Smoking outside in Vietnam to be banned by May 2013
92 replies, posted
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36428182]How does a child have a choice to stay away from religious parents? How does a child have a choice to stay away from racist parents?
Are you going to make these things illegal because the child doesn't have a choice in the matter?[/QUOTE]
While I'm conflicted on the subject of banning public smoking, neither of those things physically hurt the child, and if a parent does physically hurt their child then social services usually come and take the kid away.
[editline]21st June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Cypher_09;36427496]Because we all know how restricting civil liberties goes, right?
[img]http://www.darkhorizons.com/assets/0012/5153/capone_article.jpg?1284477476[/img][/QUOTE]
They're not banning the sale of them so Al Capone is irrelevant.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36428182]How does a child have a choice to stay away from religious parents? How does a child have a choice to stay away from racist parents?
Are you going to make these things illegal because the child doesn't have a choice in the matter?[/QUOTE]
except racism won't give the child lung cancer.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;36428365]Are you serious? Second hand smoking is harmful and smokers should respect non-smokers, not vice versa.[/QUOTE]
If the person has asthma, yea. If not, then it's not really harmful.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36428377]While I'm conflicted on the subject of banning public smoking, neither of those things physically hurt the child, and if a parent does physically hurt their child then social services usually come and take the kid away.
[/QUOTE]
What about feeding the child unhealthy food? That can cause long term health effects.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36428438]If the person has asthma, yea. If not, then it's not really harmful.
[/QUOTE]
oh really, so causing damage to the lungs of people who haven't chosen to smoke purely because you can't keep it in your own home is not harmful?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36427697]Secondhand smoke is a choice. You totally have the choice to be near a smoker or not.[/quote]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion[/url]
[quote]Also, it isn't like it is going to hurt you.[/quote]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking#Risk_to_children[/url]
[quote]But no, we gotta ban things because you are too much of a child to tolerate anything that goes contrary to your tiny, ignorant world view.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black[/url]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36428438]
What about feeding the child unhealthy food? That can cause long term health effects.[/QUOTE]
I'm fairly sure making your child obese is counted as child abuse, or should be any way.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36428438]If the person has asthma, yea. If not, then it's not really harmful.[/QUOTE]
Wrong.
[quote][b]In adults:[/b]
ETS (environmental tobacco smoke, passive smoking) is a human lung carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in U.S. nonsmokers. ETS has been classified as a Group A carcinogen under EPA's carcinogen assessment guidelines. This classification is reserved for those compounds or mixtures which have been shown to cause cancer in humans, based on studies in human populations.
[b]In children:[/b]
ETS exposure increases the risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. EPA estimates that between 150,000 and 300,000 of these cases annually in infants and young children up to 18 months of age are attributable to exposure to ETS. Of these, between 7,500 and 15,000 will result in hospitalization.
ETS exposure increases the prevalence of fluid in the middle ear, a sign of chronic middle ear disease.
ETS exposure in children irritates the upper respiratory tract and is associated with a small but significant reduction in lung function.
ETS exposure increases the frequency of episodes and severity of symptoms in asthmatic children. The report estimates that 200,000 to 1,000,000 asthmatic children have their condition worsened by exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.
ETS exposure is a risk factor for new cases of asthma in children who have not previously displayed symptoms.[/quote]
Source: [url]http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/etsfs.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;36428365]Are you serious? Second hand smoking is harmful and smokers should respect non-smokers, not vice versa.[/QUOTE]
Everyone should respect everyone.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36428438]If the person has asthma, yea. If not, then it's not really harmful.
What about feeding the child unhealthy food? That can cause long term health effects.[/QUOTE]
Repeat: They are not prohibiting it, just in public outdoor places. People are still free to smoke in their homes, just like you can consume alcohol in your home but not in a public place.
So wait would this stop people from being allowed to smoke on their own property if its outside? I understand not being allowed to smoke in public areas, but if I'm right (I have no idea if I am) then this is taking it a little too far in my opinion
[QUOTE=gudman;36428529]Everyone should respect everyone.[/QUOTE]
No, a non-smoker shouldn't be forced to be exposed to second hand smoke in a public area.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36428475]
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking#Risk_to_children[/URL]
[/QUOTE]
Some of those citations aren't working, others aren't scientific sources. I am finding good stuff on asthma, but I never really contested that.
Not to mention most of the studies used are taking into account smoking in confined areas. I want to see a study that shows causation from secondhand smoke primarily from people smoking outside.
[QUOTE=gudman;36427714]Some people smell bad as they are. Not an argument, really.[/QUOTE]
There's a big difference between a disgusting scent of sweat and manliness and a disgusting and nocive smell of smoke.
[QUOTE=gudman;36427714]No one was ever addicted through secondhand smoking.[/QUOTE]
Uh, looks like you never met anyone living in a smoker house. A friend of mine has a father who smokes in his house and despite his will not to touch a cigarette ever, he's always tempted now.
Also we already had and still have cases of lung cancer related to secondhand smoking, mostly because of the period when people were allowed to smoke indoors.
I'm a smoker myself, but I've got to admit it's a bad habit and we shouldn't bother people with it. I like it, but I'm not going to force it down other people's noses.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;36428597]No, a non-smoker shouldn't be forced to be exposed to second hand smoke in a public area.[/QUOTE]
That's not what respect is. My respect to you (as a nonsmoker) would be expressed by not smoking anywhere near you, especially, when asked to. Your respect to me (as a smoker) would be expressed by asking me to move further away, if I was careless to not pay enough attention.
[QUOTE=-Get_A_Life-;36428701]There's a big difference between a disgusting scent of sweat and manliness and a disgusting and nocive smell of smoke.
Uh, looks like you never met anyone living in a smoker house. A friend of mine has a father who smokes in his house and despite his will not to touch a cigarette ever, he's always tempted now.
Also we already had and still have cases of lung cancer related to secondhand smoking, mostly because of the period when people were allowed to smoke indoors.
I'm a smoker myself, but I've got to admit it's a bad habit and we shouldn't bother people with it. I like it, but I'm not going to force it down other people's noses.[/QUOTE]
1. Yes, the reason is called "perception". I always preffered the smell of cigarette smoke myself, and hated scent of sweat.
2. Curiosity, not a physical addiction. I myself lived in a smoker house, and I know it's mostly curiosity.
3. Same here.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36428681]Some of those citations aren't working, others aren't scientific sources. I am finding good stuff on asthma, but I never really contested that.
Not to mention most of the studies used are taking into account smoking in confined areas. I want to see a study that shows causation from secondhand smoke primarily from people smoking outside.[/QUOTE]
I'd rather hear your theory on why inhaling carcenogenic smoke isn't harmful when it's done outdoors.
[QUOTE=gudman;36428755]That's not what respect is. My respect to you (as a nonsmoker) would be expressed by not smoking anywhere near you, especially, when asked to. Your respect to me (as a smoker) would be expressed by asking me to move further away, if I was careless to not pay enough attention.[/QUOTE]
And this combats my point how? You basically repeated what I said; non-smokers shouldn't have to ask smokers to smoke elsewhere, smokers should do this by default.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36427697]Secondhand smoke is a choice. You totally have the choice to be near a smoker or not. Also, it isn't like it is going to hurt you.
But no, we gotta ban things because you are too much of a child to tolerate anything that goes contrary to your tiny, ignorant world view.[/QUOTE]
It wasn't my choice when my mom smoked while she was pregnant leading to me being stuck with asthma. Sure I could of asked my parents to not smoke in the car or in the house when I'm around it, but that wouldn't really been a good idea at the time
Why is second hand smoke such a big fucking deal, I don't smoke but personally enjoy the smell of cigarette smoke on occasion. This thread is full of wimps.
Have any of you even been to a bonfire, you're breathing in a lot more smoke than somebody smoking a cigarette next to you.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;36428759]I'd rather hear your theory on why inhaling carcenogenic smoke isn't harmful when it's done outdoors.[/QUOTE]
I don't have to say anything. Burden of proof falls on the person making the claim.
[QUOTE=GhettoGeek;36428771]It wasn't my choice when my mom smoked while she was pregnant leading to me being stuck with asthma. Sure I could of asked my parents to not smoke in the car or in the house when I'm around it, but that wouldn't really been a good idea at the time[/QUOTE]
I'm not talking about confined areas or smoking while pregnant ffs.
It's like I am saying "Marijuana should be legal" and you are saying "OMFG drugs are bad meth killed my mom!!!"
I'm not fucking talking about what you are talking about, you are trying to skirt the issue because you don't have ability to back up your stupid point of view.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36428825]I don't have to say anything. Burden of proof falls on the person making the claim.[/QUOTE]
You made the claim that passive smoking isn't harmful in post #19.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36428681]Some of those citations aren't working, others aren't scientific sources. I am finding good stuff on asthma, but I never really contested that.
Not to mention most of the studies used are taking into account smoking in confined areas. I want to see a study that shows causation from secondhand smoke primarily from people smoking outside.[/QUOTE]
Okay!
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBbQX3Rsu4o[/media]
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;36428866]You made the claim that passive smoking isn't harmful in post #19.[/QUOTE]
Yea, so you have to provide proof that it does cause harm because you are making the claim it [i]does[/i] cause harm.
I don't have to prove a negative.
Scientific literacy, you should learn it.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36428825]I don't have to say anything. Burden of proof falls on the person making the claim.[/QUOTE]
No, it's on the person proposing a hypothesis with a low prior probability.
[QUOTE=retroboy4;36428811]Why is second hand smoke such a big fucking deal, I don't smoke but personally enjoy the smell of cigarette smoke on occasion. This thread is full of wimps.[/QUOTE]
No one should have to deal with getting sprayed with carcinogenic tar fumes. I don't see the point in even trying to defend smoking; it's empirically bad.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;36428759]
And this combats my point how? You basically repeated what I said; non-smokers shouldn't have to ask smokers to smoke elsewhere, smokers should do this by default.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't arguing with you. I just said that non-smokers should pay some respect too, by [b]asking[/b] if they have to. I might not know that I'm not far enough from you, or I might just not pay attention (for my own reasons).
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36428885]Yea, so you have to provide proof that it does cause harm because you are making the claim it [i]does[/i] cause harm.
I don't have to prove a negative.
Scientific literacy, you should learn it.[/QUOTE]
Funny because that sort of thinking isn't scientific, it's for debating.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36428879]Okay!
[/QUOTE]
No flashy youtube videos. Source me studies that take data primarily from secondhand smoke in parks, streets, and non-confined areas.
[QUOTE=gudman;36428755]1. Yes, the reason is called "perception". I always preffered the smell of cigarette smoke myself, and hated scent of sweat.
2. Curiosity, not a physical addiction. I myself lived in a smoker house, and I know it's mostly curiosity.
3. Same here.[/QUOTE]
1. Sweat isn't nocive, period. Not saying it's great, I think we should fine smelly people in public transportations.
2. Yeah right, just give all those scientists the middle finger, you obviously know better.
3. Glad to hear.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;36428892]No one should have to deal with getting sprayed with carcinogenic tar fumes. I don't see the point in even trying to defend smoking; it's empirically bad.[/QUOTE]
No one should have to deal with getting sprayed with carcinogenic fumes, sounds a lot like something called cars to me. Should we ban cars? They kill people too.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36428913]No flashy youtube videos. Source me studies that take data primarily from secondhand smoke in parks, streets, and non-confined areas.[/QUOTE]
The video cites the studies in the description!
[url=http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ph/youre_entitled_to_arguments_but_not_that]And besides, don't you think this is a rather unreasonable demand for evidence?[/url]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36428825]I don't have to say anything. Burden of proof falls on the person making the claim.
I'm not talking about confined areas or smoking while pregnant ffs.
It's like I am saying "Marijuana should be legal" and you are saying "OMFG drugs are bad meth killed my mom!!!"
I'm not fucking talking about what you are talking about, you are trying to skirt the issue because you don't have ability to back up your stupid point of view.[/QUOTE]
Except I agree with you that banning smoking outside is stupid, I just agree that second hand smoking is a choice
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.