heywood on 26/6/2009 at 04:40
I'm not sure what point D'Juhn Keep was trying to make. Surely not that smokers are worse than crack addicts?
And I thought the McDonald's analogy was somewhat fitting since many scientists are now claiming food can be physically addictive.
Let's face it, the vast majority of vices and hobbies have no redeeming social value, and a lot of them involve risk. Plenty of people could find fault with the video games we play, and the motorcycles that some of us ride. But if it weren't for our vices and hobbies, life wouldn't be worth living. We all enjoy something that someone else would find pointless, distasteful, or dangerous, and we all get along (mostly) as long as we don't deny each other the right to pursue what we enjoy.
For some people, that's smoking.
D'Juhn Keep on 26/6/2009 at 16:56
Uh, I was pretty drunk so you should probably ignore that post. I also seem to have posted "good riddance multimillionaire paedophile" in the MJ thread. Which, well, I stand by that one actually
Thanks for that link fafhrd, I guess my knowledge on cocaine addiction predates my birth
Quote Posted by Thief13x
Sounds like McDonalds
Quote Posted by heywood
We all enjoy something that someone else would find pointless, distasteful, or dangerous, and we all get along (mostly) as long as we don't deny each other the right to pursue what we enjoy.
For some people, that's smoking.
Like equating smoking to drinking alcohol the analogy is flawed because eating McDonalds doesn't give other people cancer. I'd not want to ban smoking in one's own home (although it's pretty shitty for non-smokers, especially children in the house) or even outdoors. But smoking in bars or restaurants isn't just enjoying your vice, it's forcing it on everyone around you.
Quote Posted by Thief13x
Just like Cocaine right?
Are you somehow trying to say that because cocaine is still made and used illegally that smoking shouldn't be banned because it won't affect anything? If not then what? If so then why am I wasting my time
BEAR on 26/6/2009 at 17:10
Quote Posted by D'Juhn Keep
Like equating smoking to drinking alcohol the analogy is flawed because eating McDonalds doesn't give other people cancer.
Are you somehow trying to say that because cocaine is still made and used illegally that smoking shouldn't be banned because it won't affect anything? If not then what? If so then why am I wasting my time
NS had a report that obesity was contagious though (in a manner of speaking). Not obviously physically contagious but socially. Overall, I'd say they are fairly equal risks to society. More importantly, they clog up our healthcare system, which I think makes them debatable and bannable.
SD on 26/6/2009 at 17:18
This is why you need universal healthcare... you can tax those things to the hilt, and use the proceeds to pay for hospitals :D
ilweran on 26/6/2009 at 20:15
Quote Posted by Ostriig
I honestly do not believe that it is necessary to install air filtration units, and that a door, regular fans and some space would do a fine enough job to prevent any harmful amount of smoke getting in the non-smoking area. But that's a technicality, and something that I don't believe has great relevance to the subject, so if you want air filtration I won't object to it.
A large part of the justification for the smoking ban was to protect employees. Having separate areas only protects the customers who have more of a choice anyway.
Harvester on 26/6/2009 at 22:27
Quote Posted by ilweran
A large part of the justification for the smoking ban was to protect employees. Having separate areas only protects the customers who have more of a choice anyway.
In Holland, where a smoking ban for bars and restaurants has recently been put into effect, bar employees don't have to go to the seperate smoking area, they're not allowed to serve beer there.
Thief13x on 28/6/2009 at 20:25
Quote Posted by D'Juhn Keep
If it takes the governments of lots of different countries stepping in and
banning it in public to help people quit and put and end to the industry then that's a means to an end I can live with.
Quote Posted by D'Juhn Keep
Are you somehow trying to say that because cocaine is still made and used illegally that smoking shouldn't be banned because it won't affect anything? If not then what? If so then why am I wasting my time
I'm not 'somehow trying to say' anything. I'm simply pointing out that banning smoking (just like banning cocaine) isn't going to "help people quit" or "put an end to an industry." To say that this is "an end I can live with" flies in the face of a lot of statistics from throughout history. Why do you think most marijuana smokers so desperately oppose legalization?
Quote Posted by D'Juhn Keep
Like equating smoking to drinking alcohol the analogy is flawed because eating McDonalds doesn't give other people cancer. I'd not want to ban smoking in one's own home (although it's pretty shitty for non-smokers, especially children in the house) or even outdoors. But smoking in bars or restaurants isn't just enjoying your vice, it's forcing it on everyone around you.
Clearly this isn't the issue I was responding to with that comparison. I was responding to:
Quote Posted by D'Juhn Keep
However, it's sort of balanced by the fact that tobacco is very harmful and does absolutely fucking nothing for you bar satisfy the craving you've got for the nicotineand that tobacco companies have cultivated this very sexy image of smoking while trying to cover up any negative consequences.
Harm to ones self, not to others, which is a big part of the legislation being passed. And this only makes sense...if we all have to pay for everyone else's healthcare, it only follows that those who unnecessarily take more should have to pay more (hence the cigarette tax).
I don't understand folks who support universal healthcare but are up in arms about what the government is doing with tobacco. In my opinion, if we're gonna go down this path the government better damn well step in and start collecting from the fast food industry too. I mean, it's not like heart disease is the number one killer in the states or anything even ahead of smoking, right???
Starrfall on 28/6/2009 at 20:56
Quote Posted by Thief13x
Why do you think most marijuana smokers so desperately oppose legalization?
Where did you get this from? Even my dentist thinks pot should be legal.
Thief13x on 28/6/2009 at 21:08
but does your dentist actually smoke pot? I would guess no since it could end his career.
Most people I know who don't smoke want it legalized, (unless they're brainwashed or uneducated about it and think it's just as dangerous as heroin because it's a "drug") but I don't think I've ever met a single pothead that wants it legalized, and I've tried to find one, because they know the government will tax it and the price will go way up.
Just goes to show you how effective the government is at banning things, which was my original point. People who smoke don't worry about getting it, they worry about the price, because it's simply available anywhere and everywhere.
SubJeff on 28/6/2009 at 21:32
Quote Posted by Thief13x
(unless they're brainwashed or uneducated about it and think it's just as dangerous as heroin because it's a "drug")
Depends on your definition of danger doesn't it? Heroin is a very safe drug if, like anything, it's used in a safe manner. Long-term use with a clean, reliable supply is not an impediment to life or normal social functioning and many of the problems surrounding heroin are purely due to its criminalisation. Long-term use of a clean, reliable supply of marijuana is much more likely to make you unable to function in society in the way most people expect.
It doesn't matter if you smoke or inject something or not; you can still have a reasoned opinion. I know alot of doctors who would agree with controlled legalisation of many recreational drugs. And fyi a think tank in the UK has done the number crunching and worked out that legal, government controlled, heroin would be about 1/10 the current cost to users - and of course it would be, ahem, medical grade stuff. AAA quality. The madman.
