Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Drysart had this to say about Captain Planet:
You mean the ones funded by the tobacco industry that they covered up for years that showed they knew the dangers of cigarette smoke but lied to the American public about?Oh there's only one or two of those, I hear.
I suppose the dangers involved probably has something to do with the fact that many of the chemicals in cigarette smoke are classified as class A carcinogens -- the same as asbestos and radon.
Oh please, people have known smoking is bad for them forever. My grandpa told me they called them "coffin nails" when he was a kid. People KNEW
Of course people knew, that's not the point. The point is that not only did the tobacco companies know, they did huge studies to prove what everyone knew, then went and lied about it in front of congress. Big tobacco has killed millions, gotten rich off of it, lied to everyone about it, and somehow they are still in business.
It makes me want to cry every time I think about the millions of people who die each year because someone was more interested in profit than human lives. Sympanthy for smokers? It isn't going to happen, more a long the lines of doing them a favor.
Anymore, though, and it's not all the tobacco companies' fault. Anyone who started--or continued--smoking in the last 30-35 years or so was assuming a known risk. I've not got the least tiny little bit of sympathy for smokers themselves.
Fifty years ago . . . maybe. Today, anyone who blames a tobacco company for their habit is either lying, or terminally stupid. And anyone who claims they can't quit isn't really trying.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Drysart stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
That's beside the point mainly though. I brought that up to address Kanid's request for "real" scientific studies that show the dangers of cigarette smoke.... how much more "real" can you get by studies that, even though they were funded by the tobacco companies, and should, by all means, have said that smoking cigarettes makes you stronger, healthier, and more attractive to members of the opposite sex, still came up with all the horrible health implications?
Because they forgot to include in those reports that they add fairy dust to each cigarrette that negates all negative health effects!
Oops, did I say fairy dust? I meant HORRIBLE, DEADLY TOXINS. I guess someone switched the ingredient jar one day and no one seemed to notice. 
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Karnaj wrote this stupid crap:
Because they forgot to include in those reports that they add fairy dust to each cigarrette that negates all negative health effects!Oops, did I say fairy dust? I meant HORRIBLE, DEADLY TOXINS. I guess someone switched the ingredient jar one day and no one seemed to notice.
/laff
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about pies:
The thing wrong with that, Kanid, is that there are certain rights it's not legal to waive. A safe working environment is one of them. Just as coal miners are not allowed to waive their right to be protected from coal dust, restaurant workers (in California, and elsewhere soon, I hope) are not allowed to waive their right to breathe reasonably clean air.
Like I said, find a way to protect the workers. Give them breathing masks like the miners wear.
Coal dust is the inevitable by-product of a necessary mining process. Smoking is not an inevitable by-product of anything other than individual stupidity.
It follows, therefore, that the burden should fall upon the people deliberately endangering others for no good reason, rather than upon innocent people.
It's the same with asbestos. Once the dangers were known, it was made illegal, rather than simply telling everyone who went to facilities with asbestos that they must wear masks.
Ditto lead paint. Once the dangers were known, it was outlawed rather than simply requiring patrons of establishments using lead paint to wear masks.
Smoking is not a right. It--like asbestos and lead paint--simply happens to be legal for the moment due to the confluent pressures of stupid people, tradition, and tobacco lobbies.
The burden of protection should not be on potential innocent victims, but rather upon those creating the public health hazard: the smokers.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
But it isn't going to happen. And since smokers can't smoke in bars and restaraunts they'll just not go to them all, as demonstrated by the drop in business in California. So the bars and restaraunts lose business, lose money, some will close, putting people out of work.
The gov loses taxes from the business and its employees' wages as income AND has to start paying out unemployment insurance.
Just like the "War on Drugs", if they really wanted to solve the smoker issue, they have to start with the demand. As long as there is a demand, there will be a supply and people will continue to do it, no matter how much it costs or who it hurts.
Fix the problem, not keep throwing laws and money at the symptoms.
quote:
Mr. Mackey had this to say about (_|_):
Smokin' is bad, mmkay?
Kloie bows.
quote:
Check out the big brain on Kloie!
I AM GOING TO SIMPLIFY THINGS!Kloie bows.
I don't disagree. Smoking is bad.
But is making smokers outcasts, outlaws, the answer to the problem? It didn't work with alcohol and it didn't work with hard drugs.
Wow, smokers will quit going to restaurants if they're not allowed to smoke? Isn't that exactly the same thing you said nonsmokers should do if they didn't like being poisoned by stupid people?
What's the difference, except that it's now the people who are causing the hazard who have to watch what they do, rather than innocent victims-to-be?
Additionally, propaganda aside, I think you'd have a hard time showing that more people are using illegal drugs than if such substances were legal. If fewer people are using them, then, by definition, making them illegal is better for society than not.
You continually throw alchohol in with smoking and hard drugs--that is incorrect. Earlier, you even went so far as to assert that there is no safe way to consume alchohol. That, too, is incorrect.
Moderate consumption of alchohol has absolutely no adverse health effects, and several studies point to health benefits. The body is able to metabolize alchohol completely when consumed in moderation.
Unless you have data otherwise?
Back to the topic at hand: there is no right to harm others. Ergo, there can be no right to smoke. It's as easy as that.
The jobs "problem" is a red herring. The situation exists only because such laws are new and not yet universal. And because a huge pile of misinformation, combined with inherent stupidity and political naivete has convinced many people either that smoking poses no risk (to themselves or others) or that smoking is somehow a right that must be defended, lest evil Communism immediately follow upon the heels of sensible laws regarding a dangerous practice.
The republic survived the banning of lead paint. It survived laws protecting miners from dangerous work conditions. There's no reason to assume this is any different.
Why is smoking a special class of dangerous stupidity harmful to others that should be protected?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage wrote this stupid crap:
There is no cure for stupidity; hence there is no way to eliminate demand, whether it is for cigarettes or for drugs.
Education. The number of smokers in the US was going down last I checked. (And not just due to attrition )
quote:
Wow, smokers will quit going to restaurants if they're not allowed to smoke? Isn't that exactly the same thing you said nonsmokers should do if they didn't like being poisoned by stupid people?What's the difference, except that it's now the people who are causing the hazard who have to watch what they do, rather than innocent victims-to-be?
The difference was the owner of the business could make his own decision to be a "smoking" business or not, instead of being forced to ban smoking by the gov, and lose business. And since the businesses are losing money, the difference is even bigger to those who will lose their business or be put out of work.
quote:
Additionally, propaganda aside, I think you'd have a hard time showing that more people are using illegal drugs than if such substances were legal. If fewer people are using them, then, by definition, making them illegal is better for society than not.
I'm not saying its a bad thing to make them illegal, I'm saying that alone doesn't fix the problem. People who currently doing drugs are going to do drugs, law or no law. And all the politicians patting themselves on the back for the laws they pass have not achieved a fraction of what they could if they actually tried to fix the problem.
And more importantly, because of their "war" they have enabled law enforcement officials to forgo the Constitution in enforcing these laws.
quote:
You continually throw alchohol in with smoking and hard drugs--that is incorrect. Earlier, you even went so far as to assert that there is no safe way to consume alchohol. That, too, is incorrect.Moderate consumption of alchohol has absolutely no adverse health effects, and several studies point to health benefits. The body is able to metabolize alchohol completely when consumed in moderation.
Unless you have data otherwise?
Based on what I understand, the net result depends on the type of alcohol, your body weight, metabolism and your definition of moderation.
For the average person, 1 glass of red wine every other night might show only the positive health benefits. But someone with low body weight, or a slow metabolism, drinking 1 beer every night may get cirrosis of the liver.
Despite the net result, alcohol is a poison, despite its weakness and one's body's ability to process it, and sticking any poison into your body is not a guaranteed positive experience.
However, the relationship is more the legal aspects of just making something illegal instead of correcting the root problem. Prohibition was not a good thing in the history of the US.
quote:
Back to the topic at hand: there is no right to harm others. Ergo, there can be no right to smoke. It's as easy as that.Why is smoking a special class of dangerous stupidity harmful to others that should be protected?
That assumes that by smoking, you have to harm others, and that isn't the case. Smokers aren't evil creatures bent on destruction, they are humans just like you and I. Making them outcasts and outlaws doesn't fix the problem.
There is no right to harm others. Smoking cannot be done in public without harming or risking harm to others. I don't see why it's unreasonable for those harming others to bear the cost of correcting the problem.
You've not bothered to show any difference at all between coal dust, lead paint, asbestos, and smoking. Each is a hazard to health. The first, since there is a compelling reason to expose people to its ill effects, requires that workers be protected. The middle two are outright illegal. Only the last is somehow granted special status.
Why is that?
If someone adopts a habit--knowingly, it must be assumed of anyone smoking today--that is dangerous not only to themselves but to everyone around them, I fail to see the imperative to grant them special status in society. It is illegal to walk up and punch someone in the arm, and the risk is much more slight, and the worst that can happen is a bruise, barring exceptional circumstances.
Last I looked, keeping jobs was not a compelling argument for tolerating a public health hazard deliberately inflicted upon others by stupid people. Or thoughtless, selfish people, which is worse.
The question at the heart of this is simple: does the supposed right of someone to create a zone of toxins around themselves, thereby endangering others, outweigh the right of others to go about life without being needlessly endangered? Who should bear the burden of creating safety: potential victims, or those creating the dangerous situation?
We've already gone over the reasons employees cannot be asked to waive certain rights. If it were not required by law, what business would spend the money to create safe working conditions? None.
Nor is there any particular right to start a business without respect to public safety. That's why there are building codes. That's why, in the specific case we're discussing, there are stringent codes regarding cleanliness and safety for food services. Smoking is no different.
As for alchohol being a "poison," that's a bit of a stretch. That is to say, one could say the same of any substance. The definition of dietary fiber, for example, is simply any substance the body cannot digest--and few people argue cutting that out of the diet. A lot of very ordinary things contain "toxins" that must be cleansed by the liver and kidneys.
Nor is the picture of moderate drinking quite so bleak as you paint it. Last study I saw recommended an upper limit of 2-3 three drinks per day as showing health benefits while not being dangerous (for an average male).
The point is, however, exactly as I said earlier: alchohol may be consumed in perfect safety, unlike heroin, and unlike cigarette smoke. There is a qualitative difference.
Back to the question, though. Why is smoking a right that must not be infringed, even at the expense of those it harms? Why should special arrangements be made for smokers, when someone going around spritzing the same chemicals into the air via an aerosol can would probably be arrested and jailed for reckless endangerment?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Condom or pills?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Check out the big brain on Kanid!
I don't disagree. Smoking is bad.But is making smokers outcasts, outlaws, the answer to the problem? It didn't work with alcohol and it didn't work with hard drugs.
Kloie shrugs.
I was just trying to make a funney.
quote:
Bloodsage thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
Condom in pill form.
That'd probably be a bitch to put on.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Karnaj had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
That'd probably be a bitch to put on.
You sure it would be put "on" and not put "in"?
The thing with 'loosing' business is actually a part of the reason why smoking in restaurants should be made illegal. Why should business owners who wish to provide a safe and healthy enviroment for their workers and guests be put in a situation where they loose business compared to others?
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about John Romero:
Back to the question, though. Why is smoking a right that must not be infringed, even at the expense of those it harms? Why should special arrangements be made for smokers, when someone going around spritzing the same chemicals into the air via an aerosol can would probably be arrested and jailed for reckless endangerment?
That's not what I'm saying.
What I'm saying is exactly what I wrote in the last post, why not fix the problem instead of just throwing laws at the people? These people, through their own choice, unarguably, are now addicted to a bad thing, I don't disagree. But making them outcasts and outlaws doesn't fix the problem, it just creates another illegal subclass of society, the tobacco smokers, and never addresses the real issue.
quote:
Modrakien had this to say about Tron:
The thing with 'loosing' business is actually a part of the reason why smoking in restaurants should be made illegal. Why should business owners who wish to provide a safe and healthy enviroment for their workers and guests be put in a situation where they loose business compared to others?
This is really a side issue, but it was upon the passing of the law prohibiting smoking that they started losing business.
quote:
Kanid had this to say about (_|_):
That's not what I'm saying.What I'm saying is exactly what I wrote in the last post, why not fix the problem instead of just throwing laws at the people? These people, through their own choice, unarguably, are now addicted to a bad thing, I don't disagree. But making them outcasts and outlaws doesn't fix the problem, it just creates another illegal subclass of society, the tobacco smokers, and never addresses the real issue.
It's not an "or" question.
The very first thing to do is protect those harmed by the smokers by banning in it public places. Smokers have no right to harm others. Period. Regardless of other considerations.
Then we worry about what, if anything should be done further.
Remember: no one has forced anyone to smoke, and no one else is responsible for the consequences. I really fail to see why I should give a good goddamn about these people, beyond requiring them to cease endangering others through their personal stupidity.
How much public money should be spent "helping" smokers quit? Personally, I'd have a hard time with spending my tax dollars for that purpose.
There are already many ways, both over-the-counter and prescription, for those who need the help to quit on their own, without public assistance.
As I said earlier, it is smokers who should bear the cost of their habit, not the rest of us.
But, as I said, it's not a matter of "removing the demand," even if that could be done, or protecting the public. We should do the latter first, then worry about the former.
I feel exactly the same way about seat belts and motorcycle helmets. Sure, everyone has the right to be an idiot. But, if someone is injured and was found not to be wearing a helmet or seatbelt, they should be required to foot all of the bills out of pocket--insurance should not pay, and public money damn sure shouldn't be used to help.
With the right to be stupid comes the requirement to face the consequences.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Kanid wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
This is really a side issue, but it was upon the passing of the law prohibiting smoking that they started losing business.
Yes, but, if prior to the law beeing passed someone wanted to set up a non-smoking establishment they would have lost business to those that allow smoking, thus rendering them less competitive. While I'm in favor of the market regulating itself, there are some cases where this simply doesn't work. It would be like leaving it up to factory owners if they want to use pollution filters, those that would choose to do so, thus helping the world at large with not loosing it's supply of oxygen, would start loosing business to those that don't and thus have lower production costs.
quote:
Kanid had this to say about Cuba:
That's not what I'm saying.What I'm saying is exactly what I wrote in the last post, why not fix the problem instead of just throwing laws at the people? These people, through their own choice, unarguably, are now addicted to a bad thing, I don't disagree. But making them outcasts and outlaws doesn't fix the problem, it just creates another illegal subclass of society, the tobacco smokers, and never addresses the real issue.
Now, since there are some people that enjoy pain (Sado Masochism), it is entirely possible that there are people that enjoy smoking, most likely just as they start. These people will look at the disadvantages, and, being the people they are, people, go ahead and proceed with their passtime.
However, we can't exactly outlaw smoking, as laws tend to attract rebellious teenagers and anyone who hasn't progressed out of that state. This affect can be further proved by the general consensus that most people stop having interest in alchohol (save those addicted and those that like it) when they are old enough to legally drink. This also shows the reason that there is a lot of illegal drug use mainly in underaged people as a fact of choice, and not dependance.
Since we have the forementioned facts, we must seek another way to stop smoking production. We must have it legalized to everyone, as to make no desire to go 'counter to the system', and at the same time attack it at the source; the companies.
The breakdown will work like this. The tobacco companies get the money back enough to cover their expenses, and then all profits will go into the aforementioned and described Insurance Pool, which will be goverened by the National Treasury. If someone loses a family member, they may go to court to prove it (in a routine process, opening more opportunities for lawyers and court staff.); When it should be proven that they did lose a relative for tobacco related reasons, they get the alloted compensation. At the end of the fiscal year, all excess liquid assets left in the Insurance Pool will be distributed to a fund that shall be responsible for the public education of the dangers of smoking. This way smoking can be cut off at the source without telling people they can't.
My proposed plan would be to have a large enough tax on the tobacco company to cover an insurance bank, this tax must be large enough to kill the profit margins until they don't exist, or barely do at all. This insurance bank will be used to help families with a court-proven smoking related deaths.
That plan is, of course, only applicable if it works within the bounds of the constitution.
Skateboarding, for example is usually not legal in places where it is a) dangerous to others, or b) would impose unacceptable liability upon the local government. Remember: the city can be sued if someone is hurt doing a ridiculously dangerous skateboard trick--on a rail overlooking a parking lot, for example--unless it is clearly posted that such reckless behavior is not allowed. Even if it's posted, in some cases.
Civilization is the act of ceding certain personal liberties in exchange for certain public goods and services. Being assured that one isn't risking sickness or death by going out to eat is one of those public goods.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Bloodsage was all like:
Why not make it illegal, and handle violations via the already-existing bureaucracy, rather than creating a new bureaucracy to deal with problems caused by allowing hazardous activity to continue?Skateboarding, for example is usually not legal in places where it is a) dangerous to others, or b) would impose unacceptable liability upon the local government. Remember: the city can be sued if someone is hurt doing a ridiculously dangerous skateboard trick--on a rail overlooking a parking lot, for example--unless it is clearly posted that such reckless behavior is not allowed. Even if it's posted, in some cases.
Civilization is the act of ceding certain personal liberties in exchange for certain public goods and services. Being assured that one isn't risking sickness or death by going out to eat is one of those public goods.
Do not forget that if you ban people from doing something, the majority will abide. However, a minority will continue to act against it by openly breaking the ban.
Now, if you could have 100% of the people heed to the ban 100% of the time, or so that punishing violations of the ban would be more effecient than setting up the new proposed system, then a ban would be the best thing.
The point is that the method you propose is both more expensive, and promises no more effectiveness overall, than an outright ban.
Additionally, what is the purpose of subsidizing dangers to public health?
As I said, I don't really care what people do to themselves; it's when they claim the right to endanger others that necessitates action.
Nor is the primary goal that of making life easy for those who have chosen, for whatever reason, to engage in behavior that endangers others as well as themselves. The primary goal is to protect those who would otherwise be harmed by the reckless behavior of smokers.
A ban on public smoking is the cheapest, most effective way to accomplish that.
As far as rehab, blah, blah, blah, I don't see that the government has an interest, or would be justified spending my money, to help these people quit when there are already so many avenues available privately.
If someone wants to quit smoking, they should eat the cost of doing so. If someone wants to continue smoking, they need to eat the inconvenience of not doing it in public.
Quitting smoking simply isn't that hard that it requires whole new government bureaucracies to facilitate the process.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Captain Planet:
Something does not have to be 100% effective to be worthwhile.The point is that the method you propose is both more expensive, and promises no more effectiveness overall, than an outright ban.
Additionally, what is the purpose of subsidizing dangers to public health?
As I said, I don't really care what people do to themselves; it's when they claim the right to endanger others that necessitates action.
Nor is the primary goal that of making life easy for those who have chosen, for whatever reason, to engage in behavior that endangers others as well as themselves. The primary goal is to protect those who would otherwise be harmed by the reckless behavior of smokers.
A ban on public smoking is the cheapest, most effective way to accomplish that.
As far as rehab, blah, blah, blah, I don't see that the government has an interest, or would be justified spending my money, to help these people quit when there are already so many avenues available privately.
If someone wants to quit smoking, they should eat the cost of doing so. If someone wants to continue smoking, they need to eat the inconvenience of not doing it in public.
Quitting smoking simply isn't that hard that it requires whole new government bureaucracies to facilitate the process.
Hmm, I lost my mind here. Could you possibly refresh me; are you suggesting a full ban (i.e. with Heroine and Opium) or just a public smoking ban?
There are stickier problems with a complete ban, though they stem mostly from odd notions of tradition and well-meaning but misplaced ideas regarding "personal freedom."
It's well-documented, for example, that children of parents who smoke have much higher instances of asthma and other bronchial disorders than children whose parents do not smoke.
While it might be argued that one has the right to damage oneself with impunity, it's harder to argue that right extends to endangering one's children through willful creation of a toxic environment. If the dangers warrant protecting restaurant workers, do they not also warrant protecting children?
Something to think on.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
At the least, I'd ban smoking in public--universally.There are stickier problems with a complete ban, though they stem mostly from odd notions of tradition and well-meaning but misplaced ideas regarding "personal freedom."
It's well-documented, for example, that children of parents who smoke have much higher instances of asthma and other bronchial disorders than children whose parents do not smoke.
While it might be argued that one has the right to damage oneself with impunity, it's harder to argue that right extends to endangering one's children through willful creation of a toxic environment. If the dangers warrant protecting restaurant workers, do they not also warrant protecting children?
Something to think on.
Ah, that would make much more sense then. A Public ban would work quite well, as it has apperantly done with marijuana. Obviously it hasn't been completely decimated, but in public places (save certain, dark, places) you don't always smell burning rope.
What would be interesting is if they also made smoking around your children count as child abuse, in a very sinister way.
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Duck Tales:
At the least, I'd ban smoking in public--universally.
That raises a couple questions.
What counts as a public place?
What are the exceptions to the ban?
Who makes the answers to the above questions?
Why would there be exceptions?
Defining "public areas" would, of course, be the tough part. But, since it's a public health issue first and foremost, any error should be on the side of more restriction, rather than less.
Such a ban, though, would not address the stickier issues of why smokers should be allowed to inflict their behavior upon their children . . .
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Why would there be exceptions?
I consider a baseball game to be a public place, even though I pay to get in.
Yet I cannot carry a concealed sidearm to it, even with my permit to carry.
As for parents "inflicting their behavior" on their children.. I find that line hilarious, please explain it
Also as for resturants who is MAKING those workers suffer the second hand smoke? If the owner out right tells them they will be dealing with lots of second hand smoke then they need to make a decision right then and there weither to work there or not. Heck though why not just make it easier and hire smokers to work there 
Sig pic done with Microsoft paint, Work that doobie Pikachu.
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
Congress should make the law. Just as asbestos and lead paint are hazardous everywhere, so is smoking to others.Why would there be exceptions?
Because, unfortunately, the tobacco industry has been cashing in on stupidity for long enough so that they can buy enough votes to keep themselves in business.
Fortunately, cracks are beginning to appear in the tobacco industry's armor. Older smokers are dying, and not enough younger ones are there to replace them. Clinton put a 75 cent tax on each pack of cigarrettes. People like you and me think it's revolting. All it will take is time, and smoking will be outlawed.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
There are things that could be done to tear down big tobacco. The first thing would be to ban the import and explort of tobacco products within the US. Next help tobacco farmers in the US to find new crops to replace tobacco and offer subsidies to those that do stop growing.
After that Big Tobacco now has a big problem, they have had half their market disappear by the ban on tobacco exportation and they now have to make growing tobacco more profitable to their growers. These things combined will increase the price of production which will trickle down to the consumer in a big way.
Next force all tobacco companies to pay into a federal trust fund to help pay for medical costs on a per pack basis. Lets make the starting donation five to ten dollars of a pack, which is well over twice the current price of a pack of cigs. These costs will of course be passed down to the consumers. Over the course of a couple of years the price per pack should increase to well over twenty dollars a pack, much much more than the average consumer can afford.
The goal will be to make it just too expensive for the average consumer to continue smoking. Once that is done providing public monies to help people quit is alright with me. I don't think an outright ban on tobacco products is a good idea, just remove the big money behind the marketing and production, then drive it underground so that it's still possible for someone to "grow their own" if they so wish.
