Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Let smokers smoke.

Page 14 of 24 [ 383 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 ... 24  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

25 Aug 2011, 5:09 pm

Tequila wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
If you can deal with the almost inevitability of lung problems you can deal with the great outdoors.


You do know that the lungs they put on the back of cigarette packets aren't smokers lungs? They're the lungs of a coal miner.


That is relevant how? Are you going to pretend that smoke isn't bad for you? Come on man. I support free choice but don't get tedious


Tequila wrote:
I'm sure that smoking doesn't do a lot of good, but then smokers know this anyway. They take the risk. And I would suspect that lung disease is far less of an issue than is being thought (i.e. smoking is being put down as a possible cause when it could also not be that too).


You're preaching to the choir. But that risk is theirs to take it should not be forced on others. Would you smoke in a room with children? I wouldn't. Asides the obvious damage smoke does to lungs it stinks everything up. I HATE smoking in doors for this reason- I don't like all my clothes stinking like smoke. Who does?

Cancer is not the only thing you can get. My aunt has been smoking for 50 years and she developed emphysema. It can also cause heart problems and stroke.
If a person goes through their life smoking and gets a lung disease and they are not working in a coal or asbestos mine, chances are very good it is because of the smoking. Though I'm not really sure where we're going here :lol:


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Last edited by Vigilans on 25 Aug 2011, 5:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

25 Aug 2011, 5:14 pm

Vigilans wrote:
That is relevant how? Are you going to pretend that smoke isn't bad for you?


I feel it's relevant for two reasons:

a) Smokers aren't going to listen/will get irritated with the constant brickbats, which any case have been proved not to have been working. See here (http://dickpuddlecote.blogspot.com/2011/08/was-it-all-worth-it.html). I wouldn't want to be made to feel like a murderer every time I have a pint so I understand it from that perspective.
b) It's an outright lie. Smokers' lungs could never look like that - they're black.

I'm not going to pretend that smoking is good for you, but it doesn't make the anti-smoking lot look good when it's shown that they lie so often.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

25 Aug 2011, 5:18 pm

Dude... I smoked a lot and it left black tar stains on my teeth. How can you possibly state that it cannot stain your lungs black?


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

25 Aug 2011, 5:31 pm

Vigilans wrote:
Dude... I smoked a lot and it left black tar stains on my teeth. How can you possibly state that it cannot stain your lungs black?


Because different parts of the body have different reactions. The black lung disease is related to coal miners who have inhaled coal dust particles for many, many years. That would do far more damage than smoking could. Not that I'm claiming that smoking is strictly a good thing to the body in itself but there are lots of other ways in which it can be healthy. Socially, and to the mind.

Anyway, as I pointed out in the link earlier, it's clearly not working because the smokers ignore it or find ways round not having to see it.

Quote:
Cancer is not the only thing you can get. My aunt has been smoking for 50 years and she developed emphysema. It can also cause heart problems and stroke.


How old was she when she started smoking?



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

25 Aug 2011, 6:15 pm

Tequila wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Dude... I smoked a lot and it left black tar stains on my teeth. How can you possibly state that it cannot stain your lungs black?


Because different parts of the body have different reactions. The black lung disease is related to coal miners who have inhaled coal dust particles for many, many years. That would do far more damage than smoking could. Not that I'm claiming that smoking is strictly a good thing to the body in itself but there are lots of other ways in which it can be healthy. Socially, and to the mind.

Anyway, as I pointed out in the link earlier, it's clearly not working because the smokers ignore it or find ways round not having to see it.

Quote:
Cancer is not the only thing you can get. My aunt has been smoking for 50 years and she developed emphysema. It can also cause heart problems and stroke.


How old was she when she started smoking?


Actually to be fair, it was more of a brownish stain. But still, tar does stain. It begins as a yellowish color that eventually darkens. It was definitely dishonest of the companies to put pictures of "black lung lungs" (for lack of a better description). I have seen actual pictures of smoker lungs and they aren't exactly "black" but they are certainly discolored. Asbestos lung disease is also quite devastating.

You have no idea how thrilled I was after going to the dentist shortly after quitting and finding those tar stains were gone from my teeth. I really thought I'd have to live with them forever. Unlike the black lung or asbestos lung your lungs are capable of removing the tar in some time. I think it was seven years or something. Not entirely sure, or if that is even true. But after I quit smoking my lung capacity definitely increased

As to my aunt I figure she was 13 when she started as she is 63 now. Still smoking despite the emphysema...


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

25 Aug 2011, 8:37 pm

Vigilans wrote:
Tequila wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
When I hear smokers complain about having to go outside I think to myself "Man the f**k up"


So you'd be quite happy to have to go outside in the driving, freezing rain every time you wanted a cigarette? You're paying over the odds for this as an experience, remember.



Yep, no problem from me. As I stated I was a chain smoker and I had no problem going out in -25C or worse, blizzards, freezing rain, whatever. "Nut up or shut up" You make the choice to smoke you deal with the consequences. You must be aware smoking causes cancer, which is much worse than a little bit of inclement weather. If you can deal with the almost inevitability of lung problems you can deal with the great outdoors. As a conservative I would expect you to support the notion that a minority (smokers) should not force their choices upon a majority

As for smoker hatred that is a bunch of garbage (like fake coughing or whatever) and I couldn't agree more with you. I still smoke cigars on occasion (enjoyed a lovely Cuban a few days ago actually).


Well it would not be right for the majority to force their choices on the minority either...there has to be compromise, I mean I get not allowing smoking in a lot of public buildings but the fact a bar can not choose to allow smoking is ridiculous. I could understand if the majority of people going to the bar did not smoke and disliked it but if the majority of people who go to that bar smoke it's ridiculous to ban it. And since when does the government own all the bars....why can't whoever owns the bar make that decision.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

26 Aug 2011, 7:18 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
I could understand if the majority of people going to the bar did not smoke and disliked it but if the majority of people who go to that bar smoke it's ridiculous to ban it. And since when does the government own all the bars....why can't whoever owns the bar make that decision.


When the smoking ban was mooted in the UK, the publicans had the choice to resist the legislation, to lobby for compromises and exemptions. They didn't. Instead they invited the government to sabotage the choice of private member's clubs as well.

So in the UK it is illegal for a smoker to set up a smoker's club and allow smoking inside where none of the staff are non-smokers and where the club is restricted to members only.



NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

26 Aug 2011, 9:22 am

Smokers have the right to smoke where they're not trampling on the right of others not to breathe second-hand smoke. Apartment complexes and hotels do have the right to stipulate no smoking by occupants as part of the contract. Obviously the state has the right to ban smoking from public lands and buildings where the smoking would have an ill effect on non-consenting others. The issue gets more complicated when the government regulates whether businesses open to the public can allow smoking. The libertarian argument is that the state has no right to infringe individual liberty here and that people who do not wish to inhale smoke should visit businesses that prohibit it. In practice, the libertarians' suggestion is somewhat impractical because restaurants with smoking sections often don't do a great job at keeping the smoke out of the nonsmoking sections and sometimes social obligations necessitate visiting such places (e.g., my department at work had a team outing to a bowling alley with bad smoke once; my eyes became quite irritated).



wcoltd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 756
Location: The internet

26 Aug 2011, 9:37 am

NeantHumain wrote:
Smokers have the right to smoke where they're not trampling on the right of others not to breathe second-hand smoke. Apartment complexes and hotels do have the right to stipulate no smoking by occupants as part of the contract. Obviously the state has the right to ban smoking from public lands and buildings where the smoking would have an ill effect on non-consenting others. The issue gets more complicated when the government regulates whether businesses open to the public can allow smoking. The libertarian argument is that the state has no right to infringe individual liberty here and that people who do not wish to inhale smoke should visit businesses that prohibit it. In practice, the libertarians' suggestion is somewhat impractical because restaurants with smoking sections often don't do a great job at keeping the smoke out of the nonsmoking sections and sometimes social obligations necessitate visiting such places (e.g., my department at work had a team outing to a bowling alley with bad smoke once; my eyes became quite irritated).


This is true, Libertarians are usually divided about what constitues individual rights. Does a person have the right to build a light beacon on top of their home when it bothers the people around him? Does his right to have a beacon, or a cigarrete infringe upon the right of others not to be bothered by it?

You can extend this premise to absurdity both ways. Does a person have the right to have an ugly face in public - even when others may be bothered by it? At some point you have to recognize a person's right to be bothersome.

Personally unless someone is blowing smoke right in your face Or hotboxes an entire room, I don't see it being especially harmful. You always have the right not to go back to the bowling alley, if it bothers people enough the bowling alley will see the lost business and market it to be more family friendly.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

26 Aug 2011, 10:35 am

wcoltd wrote:

This is true, Libertarians are usually divided about what constitues individual rights. Does a person have the right to build a light beacon on top of their home when it bothers the people around him? Does his right to have a beacon, or a cigarrete infringe upon the right of others not to be bothered by it?



Deploying such a light at night would constitute breach of the peace. The Law recognizes the right of people to get a good night's sleep without being awakened against their will.

ruveyn



wcoltd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 756
Location: The internet

26 Aug 2011, 10:53 am

ruveyn wrote:
wcoltd wrote:

This is true, Libertarians are usually divided about what constitues individual rights. Does a person have the right to build a light beacon on top of their home when it bothers the people around him? Does his right to have a beacon, or a cigarrete infringe upon the right of others not to be bothered by it?



Deploying such a light at night would constitute breach of the peace. The Law recognizes the right of people to get a good night's sleep without being awakened against their will.

ruveyn


A neighbor's motion sensor light sometimes goes off at night, and the light goes into my room when it does. I have been awakened by it on a few occasions, does this person have the right to have a motion sensor light at night?

The point I am trying to make is that this ought to be treated on a case-by-case basis. These sorts of issues should be dealt with by the courts. I don't think there is a ideology that can address this conflict on a consistent basis.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

26 Aug 2011, 10:55 am

wcoltd wrote:

A neighbor's motion sensor light sometimes goes off at night, and the light goes into my room when it does. I have been awakened by it on a few occasions, does this person have the right to have a motion sensor light at night?

The point I am trying to make is that this ought to be treated on a case-by-case basis. These sorts of issues should be dealt with by the courts. I don't think there is a ideology that can address this conflict on a consistent basis.


That is a question for the courts. Your neighbor has the right to protect his property and you have the right to a good night's sleep.

Have tried shades and blinds?

ruveyn



wcoltd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 756
Location: The internet

26 Aug 2011, 11:41 am

ruveyn wrote:
wcoltd wrote:

A neighbor's motion sensor light sometimes goes off at night, and the light goes into my room when it does. I have been awakened by it on a few occasions, does this person have the right to have a motion sensor light at night?

The point I am trying to make is that this ought to be treated on a case-by-case basis. These sorts of issues should be dealt with by the courts. I don't think there is a ideology that can address this conflict on a consistent basis.


That is a question for the courts. Your neighbor has the right to protect his property and you have the right to a good night's sleep.

Have tried shades and blinds?

ruveyn


To be honest it's not enough of a nuisance, especially after building a fence. The light barely reaches my window.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

26 Aug 2011, 5:53 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Tequila wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
When I hear smokers complain about having to go outside I think to myself "Man the f**k up"


So you'd be quite happy to have to go outside in the driving, freezing rain every time you wanted a cigarette? You're paying over the odds for this as an experience, remember.



Yep, no problem from me. As I stated I was a chain smoker and I had no problem going out in -25C or worse, blizzards, freezing rain, whatever. "Nut up or shut up" You make the choice to smoke you deal with the consequences. You must be aware smoking causes cancer, which is much worse than a little bit of inclement weather. If you can deal with the almost inevitability of lung problems you can deal with the great outdoors. As a conservative I would expect you to support the notion that a minority (smokers) should not force their choices upon a majority

As for smoker hatred that is a bunch of garbage (like fake coughing or whatever) and I couldn't agree more with you. I still smoke cigars on occasion (enjoyed a lovely Cuban a few days ago actually).


Well it would not be right for the majority to force their choices on the minority either...there has to be compromise, I mean I get not allowing smoking in a lot of public buildings but the fact a bar can not choose to allow smoking is ridiculous. I could understand if the majority of people going to the bar did not smoke and disliked it but if the majority of people who go to that bar smoke it's ridiculous to ban it. And since when does the government own all the bars....why can't whoever owns the bar make that decision.


There are actually bars here in Montreal where you can smoke indoors. Prime example is "Stogies" which is a "cigar lounge" that also serves drinks. I've been there a few times. So perhaps this doesn't extend to other parts of the world but there are specified places where people can go have a drink and light up and relax. Actually, hehe, when I was a busboy/bar slave we tended to smoke cigarettes in the bar. Most of the time only during staff-only parties or after hours but there are certainly bars that violate the law


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

26 Aug 2011, 6:18 pm

Quite a few pubs here break the law in order to accommodate their customers. So, they might, for instance break the part of the law that says that there must be no more than 49% shelter from the elements. Some pubs ignore the smoking ban altogether because they are places where anyone caught snitching would get found out and dealt with.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,952
Location:      

26 Aug 2011, 6:22 pm

Tequila wrote:
Quite a few pubs here break the law in order to accommodate their customers. So, they might, for instance break the part of the law that says that there must be no more than 49% shelter from the elements. Some pubs ignore the smoking ban altogether because they are places where anyone caught snitching would get found out and dealt with.

Buncha sadistic butt-suckers, eh?


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.