Ban on smoking in public places + high cigarette tax
197 replies, posted
The "science" on second hand smoking is deceptive at best. Here's an article from a scientist in the field: [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/29/AR2007012901158.html[/url]
I understand not smoking in hospitals, but when I was a kid they had smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants and it was all good.
Second hand smoke isn't as dangerous as soccer moms would have you believe.
Smoking and eating/drinking is enjoyable, and it sucks that you would have to get up and go outside to smoke at a bar or restaurant.
[editline]24th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=econometrics;36476861]I hate when people think like you. There's a causal link between smoking and lung cancer. And it doesn't have to be 'some packs a day'. Even rather insignificant smoking quantities increase your lung cancer risk rather dramatically.[/QUOTE]
When people in aged 50-60 are smoking a pack a day and have been for 30 years with out getting lung cancer then you inhaling a tiny bit of second hand smoke will do fuck all to you.
You'd inhale way more smoke having a barbecue or a cookout, and nobody is trying to ban those.
[QUOTE=Magmacow358;36464863]Quite honestly they should just stop producing cigarettes. People can handle being grumpy for a few weeks.[/QUOTE]
Why should they stop producing cigarettes? They are making money, they don't care about the people.
I wish people would think sometimes.
[QUOTE=econometrics;36476185]He resorts to attacking the opponent[/QUOTE]
Please quote one personal attack I have made in this thread.
The "provide proof when challenged" rule applies to all claims here, even claims you people have been making against me personally rather than addressing the argument.
[QUOTE=econometrics;36476185]Reducto Ad Absurdum and Straw Man are very different things. While Reducto Ad Absurdum conserves the logical form, and therefore stays logically valid, Straw Man arguments don't. What Lankist used are Straw Man arguments mixed with Fallacies of Omission.
And in your post, you've used a Fallacy of Ambiguity.[/QUOTE]
I know they're different things... I'm just saying that often, a straw man fallacy is an attempt at reductio that goes wrong because it misstates the initial argument. That's why I said it's reductio [I]gone wrong.[/I] I didn't really dissect his argument, I'm just saying that he was attempting to use reductio, so it's up to objectors to show where it actually goes wrong, rather than saying "teehee you sound silly so I win" like most of facepunch.
I wasn't even arguing for a damn point so how could I have made a logical fallacy?!
The fact that you broskies have been arguing about [I]me[/I] rather than the [I]topic[/I] for a page and a half qualifies as a personal attack, FYI.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36479524]Please quote one personal attack I have made in this thread.
The "provide proof when challenged" rule applies to all claims here, even claims you people have been making against me personally rather than addressing the argument.[/QUOTE]
Look, anyone can just scroll up, go to previous pages, and check for themselves. You ruin every debate you enter. You see, debates aren't about showing your animal emotions, but rather constructing logical arguments. Just scroll up, go to previous pages and analyze your posts. Maybe you could learn how to argue maturely.
[QUOTE=econometrics;36480730]Look, anyone can just scroll up, go to previous pages, and check for themselves.[/QUOTE]
Then it shouldn't be very difficult for you to quote one :)
[editline]25th June 2012[/editline]
Alternatively you can post more pictures of you playing with your own shit.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36425056]Cigarette taxes aren't a deterrent, they're a high tax upon the lower class. People who are addicted don't just stop because it's expensive. You just happen to make shitloads of money exploiting their addiction.[/QUOTE]
This is accurate.
In most places that I know of in the US, anytime the govt. needs more revenue they hike taxes on cigarettes. We, the smokers, carry a lot of the tax burden.
I'd love to see what would happen if all the smokers quit and then the govt. had to look elsewhere for their bloated revenue. The smoke bashers would not be as happy as they think they would be.
[QUOTE=cledussnow;36497506]This is accurate.
In most places that I know of in the US, anytime the govt. needs more revenue they hike taxes on cigarettes. We, the smokers, carry a lot of the tax burden.
I'd love to see what would happen if all the smokers quit and then the govt. had to look elsewhere for their bloated revenue. The smoke bashers would not be as happy as they think they would be.[/QUOTE]
Which is horrible because smokers are addicted and usually poor.
[QUOTE=zakedodead;36502485]Which is horrible because smokers are addicted and usually poor.[/QUOTE]
Even beyond that, they are doing a completely legal action and are being punished for it.
I don't smoke and think it's an absolutely disgusting habit, but I think it's equally disgusting that we treat smokers like second class citizens.
[QUOTE=zakedodead;36502485]Which is horrible because smokers are addicted [B]and usually poor[/B].[/QUOTE]
What? Why do you say that? I know plenty of 'rich' smokers.. Source me this.
[QUOTE=Robbi;36514031]What? Why do you say that? I know plenty of 'rich' smokers.. Source me this.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/american-smokers-and-income-charted/[/url]
[img]http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/03/20/us/032008smoking1.jpg[/img]
Wealth is statistically correlated to likelihood of smoking. People below the poverty line are over twice as likely to be smokers than the highest income brackets. The trend indicates that the wealthier you are, the less likely you are to smoke.
[editline]27th June 2012[/editline]
Also another article on smoking among poor black communities:
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/20/health/20tobacco.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=smoking+and+income&st=nyt[/url]
People illegally selling individual cigarettes because the buyers can't afford a full pack due to the extremely high tax rates. They do not stop smoking, they merely find alternate (illegal) means of acquiring cigarettes.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36516287][URL]http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/american-smokers-and-income-charted/[/URL]
Wealth is statistically correlated to likelihood of smoking. People below the poverty line are over twice as likely to be smokers than the highest income brackets. The trend indicates that the wealthier you are, the less likely you are to smoke.
[editline]27th June 2012[/editline]
Also another article on smoking among poor black communities:
[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/20/health/20tobacco.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=smoking+and+income&st=nyt[/URL]
People illegally selling individual cigarettes because the buyers can't afford a full pack due to the extremely high tax rates. They do not stop smoking, they merely find alternate (illegal) means of acquiring cigarettes.[/QUOTE]
Probably because the rich ones can afford high quality cocaine instead. The only places where smoking should be banned are areas with a high chance of children being around like parks or outside schools. People should be able to smoke while walking down the street and a bar/restaurant owner should be allowed to let people smoke on their property as long as they also provide a smoke free area.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;36516636]People should be able to smoke while walking down the street and a bar/restaurant owner should be allowed to let people smoke on their property as long as they also provide a smoke free area.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. Keep the area well-ventilated, and have a dividing wall. I don't see why that's no longer allowed, and hopefully it's something we can overturn at some point.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.