicals. Do you know that for every cigarette you smoke you destroy something like 100 000 genes in your body? Holy shit! That's like four or five times your entire genome! ...or possibly it's 4-5 cells. Hmm... Not that I don't think cigarettes are bad for you, but if you don't know what something means, you probably shouldn't use it as an argument.
Damn I screwed up I mean DNA-molecules of course. I'll fill in later, not time now.
|
On October 07 2007 05:27 ToKoreaWithLove wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2007 05:09 Funchucks wrote:On October 07 2007 04:31 ToKoreaWithLove wrote:
Cigarettes contains insanely dangerous chemicals. Do you know that for every cigarette you smoke you destroy something like 100 000 genes in your body? Holy shit! That's like four or five times your entire genome! ...or possibly it's 4-5 cells. Hmm... Not that I don't think cigarettes are bad for you, but if you don't know what something means, you probably shouldn't use it as an argument. Damn I screwed up I mean DNA-molecules of course. I'll fill in later, not time now.
On further consideration, I think your original statement could be interpreted as having this sensible meaning.
It could mean the functional destruction of 100,000 genes distributed among the DNA of a similar number of cells. Each instance of damage could be harmless, fatal or crippling to the cell, or could make the cell cancerous.
I apologize for taking the worst interpretations.
|
Norway10161 Posts
I was just making a stupid error, your interpretation was spot on based on my wrong choice of words.
To explain the effect on cigarette smoke on DNA in an easy way. Every time you smoke a cigarette about 100 000 DNA-threads breaks in your body. Of course there are fuctions to repair these, and usually they get their work right. But now and then the will get one wrong. Now this might be harmless, it might be cancer, it might kill a cell, etc.
Then there is the beauty of COPD. A fun disease that will slowly render your lungs useless. The funny part is that smokers have a 25% chance of catching it. Did I say catching? I mean - developing it. It is a fun disease because it is almost exclusive to smokers (90%). I know a nice man with this disease. He is about 40 years old. He can walk about 10 meters before he needs a break.
COPD is pretty unique in itself because it is a disease that targets smokers almost exclusively, and it is a very good indicatior (I'm tempted to say proof) that smoking cigarettes is as bad as the good people who are researching this are telling you.
I'm off again
|
Charlie, you dont really believe this right? =[. Everyone knows smoking is bad for you.
But then again, if smokers wanna kill themselves, fine. Just do it in an outside environment. That's the best law to happen in a long time.
|
I think the effects of second hand smoke is exaggerated or worded in ways that it doesn't properly contextualize the effects. Most studies mention a percentage increase in the catching of already fairly rare diseases, numerating it makes it appear to be an almost negligible statistic.
A lot of money is wasted on research on second hand smoke. Conclusion: Breathing in low-quality air, or air with unhealthy and/or toxic substances in it is bad for you. Well duh. Nobody is going to doubt that the smoke inhaled and exhaled via cigarette smoke is bad for you. It does cause diseases. The diseases occur in the high-volume inhalers, the smokers themselves. Second hand smoke except in some places that have a very high volume of cigarette smoke in the air[EDIT: this is referring to something like an apartment with people who smoke a pack a day type environment, where the smog covers the top half of the room] is very low volume and is no worse for you than the current state of the atmosphere. Not to mention that measuring how much second hand smoke is effecting somebody is impossible. These diseases take long periods of time to occur and quantifying how much of it you are breathing in and comparing it directly to the levels of other hazardous gases you are inhaling and identifying exactly what the originator of the hazardous gases is is impossible. There is too many different hazardous pollutants in the air we breathe all around us to determine that sort of thing, even a mildly accurate estimate would be impossible.
All the studies end up saying is that breathing in polluted air is bad for you. Congrats, have a good solution? Any claim that a smoker is increasing the pollution in the air you are breathing by any significant margin is just spewing ignorance.
Smoking is still annoying though. All my smoking friends know I despise the smell. I often won't stand near them if they are smoking and in the event I do I go through great lengths to make sure the smoke doesn't get near me as the smell is revolting. I couldn't date a smoker(have, the taste is not something I wish to adapt to) and would greatly prefer if I never had to be around smoking. Thankfully since it is banned from most public indoor places and most smokers are aware of others not wanting it near them and are polite enough to act accordingly I rarely need to be around smoking. They're happy, I'm happy. Though I still think it's ridiculous that privately owned businesses don't have the option to allow smoking. It should be up to the business owner to decide what environment he wishes to provide and then up to the customer to decide to give them business given their knowledge of the business owner's decision to allow or disallow it.
Claiming that they're actually harming you by any significant amount is ludicrous. Unless they're blowing it directly into your face it diffuses into the rest of the polluted air you are breathing and becomes a toxic mix of all the other crap you're inhaling.
|
On October 07 2007 00:13 ManaBlue wrote:The tax on all tabacco products should be directly proportional to the cost we incur in the medical system treating the diseases they cause. So cigs aren't nearly taxed enough right now.  I hate smoking, so I'm pretty cold hearted about a person's "right to have a cheap cig if they want it". Fuck that, you can sign a waiver stating we don't have to use public funds to treat your cancer than. It's retarded.
I would love that, sign me up! In fact, I'll do that for every shitty government program, then I wont have my money stollen to fund them. Too bad that's not an option, isn't it?
|
Many of these smoking laws people talk about here are totally unreasonable. If I own a restaurant or a business, I should be free to choose whether or not smoking is allowed on the premises. It is my private property, and that should thus be my decision. That said, I am neither a business owner nor a smoker. If a person decides to eat at a restaurant that permits smoking, they are accepting/inviting the consequences of such actions. These consequences obviously include any negative health effects of the second hand smoke. Seeing as how the US health care system is much more privately handled than Canada's, the whole "we can tax them because we have to pay the medical bills" argument is kinda shot to pieces too, imo. Those who smoke are often poor also. A guy down the street from me lost his house due to inability to pay his bills, and he smoked A LOT. All these anti-smoking people crusading to raise taxes on smokers apparently are either unaware that these are some of the people who will be paying up, or maybe they just don't care.
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
On October 07 2007 10:31 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:
I think the effects of second hand smoke is exaggerated or worded in ways that it doesn't properly contextualize the effects. Most studies mention a percentage increase in the catching of already fairly rare diseases, numerating it makes it appear to be an almost negligible statistic.
A lot of money is wasted on research on second hand smoke. Conclusion: Breathing in low-quality air, or air with unhealthy and/or toxic substances in it is bad for you. Well duh. Nobody is going to doubt that the smoke inhaled and exhaled via cigarette smoke is bad for you. It does cause diseases. The diseases occur in the high-volume inhalers, the smokers themselves. Second hand smoke except in some places that have a very high volume of cigarette smoke in the air[EDIT: this is referring to something like an apartment with people who smoke a pack a day type environment, where the smog covers the top half of the room] is very low volume and is no worse for you than the current state of the atmosphere. Not to mention that measuring how much second hand smoke is effecting somebody is impossible. These diseases take long periods of time to occur and quantifying how much of it you are breathing in and comparing it directly to the levels of other hazardous gases you are inhaling and identifying exactly what the originator of the hazardous gases is is impossible. There is too many different hazardous pollutants in the air we breathe all around us to determine that sort of thing, even a mildly accurate estimate would be impossible.
All the studies end up saying is that breathing in polluted air is bad for you. Congrats, have a good solution? Any claim that a smoker is increasing the pollution in the air you are breathing by any significant margin is just spewing ignorance.
Smoking is still annoying though. All my smoking friends know I despise the smell. I often won't stand near them if they are smoking and in the event I do I go through great lengths to make sure the smoke doesn't get near me as the smell is revolting. I couldn't date a smoker(have, the taste is not something I wish to adapt to) and would greatly prefer if I never had to be around smoking. Thankfully since it is banned from most public indoor places and most smokers are aware of others not wanting it near them and are polite enough to act accordingly I rarely need to be around smoking. They're happy, I'm happy. Though I still think it's ridiculous that privately owned businesses don't have the option to allow smoking. It should be up to the business owner to decide what environment he wishes to provide and then up to the customer to decide to give them business given their knowledge of the business owner's decision to allow or disallow it.
Claiming that they're actually harming you by any significant amount is ludicrous. Unless they're blowing it directly into your face it diffuses into the rest of the polluted air you are breathing and becomes a toxic mix of all the other crap you're inhaling.
Excellent post. =)
|
On October 07 2007 10:31 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:
I think the effects of second hand smoke is exaggerated or worded in ways that it doesn't properly contextualize the effects. Most studies mention a percentage increase in the catching of already fairly rare diseases, numerating it makes it appear to be an almost negligible statistic.
A lot of money is wasted on research on second hand smoke. Conclusion: Breathing in low-quality air, or air with unhealthy and/or toxic substances in it is bad for you. Well duh. Nobody is going to doubt that the smoke inhaled and exhaled via cigarette smoke is bad for you. It does cause diseases. The diseases occur in the high-volume inhalers, the smokers themselves. Second hand smoke except in some places that have a very high volume of cigarette smoke in the air[EDIT: this is referring to something like an apartment with people who smoke a pack a day type environment, where the smog covers the top half of the room] is very low volume and is no worse for you than the current state of the atmosphere. Not to mention that measuring how much second hand smoke is effecting somebody is impossible. These diseases take long periods of time to occur and quantifying how much of it you are breathing in and comparing it directly to the levels of other hazardous gases you are inhaling and identifying exactly what the originator of the hazardous gases is is impossible. There is too many different hazardous pollutants in the air we breathe all around us to determine that sort of thing, even a mildly accurate estimate would be impossible.
All the studies end up saying is that breathing in polluted air is bad for you. Congrats, have a good solution? Any claim that a smoker is increasing the pollution in the air you are breathing by any significant margin is just spewing ignorance.
Smoking is still annoying though. All my smoking friends know I despise the smell. I often won't stand near them if they are smoking and in the event I do I go through great lengths to make sure the smoke doesn't get near me as the smell is revolting. I couldn't date a smoker(have, the taste is not something I wish to adapt to) and would greatly prefer if I never had to be around smoking. Thankfully since it is banned from most public indoor places and most smokers are aware of others not wanting it near them and are polite enough to act accordingly I rarely need to be around smoking. They're happy, I'm happy. Though I still think it's ridiculous that privately owned businesses don't have the option to allow smoking. It should be up to the business owner to decide what environment he wishes to provide and then up to the customer to decide to give them business given their knowledge of the business owner's decision to allow or disallow it.
Claiming that they're actually harming you by any significant amount is ludicrous. Unless they're blowing it directly into your face it diffuses into the rest of the polluted air you are breathing and becomes a toxic mix of all the other crap you're inhaling.
And how do you explain that ? Smoking ban brings big cut in heart attacks in Scotland, study finds. And no, not only for smokers. There are studies like that for other countries as well (Ireland for example).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
