|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 07/26/2005 : 14:55:13 [Permalink]
|
In response to Trish on smokers being “bad”:
“it only matters to the perception of the addicted individual. If smoking is banned, it is therefore bad (per society), therefore the smoker is 'bad'. It's not a logical conclusion, but emotion is rarely logical.”
Are you saying you oppose the ban because some smokers will make the illogical assumption that society regards them as morally corrupt people? What exactly do you mean by “bad” anyway? If you mean harmful to anyone, regular smoking is bad. If you mean harmful to others, then most smokers are not bad by definition.
“I found when I was smoking that being forced to step outside made my smoking more obvious. I also got more dirty looks and unwanted lectures from people that wouldn't give a damn about me otherwise just because I had to stand outside on a sidewalk to smoke a cigarette.”
You called my personal story anecdotal, and I now return that accusation. The only place I ever got dirty looks for smoking outside was in South Korea where it is taboo for young women to smoke. I've also gotten ALL my lectures on smoking from people I knew personally. In exactly what environment were you in that completely strangers were coming up to you and starting to lecture you on your smoking? How often has this happened? Was it actual harassment, or just an annoyance?
As for your contention that a pack of cigarettes a day isn't excessive, that's just ignorant. Even Kil admits that there is good science to show that smoking is a health risk for smokers. Just because a pack a day is less unhealthy than 2 packs a day, one pack still qualifies as excessive.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 15:02:32 [Permalink]
|
In response to Gee Mack's question about bars with rock and roll and strippers:
It has been very well established that my pro-bar-ban position is not about my personal preferences. (That was just an added bonus.)The meat of the discussion has been about public policy regarding physical health, whether the studies that accuse secondhand smoke of being a health risk are valid, whether the "culture of smoking" has the higher moral ground over the "anti-smoking cultureal movement". I ignored your question because I didn't see it as relevant. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 15:20:51 [Permalink]
|
And is allowing bar owners to manage their business as they see fit within the confines of their own private property irrelevant, too?
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 15:24:46 [Permalink]
|
Valiant Dancer,
Thank you for posting the straight dope answers from Cecil Adams. I concede that criticisms of the scientific studies on secondhand smoke are valid, and the studies are not yet conclusive.
It alone doesn't yet persuade me to oppose the bar bans... but I'll admit, I'm starting to waver just a tad. However, I'm more wavering because of an argument posed to me by a friend not on this forum. He argued that if people aren't allowed to smoke in bars, obviously they will smoke more at home, and that will increase the amount of secondhand smoke that children are exposed to.
An aside: Let me just say, too, that people who excessively smoke around their children indoors are morally corrupt. I wouldn't go so far as to say they are abusing their kids by any legal definitions, but they are shitheads who deserve all the lectures and dirty looks that their friends and relatives can heap on them.
There still seems to be a strong scientifically backed indication that regular exposure to secondhand smoke is harmful, particularly to people with certain conditions, children, pets and the elderly. So one could argue that it does greater harm to more passive smokers if smoking is banned in bars, since that gets the smokers away from those more vulnerable demographics. If indeed this ends up to be the result of bar bans in any communities, I would whole-heartedly oppose the bans in those communities. I'd like to think that people wouldn't be shitheads and smoke around their kids regularly whether there's a ban or not, but, sadly, lots of people tend to be shitheads.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 15:32:26 [Permalink]
|
GeeMack,
"And is allowing bar owners to manage their business as they see fit within the confines of their own private property irrelevant, too?"
There already are various restrictions that apply even within the confines of private property, especially businesses. For instance, not just any business can sell alcohol or produce and sell alcohol. They must meet certain requirements that vary from local community to local community, and get special licences. We've already talked on this discussion about specialty bars that can continue to allow smoking despite bans, such as shisha bars and cigar bars. We are talking about greater restrictions on businesses regarding smoking. We aren't talking about making it impossible to run a business that allows smoking. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 16:11:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
marfknox:
You didn't offend me with the Nazi comment. I thought it was funny, and most of your arguments are soundly phrased and persuasive.
It's good to know I haven't lost my touch.
quote:
marfknox:
However, you have totally misrepresented my argument.
She giveth with one hand and she taketh away with the other…
Anyhow, I focused on a part of your argument. Others are doing a fine job of addressing other parts of your argument. I did not misrepresent a thing. I just haven't the energy left in me to quote what I have already quoted three times, plus the parody of the quote. And yes, I saw that you said you wanted to help most smokers. Not all smokers. Not those who are not interested in your help. You just want those smokers to put up with the inconvenience of living in a “society that socially discourages smoking” and shut up about it. The funny thing is I agree that smoking should be discouraged. I think a lot of things should be discouraged. I'll tell you what. Lets make a deal. I will not smoke in any bars in your state if you can assure me that no one will get into their car and drive home after tossing a couple back. We are, after all, talking about the dangers of smoking in establishments that serve mind-altering drugs that impair judgment, motor coordination and reflexes. In all fairness, I think the banning should stop by way of closing down these dens of injury and death. Oh hey, and while we are at it, I bet that many more people are killed by drunk drivers then die of second hand smoke. And those people didn't have a choice…
quote:
marfknox:
To make things crystal clear (if that's even possible) I would vote in favor of a ban on smoking in bars in Philadelphia for these reasons and in this order:
1.) I think there is enough evidence to suggest that regular exsposure to secondhand smoke (such as in a work environment) is a serious health risk.
Of course, this is an area of some debate…
quote:
marfknox:
2.) I favor a cultural movement that conveniences smokers who want to quit and those who have quit by facilitating a general social environment where excessive social smoking is an activity particular to special businesses specifically for that purpose (shisha bars, cigar bars, etc.) or private homes. I do NOT view the ban as helping smokers who have no intention of quitting, nor do I scorn those individuals. If a person is perfectly happy being a regular smoker, fine, but don't act like someone's oppressing you just because of restrictions that make smoking less convenient.
There are no regular smokers left in California. We are total pariahs here. We have to sneak around to have a cigarette no matter where we are. Oh, except for at home. And they will get to that soon enough…
quote:
marfknox:
"Being from California, I know that you will not stop at banning smoking from bars unless at some point you apply some critical thinking to temper your bias."
And there is where your argument, Kil, totally lost credibility with me. There is a minority that actually makes up the hard-core anti-smoking movement, but most p |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 16:18:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
marfknox:
Even Kil admits...
Thanks for that. You made my day. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 19:05:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Are you saying you oppose the ban because some smokers will make the illogical assumption that society regards them as morally corrupt people? What exactly do you mean by “bad” anyway? If you mean harmful to anyone, regular smoking is bad. If you mean harmful to others, then most smokers are not bad by definition.
Oppose the ban on this reason alone? No. I think I was rather clear that I consider a ban on smoking as another 'blue light law'. However, this is one of my empathic considerations, having been a severely depressed individual who happened to smoke. Bad used in this sense could be defined and 'morally corrupt,' yes.
quote:
You called my personal story anecdotal, and I now return that accusation. The only place I ever got dirty looks for smoking outside was in South Korea where it is taboo for young women to smoke. I've also gotten ALL my lectures on smoking from people I knew personally. In exactly what environment were you in that completely strangers were coming up to you and starting to lecture you on your smoking? How often has this happened? Was it actual harassment, or just an annoyance?
Hmm, how to explain this...
quote:
They are both happy that they do not have to breath in even more second-hand smoke at their jobs, and they are also glad that when they go out they have to step outside to smoke, because it encourages them to smoke less.
I did not fully explain why I included this bit of anectodal information. You make this statement regarding your relatives. This was to show a different perspective, of having to go outside. The type of behavior I ran into caused me to actually want to smoke more because for me it caused stress. One of my smoking triggers. It also shows how bans of this type can actually backfire with some smokers. Smoking is an individual addiction.
quote:
As for your contention that a pack of cigarettes a day isn't excessive, that's just ignorant. Even Kil admits that there is good science to show that smoking is a health risk for smokers. Just because a pack a day is less unhealthy than 2 packs a day, one pack still qualifies as excessive.
No, when I was smoking a two packs a day, that was excessive. The majority of smokers I know, smoke a single pack a day. Without any further evidence, I would call a pack a day perhaps more in lines with being average rather than excessive.
Marfknox, you have still failed to adress the points in the discussion for which I have asked further clarification on your part. I would like to know which studies show that banning smoking in public places only reduces the number of smokers. Without consideration for the increasing public awareness campaigns, improved stop smoking treatments, etc. This was your implication. Support your assertion, '..and there are studies that show that the combination of excessive smoking and drinking over short periods of time can double the liklihood of developing certain cancers later in life.' please. Is banning smoking a cultural movement or not? You have once said it is not and twice said it is.
Please provide answers, support, or clarification on these specific points. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
| Edited by - Trish on 07/26/2005 19:22:26 |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 19:32:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
An aside: Let me just say, too, that people who excessively smoke around their children indoors are morally corrupt. I wouldn't go so far as to say they are abusing their kids by any legal definitions, but they are shitheads who deserve all the lectures and dirty looks that their friends and relatives can heap on them.
I'm not even certain where to begin with this. I find this statement offensive and reprehensible. You are prejudging an individual you have never met, based on one thing with which you do not agree. I'm certainly glad my friends are more understanding of my imperfections. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 20:42:22 [Permalink]
|
Kil,
I don't really want smokers to “shut up about it”. I enjoy debates exactly like this one, I think such debates are essential to good democracy, and if smokers didn't voice concerns, then this would get to the point of another prohibition much more easily, and I definitely don't want that. And despite Humbert's earlier accusation – I do not have my mind all made up. I really did start this discussion because I'm open minded.
Your point about drunk driving hurting many more innocent bystanders is well taken, but drunk driving is already illegal. Criminal, in fact. One doesn't actually have to get into an accident to be prosecuted, and they're slapped with a lot more than a fine.
Sorry to giveth with one hand and taketh with the other. For what it's worth, I found your criticisms of the science surrounding second-hand smoke the most persuasive and educating. I wasn't aware of the extent of poor methods, and you were the first to really hammer that point home. I also like your use of strong language (like “Nazis”) because IMHO, I assumed you were being playful and not actually trying to hurt anyone's feelings. I tried that too (with my original “boo hoo” comment), but just ended up getting peoples' panties in a bunch. Maybe I can learn from you.
I also understand that, living in California, you have a very different experience and point of view than me. Can you try to see my point of view as well? As a citizen of California, if you think things have gone too far, then you need to organize an opposition there. (If you aren't involved in one already.) But California is culturally different from other parts of the USA. It is not a sound argument to *assume* that what has happened there will spread everywhere, or even that what has happened there will not reverse if damaging backlash becomes evident. The ban in Philly and Columbus are city bans, not state-wide ones. PA and OH have a big rural population that opposes this sort of state-wide legislation.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/26/2005 20:47:23 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 21:07:00 [Permalink]
|
Trish,
Semantic arguments abound between us! You are defining excessive cigarette use in comparison of all smokers, rather than basing it on detrimental health risks. I was not. If 90% of the smokers started smoking 3 packs a day on average, certainly then a pack a day would, by your definition, be a minute amount. It doesn't change the fact that by general standards, not relative to only smokers, averaging a cigarette nearly every hour is excessive and abusive drug use.
Trish said: “I would like to know which studies show that banning smoking in public places only reduces the number of smokers.”
Well on page 3 of this discussion I did post this about banning smoking in workplaces: A 1992 document from Phillip Morris, 'Impact of Workplace Restrictions on Consumption and Incidence', summarises the results of its long-running research into the effects of a ban. "Total prohibition of smoking in the workplace strongly affects industry volume. Smokers facing these restrictions consume 11 per cent to 15 per cent less than average and quit at a rate that is 84 per cent higher than average."
Also: http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/23/87/96.html (I admit, there's a problem with this study in that it only compares the number percent of smokers in smoking vs non-smoking companies.)
For what it's worth, according to Kil, regular smokers are now scarce in California, strongly indicating that banning smoking in businesses and public places was at least one motivation for some people to quit.
Indeed, I could not find any flawless and absolutely conclusive studies that show that bans cause some people to quit smoking. However, there's more evidence for that claim than what you *seem* to be claiming: that bans make many smokers feel bad and might encourage some to smoke more due to stress. Certainly your claim is probably true for some people since smokers are all unique. But do you have any studies to show that bar bans encourage smoking in any significant way?
Trish said: “Support your assertion, '..and there are studies that show that the combination of excessive smoking and drinking over short periods of time can double the likelihood of developing certain cancers later in life.' please.”
Alas, I cannot find anything about that specific claim. I read it in a technical article about cancer a few years. It talked about how cells are more likely to be damaged under a barrage of concentrated drug use. Reminded me of studies of alcohol and pregnancy, where there is no evidence that moderate drinking (a glass a day, for example) affects a pregnancy at all, but a single binge while the unborn is having a growth spurt will fuck things up.
But I did find this: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=4772
Trish said: “Is banning smoking a cultural movement or not? You have once said it is not and twice said it is.”
As I said already, banning smoking in bars is a trend in the cultural movement toward making smoking less socially acceptable. Just like burning bras was one trend in the cultural movement of women's liberation.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 21:09:46 [Permalink]
|
Trish, you also find my statement denouncing people who smoke excessively around their children indoors as “offensive” and “reprehensible”. You also claim I've never met people like this. Oh contraire, the reason I feel so particular vindicated in condemning sick fucks who smoke for hours a day around their children in an enclosed space is because my 8-year-old cousin has lost lung capacity over the past year directly because his mother who works at home chain smokes in the same space as him for hours every day in a house with windows closed. Her other son has asthma, which does not run in either of his parents' families. The family doctor and her teenage daughter have repeatedly begged her (and her husband who also smokes in the living room, dining room and kitchen when he comes home from work) to go outside or to their bedroom to smoke with the door closed, but that's apparently too inconvenient for them. The same Aunt and Uncle used to smoke around my grandmother who had TB and one lung, until finally one of my other Aunts had the courage to put up a little toy frog with a sign that said “Please don't smoke. I might croak.” (Most in my family are more subtle than I.) I love my Aunt and Uncle. I love them dearly. But they are being real jerks, and their addiction is not an excuse – maybe they can't quit, but they CAN choose to not smoke around children or the elderly.
All the other smokers with kids that I know are responsible and make an effort to keep excessive secondhand smoke away from their children. That is called being a decent human being.
I'll repeat that I do not advocate this being considered legal abuse. (Taking kids away from parents just because they smoke around the kids would definitely harm the kids more than help them.) But someone needs to at least call these people assholes.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 21:26:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox...
Let me just say, too, that people who excessively smoke around their children indoors are morally corrupt. I wouldn't go so far as to say they are abusing their kids by any legal definitions, but they are shitheads who deserve all the lectures and dirty looks that their friends and relatives can heap on them.
That does kind of wreck the notion that marfknox's desire to see people controlled is motivated any noble sense of social beneficence. Now it looks like a bunch of puffed up posturing to support a simple sense of judgmentalism against those "sic fucks" that smoke.
Maybe it would be a good idea if there was a law that bar owners must post a sign at the entrance of their establishments. This sign should state clearly that people inside are likely to be smoking. Then even stupid people would know that going in there might result in them picking up some of that smoke smell. I personally find it nearly unfathomable that anyone over 21 who is going to bars is stupid enough to not know that in the first place. But I've heard stories of just such situations.
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 23:36:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox...
Let me just say, too, that people who excessively smoke around their children indoors are morally corrupt. I wouldn't go so far as to say they are abusing their kids by any legal definitions, but they are shitheads who deserve all the lectures and dirty looks that their friends and relatives can heap on them.
That does kind of wreck the notion that marfknox's desire to see people controlled is motivated any noble sense of social beneficence. Now it looks like a bunch of puffed up posturing to support a simple sense of judgmentalism against those "sic fucks" that smoke.
I gotta disagree with you here GeeMack. Raising kids in a smoke filled environment is definitely not cool. |
| Edited by - dv82matt on 07/26/2005 23:41:32 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2005 : 00:12:23 [Permalink]
|
In response to GeeMack's last post -
Er, so I lack a sense of social beneficence because I called people who knowingly hurt their own children a mean name. Yeah.
I have not once advocated controlling people. Unless you are using some kind of crazy definition of "control".
I have no idea what you are responding to in your second paragraph. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
