Ban on smoking in public places + high cigarette tax
197 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;36466902]When I was in highschool, inbetween lessons a ton of people were running outside to have a smoke. If you ever had to go in or out of the highschool you had to go through a massive cloud of at least 10 different kinds of cigarettes. Not only was it really inconvenient, but that shit's also very dangerous, since some people who are allergic to cigarette smoke couldn't even think of leaving or entering the place in between lessons, they'd have to wait for people to stop smoking and go back to their classes if they didn't want to face immediate suffocation due to their allergy.[/QUOTE]
So should all restaurants stop cooking with peanut oil?
[QUOTE=Lankist;36467055]So should all restaurants stop cooking with peanut oil?[/QUOTE]
How about you start making arguments instead of those rhetoric find-the-sense-yourself questions.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;36467385]How about you start making arguments instead of those rhetoric find-the-sense-yourself questions.[/QUOTE]
How about you answer the question?
If the special circumstances of others trump individual liberty, should we not ban the use of peanut oil in foods so as not to potentially harm someone with a peanut allergy? Peanut oil isn't necessary to the production or cooking of our food, and yet it is used everywhere to the detriment of those in special circumstances. Lots of people die or come close to dying every year by accidentally ingesting peanut products.
I'd just like to know if you think your logic applies to the things [I]you[/I] like. Or is safety less of an issue when it means you can't get your french fries?
[QUOTE=Lankist;36467396]How about you answer the question?
If the special circumstances of others trump individual liberty, should we not ban the use of peanut oil in foods so as not to potentially harm someone with a peanut allergy?[/QUOTE]
That's a massive shortcut you're doing here.
The main issue with your argument is that it fails to take in account that it's people's choice to go to a restaurant, and if someone has a peanut allergy it's his responsibility to ask if the restaurant uses peanut oil, and decide whether or not he can eat there or not.
People who are allergic to cigarette smoke are not able to do that. If they have to go somewhere and that somewhere is filled with people smoking, then they are pretty much fucked.
Also cigarettes also harms people who are not allergic to it because the mere fact of inhaling its smoke is already damaging, so letting people smoke in public is dangerous.
[editline]24th June 2012[/editline]
I just gave the allergy argument because it helps my other argument, that is cigarette harms everyone regardless (but some people even more than others) so they shouldn't be allowed in public.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;36467425]The main issue with your argument is that it fails to take in account that it's people's choice to go to a restaurant, and if someone has a peanut allergy it's his responsibility to ask if the restaurant uses peanut oil, and decide whether or not he can eat there or not.[/QUOTE]
Oh, so people with peanut allergies aren't allowed to leave the house, now?
How about you just give up the french fry habit?
I don't see how you figure it's MY job to protect YOU, but it's everyone else's job to protect themselves.
How come when it's a food allergy, it's THEIR responsibility, but when it's [I]your[/I] body, suddenly I'm compelled to give a shit about you.
How about you worry about your own shit and stop trying to legislate it.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36467455]Oh, so people with peanut allergies aren't allowed to leave the house, now?
[/quote]
What where did I say that can you please stop pulling things out of your butt
[QUOTE=Lankist;36467455]
How about you just give up the french fry habit?
[/quote]
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat
[QUOTE=Lankist;36467455]
I don't see how you figure it's MY job to protect YOU, but it's everyone else's job to protect themselves.
[/quote]
Dude what the hell are you talking about
[QUOTE=Lankist;36467455]
How come when it's a food allergy, it's THEIR responsibility, but when it's [I]your[/I] body, suddenly I'm compelled to give a shit about you.[/QUOTE]
Oh finally that somehow makes sense.
The difference once again is that food allergy is mostly dependent on the person who has it (and even there he still has to inform himself on what he eats which implies that whoever made that food makes what is inside clear to avoid allergic people from choking on some hidden ingredients).
When you light a cigarette, it's your smoke invading the air everyone breathes. Your smoke is going to be inhaled by other people who are not able nor willing to back off several dozen feet just because some guy decided to bother them with some health damaging, cough inducing smoke that smells horrible and hurts the eyes. You are responsible, and it's because people refuse to admit they have the responsibility of damaging their and other's health when they light up a smoke in public that it has to be forbidden.
And stop with the limited freedom argument, because it's idiotic. Someone who smokes in public is deliberately poisoning the air of his surroundings, if you want to go destroy your lungs it's fine but do it at some place where other people won't have their own health damage because of you.
[editline]24th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lankist;36467455]How about you worry about your own shit and stop trying to legislate it.[/QUOTE]
I think my very own health enters the domain of "my own shit" to worry about.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;36467539]I think my very own health enters the domain of "my own shit" to worry about.[/QUOTE]
Right.
it isn't my shit to worry about.
it isn't the government's shit to worry about.
it's yours and yours alone.
You handle your own shit and leave everyone else to theirs.
[editline]24th June 2012[/editline]
Also please find one case of lung cancer outside of the lab directly tied to second hand smoke.
I think the issue is that there's no way for someone to avoid the smoke in the case of cigarette smoke in public, sometimes. You have the choice to not go to a restaurant and go eat somewhere else, but you don't have that same choice if your only way home is blocked by a dozen smokers essentially physically blocking you. As long as there's the choice to not have someone else's will impede your own liberties in any coercive manner, I don't see any problem. So if someone's potentially blocking your access home in a public space with cigarette smoke, they're coercing you, but if it's in a private business like a restaurant where the smoking policy is known at the door, it's not close to being coercive.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36467567]I think the issue is that there's no way for someone to avoid the smoke in the case of cigarette smoke in public, sometimes. You have the choice to not go to a restaurant and go eat somewhere else, but you don't have that same choice if your only way home is blocked by a dozen smokers essentially physically blocking you. As long as there's the choice to not have someone else's will impede your own liberties in any coercive manner, I don't see any problem. So if someone's potentially blocking your access home in a public space with cigarette smoke, they're coercing you, but if it's in a private business like a restaurant where the smoking policy is known at the door, it's not close to being coercive.[/QUOTE]
Carbon emissions from cars have similar effects, and the concentration of toxins from car exhaust in ambient, urban air is [I]far greater[/I] than cigarette smoke.
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/conditions/exhaust_emissions.shtml[/url]
That as a given, and the fact that you seem to think cigarette smoke is enough of a problem to warrant legislation, is [I]this[/I] form of unavoidable toxin a cause for further legislation?
[QUOTE=Lankist;36467556]Right.
it isn't my shit to worry about.
it isn't the government's shit to worry about.
it's yours and yours alone.
You handle your own shit and leave everyone else to theirs.
[editline]24th June 2012[/editline]
Also please find one case of lung cancer outside of the lab directly tied to second hand smoke.[/QUOTE]
A girl I directly knew died from lung cancer recently. She never touched a cigarette of her entire life but her boyfriend had been smoking in her presence for the 6 or so years they spent together.
[editline]24th June 2012[/editline]
Also when I was younger my lungs were severely damaged and my throat was obstruated because my father was regularly smoking while I was near him, for instance in a car when he was driving me home from school.
[editline]24th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lankist;36467584]Carbon emissions from cars have similar effects, and the concentration of toxins from car exhaust in ambient, urban air is [I]far greater[/I] than cigarette smoke.
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/conditions/exhaust_emissions.shtml[/url]
That as a given, and the fact that you seem to think cigarette smoke is enough of a problem to warrant legislation, is [I]this[/I] form of unavoidable toxin a cause for further legislation?[/QUOTE]
Actually yeah Carbon emissions are currently being legislated more to try and lower them because it's bad for our health. At least in France it is.
Oh and because there is already something poisoning the air doesn't mean you have a right to poison it even more.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;36467587]A girl I directly knew died from lung cancer recently. She never touched a cigarette of her entire life but her boyfriend had been smoking in her presence for the 6 or so years they spent together.[/QUOTE]
Lung cancer occurs spontaneously at relatively high rates compared to other cancers.
Also, anecdotes are disallowed here.
[quote]In any real debate, your personal experience regarding an issue is not evidence of anything...[Anecdotes] will not advance debate forward, so from this point such posting will be bannable. The thread title's been marked updated with today's date, so there's no excuse to have not read this.[/quote]
Either find a case which has been scientifically confirmed to be directly linked with the inhalation of second-hand smoke, or stop making claims.
[editline]24th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;36467587]Oh and because there is already something poisoning the air doesn't mean you have a right to poison it even more.[/QUOTE]
So then why are you using electronic devices running on likely either coal or nuclear power? Those guys have been doing [I]nasty[/I] things to the atmosphere.
Are you willing to stop using electricity for luxuries to avoid poisoning the air?
[QUOTE=Lankist;36467599]Lung cancer occurs spontaneously at relatively high rates compared to other cancers.
Also, anecdotes are disallowed here.
Either find a case which has been scientifically confirmed to be directly linked with the inhalation of second-hand smoke, or stop making claims.[/QUOTE]
Okay then
[url]http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS[/url]
[quote]Inhaling secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults (4, 5). Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke (2). The U.S. Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent (4).[/quote]
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;36467587]Also when I was younger my lungs were severely damaged and my throat was obstruated because my father was regularly smoking while I was near him, for instance in a car when he was driving me home from school.[/QUOTE]
Stop making anecdotes.
Stop pulling facts out of your anal cavity.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36467584]Carbon emissions from cars have similar effects, and the concentration of toxins from car exhaust in ambient, urban air is [I]far greater[/I] than cigarette smoke.
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/conditions/exhaust_emissions.shtml[/url]
That as a given, and the fact that you seem to think cigarette smoke is enough of a problem to warrant legislation, is [I]this[/I] form of unavoidable toxin a cause for further legislation?[/QUOTE]
True. But pretty much nobody would consent to abandoning cars altogether because there is [I]so[/I] much mutual gain involved. I think almost everyone would rather pollute the air than abandon cars.
I'm definitely not implying there should be legislation opposing public smoking. I don't see any problem as long as you're not essentially forcing someone to inhale your smoke. But when that happens, it's coercive. You're at least entitled to defending yourself if someone's forcing you to inhale their smoke.
And I [I]don't[/I] think it warrants legislation; I'm an anarchist. I'm just respecting the notion that some instances of public smoking can be coercive.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;36467609]Okay then
[url]http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS[/url][/QUOTE]
That does not tie any of those 3,000 deaths directly to second-hand smoke.
In fact, 3,000 lethal cases of lung-cancer is about par-for-the-course for spontaneous cases.
[editline]24th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;36467623]Stop pulling facts out of your anal cavity.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://lungcancer.about.com/od/whatislungcancer/a/lungcancernonsmokers.htm[/url]
Causes of spontaneous lung cancer outside of smoke:
[B] Radon – Exposure to radon gas in our homes is the leading cause of lung cancer in non-smokers.[/B]
Asbestos exposure – Exposure to asbestos on the job is an important cause of mesothelioma, a cancer of the lung lining.
Aerosolized oils caused by cooking – Fumes from wok cooking are considered an important cause of lung cancer in women in Asian countries.
Other environmental exposures
Other occupational exposures
Genetic predisposition - Individuals with a family history of lung cancer are more likely to develop lung cancer themselves.
Human papillomavirus (HPV) - HPV has been found in lung cancer cells, but whether this indicates it is a cause of lung cancer is still unknown.
[B]Radon is the leading cause of lung cancer in non-smokers.[/B] What are you doing about [I]Radon?[/I]
[editline]24th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36467625]True. But pretty much nobody would consent to abandoning cars altogether because there is [I]so[/I] much mutual gain involved. I think almost everyone would rather pollute the air than abandon cars.[/QUOTE]
Oh, so now convenience trumps health?
Majority does not rule. Just because lots of people would be pissed does not mean those people are right.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36467627]That does not tie any of those 3,000 deaths directly to second-hand smoke.
In fact, 3,000 lethal cases of lung-cancer is about par-for-the-course for spontaneous cases.[/QUOTE]
Going by this logic you can pretty much just discredit any possible statistic ever.
Would this study have to reveal the name of those 3000 dead people just to make you believe it ?
Even if secondhand smoke does not cause cancer (which it does), then it's still extremely poisonous and damaging. There is a reason it's badly seen to smoke near children.
Stop denying the fact cigarettes are highly toxic for other people than you.
I never said SHS isn't harmful. I said it isn't the biggest issue.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;36467651][url]http://lungcancer.about.com/od/whatislungcancer/a/lungcancernonsmokers.htm[/url]
Causes of spontaneous lung cancer outside of smoke:
[B] Radon – Exposure to radon gas in our homes is the leading cause of lung cancer in non-smokers.[/B]
...
[B]Radon is the leading cause of lung cancer in non-smokers.[/B] What are you doing about [I]Radon?[/I][/QUOTE]
Should we ban the use of Radon?
[QUOTE=Lankist;36467627]
Oh, so now convenience trumps health?
Majority does not rule. Just because lots of people would be pissed does not mean those people are right.[/QUOTE]
It's not an immediate consequence but here those people ARE right. I'm sorry to say but a thousand anonymous people's health is worth more than a single anonymous guy's.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;36467668]It's not an immediate consequence but here those people ARE right. I'm sorry to say but a thousand anonymous people's health is worth more than a single anonymous guy's.[/QUOTE]
For the third time:
What about Radon?
I'm not even going to bother answering this question because it's just a bad rhetoric question that does not deserve to be answered.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36467627]Oh, so now convenience trumps health?
Majority does not rule. Just because lots of people would be pissed does not mean those people are right.[/QUOTE]
No, I agree. I'm saying consent trumps everything else. I think [I]every[/I] rational person would consent to cars, if they understood the implications of abandoning them.
I don't think majority rules. I don't think there should be [I]any[/I] legislation. I'm just appreciating the fact that you are a member of society and you can't just pretend that every man is an island because like it or not, a great many of your actions have the capacity to impede wrongful, physically coercive restrictions on someone. This doesn't necessitate the state or anything, I'm just saying it is what it is. Coercion is what's wrong with the state, and it's what's wrong with [I]certain[/I] instances of public smoking ([I]certainly[/I] not all of them, that's not even what I'm beginning to argue).
If your selfishness is forcing someone to inhale your smoke, they should be entitled to forcibly stop you, if you refuse to desist. No-one's self-interest should impede anyone else's coercively.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;36467684]I'm not even going to bother answering this question because it's just a bad rhetoric question that does not deserve to be answered.[/QUOTE]
"Bad rhetoric?"
Radon exposure causes MORE deaths than second-hand smoke is even liberally estimated.
SHS is estimated to cause 3,000 deaths annually in the U.S.
[url=http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/radon]15,000 to 22,000 lung cancer deaths in the United States each year are related to radon.[/url]
That is upward of [B]seven times[/B] the estimated SHS deaths.
I'd say it's a valid fucking concern that you seem content to fucking ignore.
[editline]24th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36467701]No, I agree. I'm saying consent trumps everything else. I think [I]every[/I] rational person would consent to cars, if they understood the implications of abandoning them.[/QUOTE]
I don't consent.
I think everyone should ride bikes.
I understand the implications and I think the long-term conservation of our environment is worth it.
So why do I not matter here?
[QUOTE=Lankist;36467706]"Bad rhetoric?"
Radon exposure causes MORE deaths than second-hand smoke is even liberally estimated.
SHS is estimated to cause 3,000 deaths annually in the U.S.
[url=http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/radon]15,000 to 22,000 lung cancer deaths in the United States each year are related to radon.[/url]
That is upward of [B]seven times[/B] the estimated SHS deaths.
I'd say it's a valid fucking concern that you seem content to fucking ignore.[/QUOTE]
Maybe because it's not even close to the point of the entire debate ?
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;36467714]Maybe because it's not even close to the point of the entire debate ?[/QUOTE]
For the fourth time:
Would you be for legislating bans on Radon-emitting objects? (i.e. nuclear power stations whose radioactive materials seep into the water table and cause [B]22,000 deaths annually.[/B]
[QUOTE=Lankist;36467723]For the fourth time:
Would you be for legislating bans on Radon-emitting objects?[/QUOTE]
I don't know, I don't think about it, this is not the point of the debate, stop trying to detail it.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;36467737]I don't know, I don't think about it, this is not the point of the debate, stop trying to detail it.[/QUOTE]
I'm not de-railing anything.
Your argument is that public safety is paramount.
I'm asking you if your electricity and luxury products are worth 15,000-22,000 lives every year. You don't [I]need[/I] them.
Because if the answer is yes, then how are 3,000 lives important but 22,000 are trivial?
[QUOTE=Lankist;36467747]I'm not de-railing anything.
Your argument is that public safety is paramount.
I'm asking you if your electricity and luxury products are worth 15,000-22,000 lives every year. You don't [I]need[/I] them.
Because if the answer is yes, then how are 3,000 lives important but 22,000 are trivial?[/QUOTE]
You weren't even patient enough to wait for me to answer the question before you give the final rhetoric question supposed to tip off my entire point. Good job, you ruined your own argument.
The debate is about people being public nuisance, and about how we can prevent them from being so. It's not about some poisonous material, it's not about cancer, it's about you smokers being a nuisance in the public place because you are smoking and impeding coercive restrictions on other people, restrictions that come from the fact you are emitting smoke that is not only inconvenient, but also highly toxic and health damaging.
It's because some people like you are entitled to the point they think they possibly have a right to dominate the public place by impeding physical restrictions through smoking and that it's other people's god damn fault if they are annoyed by YOUR smoke that we need legislation.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;36467782]The debate is about people being public nuisance, and about how we can prevent them from being so. It's not about some poisonous material, it's not about cancer, it's about you smokers being a nuisance in the public place because you are smoking and impeding coercive restrictions on other people, restrictions that come from the fact you are emitting smoke that is not only inconvenient, but also highly toxic and health damaging.[/QUOTE]
Oh, so it's not about health or safety, it's about you being a crotchety old man telling people to get off your lawn.
Newsflash: You can't legislate your own fucking comfort. You aren't that god damn important.
Either answer the question or stop pretending you give a shit about people's health.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36467799]Oh, so it's not about health or safety, it's about you being a crotchety old man telling people to get off your lawn.
Newsflash: You can't legislate your own fucking comfort.[/QUOTE]
What freaking lawn, we are talking about the public place, the god damn street where everyone has to walk. It's a place that's supposed to be used by everyone with as much comfort and as less danger as possible. If your smoke makes the public place less convenient and more dangerous for so much people, then it has to be banned from there.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.