[Bobboau]

well how about this I drive a car, it produces polution, polution that emitts carcagens into the atmosphere comperable to tobaco smoke in concentrations large enough to effect the global ecology in just 50 years of major use, does anyone sudgest banning cars?
well yes, but they are generaly consitered nuts.

[Jetmech Jr.]

Cars, at least, have an important use.

There are no important uses for Cigarettes. Not one.

[Bobboau]

other than enjoying yourself.

and now that I think of it, I seem to recall something about a study that found smokers had a massily reduced rate of... some nurological disorder... lue gehrig's maybe

[WMCoolmon]

Originally posted by Bobboau
well how about this I drive a car, it produces polution, polution that emitts carcagens into the atmosphere comperable to tobaco smoke in concentrations large enough to effect the global ecology in just 50 years of major use, does anyone sudgest banning cars?
well yes, but they are generaly consitered nuts.

That's because you can have cleaner-burning cars. You just need cleaner electric plants.

Cars are also used by pretty much everyone in the US and serve a useful function.

[Bobboau]

so? I'm doing something that is detromental to other people.

[WMCoolmon]

I think you've entered into 'practical morality.'

While, ideally, it'd be possible to have cars and not realease harmful gases, it's not happening - because it's cheaper to produce stinky, smelly cars.

I can see why you'd own a car -  it can get you a lot of places, fast. But why smoke? Why should it be allowed any more than starting fires in restraunts or public places?

[Bobboau]

becase you like doing it

and I feel I'm going to have to dig up an article about perceptions of morality soon.

[Jetmech Jr.]

Originally posted by Bobboau
other than enjoying yourself.

and now that I think of it, I seem to recall something about a study that found smokers had a massily reduced rate of... some nurological disorder... lue gehrig's maybe

Nope. Cigarettes produce no 'feel good' reaction. They make you stressed and irritable when you don't have it, and bring you back to normal levels when you do take it. This comes only AFTER you're addicted.

1. I doubt that second part.
2. Even if it's true, the detrimental effects of cigarettes FAR outweigh these 'positive' effects.

[Bobboau]

"Even if it's true, the detrimental effects of cigarettes FAR outweigh these 'positive' effects."

yes, I wassn't asserting that they were good for you, just that there were one or two pebles of good things to go along with the vast mountan of bad things.

the point is the people want to do it, why they want to do it is not our concern.

[Jetmech Jr.]

I don't care why they want to do it. What I want, is for them to stop that disgusting, dangerous habit around me when I go out to public places.

[Stealth]

Originally posted by Bobboau
so? I'm doing something that is detromental to other people.

Bob:  never, ever light a fire.  in fact, never cook food, because fires produce carbon monoxide, which is deadly to man.  

see where this is going?  why not ban all plastics, because plastic is bad for the environment.


EDIT:  bob, i just realized... you're arguing in favor of cigarette-smoking.  this is unbelievable *shakes head*... i never thought i'd see the day :-/

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Stealth

yup, i'm blind.

i just wish i could see how obese people (thanks to fast food) are slowly killing each and every one of us

noooooot.  face it.  you're looking at two completely different issues:  one one side of the ring we have people's choice, that affects their lives.  on the other side we have people's choice, that affects their lives, but also the lives of people that are around when they smoke.  hardly comparable...

...



I never thought people could be this dense. You didn't even get what I was saying.

[FireCrack]

Stealth.. ask yourself.

Has your life's work been a fools crusade?

[WMCoolmon]

Small group A wants to smoke and are willing to accept shorter lives as a consequence.
Larger group B wants to live long, healthy lives.

Whose right to live life as they want it is more important? Is it group A? Or is it groups B? Because that's really what you're making it come down to. If the government doesn't allow smoking, it is denying that liberty to group A. If the government does allow smoking, it is denying group B the liberty to live smoke-free.

the point is the people want to do it, why they want to do it is not our concern.

If someone is in such bad health that they can't survive nicotine withdrawal, that's a whole lot different than some kid who wants to smoke just to piss off his parents. When you have two groups who want things that are pretty much exclusively different, you have to look at the reasons behind why people want what they do so that you can at least make an effort at compromising. Otherwise, the majority will constantly win out due to simple practicality because a government that becomes deadlocked over every decision, simply because of a dissenting minority, will not get anything done. (See the US government before the constitution, the 'Articles of Confederation' one IIRC)
The only real way to compromise is to give both groups roughly equal amounts of what they want. Otherwise, it's not a compromise.
Thus, if you see that most people who smoke would most like to do so at home, and most people who don't want to deal with smoke usually find it in restraunts, you might end up with a bill similar to the above. Neither group's rights would really be fulfilled, but they would be protected.

If you look at things from moral point of view - on the one hand. a person can help kill themself as well as all nearby people, help the economy a little, and maybe get a little pleasure out of it.
On the other hand, you can not help kill all of said people, buy something else to help the economy (or donate to charity), and maybe get a little pleasure out of that.
I think for most moral codes, hastening another person's death is generally at the top of the "not-to-do" list.

[Stealth]

Originally posted by Tiara

...



I never thought people could be this dense. You didn't even get what I was saying.

EDIT:  not going to say anything i'll regret.

so please, if i don't get what you were saying, explain what you were trying to say.  as far as i could tell you were saying:

1) fast food is another problem we should worry about, because thanks to advertising and availability, everyone's subject to it

2) society has far worse problems than cigarette smoking to worry about.

right?  what am i missing.

thx

[aldo_14]

It's better to tackle at least some of the problems than tackle none, though.

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Stealth


EDIT:  not going to say anything i'll regret.

so please, if i don't get what you were saying, explain what you were trying to say.  as far as i could tell you were saying:

1) fast food is another problem we should worry about, because thanks to advertising and availability, everyone's subject to it

2) society has far worse problems than cigarette smoking to worry about.

right?  what am i missing.

thx

Then, I apologize. It's just that your last reply didn't exactly convey a sense of understanding about what I was trying to say.

In any case, I am not saying it's bad that they are fighting public smoking because as Aldo said, it's bnetter to fight some problems then none. However, I find it completely hypocritical that this is made such a big issue that far, far, FAR bigger problems are simply... forgotten. Or at the very least disregarded.

Example;

"OH NO! PUBLIC SMOKING! GET OUT OF MY FACE!!!!1111oneoneone"

*jumps in the car to go 2 streets further*

That is the kind of **** that makes me angry. In that little distance that person drove, he produced more toxic gasses then 50 smokers combined while just as easily one could've taken a bike or *SHOCK* walk there.

I'm not against banning public smoking, I'm just against the fact that it overshadows far greater problems.

I hope this makes my point a bit clearer.

[Stealth]

OK in that case let me tackle both points (see my previous post)


1)  i understand what you're saying about fast food.  you're saying that advertising has made fast food so available, and seems so enticing, that it makes it a lot easier for people to become obese (obesity becoming one of the nation's largest (pun intended ) problems).  i agree with you, it's a shame that nothing's really being done about that (on a side note, have you watched Super Size Me?  if not, i recommend it, it puts things in perspective, also i think it was an awakening call for a lot of people and companies), but you've got to understand where they're coming from.  While fast food is a problem, you've got to understand what perspective people are looking at smoking from:  while fast food is a danger to society, it's not a physical danger, as is smoking... you've got to sympathize with them.  

2)  cars, yes, the biggest problem to mankind, and i actually agree with you.  since i started college, very often if it's a nice day and the forecast is good, i'll leave an hour earlier, and ride my bike there... there's nothing wrong with walking/bicycling, and college has taught me that.  i've driven my car less and less unless it's crucial, or i'm late, or whatever.  although think about it:  no one's banning smoking OUTSIDE... someone can step outside anywhere and smoke, but cars aren't allowed to be run in-doors (no they're really not, it's illegal), or if they are, it has to be a ventilated area to specification.  so while car fumes are damaging the environment a lot, they're not damaging people as much.  people aren't forced to eat, work, or socialize with car fumes floating around, but they are with cigarette smoke, you see what i'm saying?

although i agree that car pollution is a big problem, that should be tackled as hard as cigarette smoking.  car pollution's come a long way, since the EPA's introduction of emission standards in the 70s, and then toughening them through the 80s to today, where if you compare and contrast the contaminants a car outputs to a car 50 years ago, you'll be amazed (i remember reading somewhere a long, long time ago that a V8 idling for 10 seconds puts out more pollution damaging the environment than someone smoking 12 boxes of cigarettes, or some crazy number like that.  it made it seem that cigarettes damage humans more than they damage the environment) but even so, pollution IS a big problem, that should be tackled in some way...  but cars are rooted so deep in society, there's no way they'll ever be removed.  you can't remove something that every member in society relies on, from kids all the way to the retired :-/  sad, but true

EDIT:  taking automechanics makes you realize just how much pollutant a car puts out.  just a LITTLE fine-tuning, and a car can put out levels over twice as high... and we all know that not every car driving down the highway is perfectly tuned :-/

[Bobboau]

my point with the cars was that someone smoking twenty feet away from you is produceing less nasy gasses than a car idleing at the same distance. the health effects of banning smoking are going to be lets say four months more life, when your getting five to ten years cut off becase of polution from cars, the effects are relitivly negigable and as such they do not copnstitute the neseity of violateing a persons right to make a choice for themselves.

I am not arguing in favor of smokeing I am arguing against restricting someone elses rights becase you are uncomfortable with them.

there is no unavoidable situation were your health will be seriosly impacted with regards to smoking.

[Stealth]

well see, you could say that cars are only running outdoors, where there's plenty of ventilation (to take the harmful fumes up into the atmosphere, to damage it there )... but smoking is indoors a lot, where you can't get away from it.  there's people smoking in the cubicle next to you at work, on the elevator on the way down, sitting in the subway station, sitting in the subway with you, etc.  you know?