Jump to content

Troy Davis


VCH

Recommended Posts

Originally Posted By: Space Between
. . . A waste of taxpayer dollars to treat a prisoner humanely?

Taxes for roads is an investment that serves every one in the community. Taxes for the water and sewage services provided by the county. Taxes for schools to teach our children and re-teach our adults who need new skills. Taxes for defense so we can continue to enjoy the liberties guaranteed by our Constitution. Taxes for Social Security Retirement. Taxes to fund scientific and medical research. These things, and many, many more, benefit our society and improve it. What does a convict in prison contribute to our society? I accept that we have to pay taxes to house, feed, and clothe them. I accept that we have to pay taxes to pay for the training and salaries of the guards who keep them. These things I accept as the cost for the protection of our society from these criminals. But it bears no fruit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 194
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally Posted By: Harehunter
Originally Posted By: Space Between
. . . A waste of taxpayer dollars to treat a prisoner humanely?

What does a convict in prison contribute to our society? I accept that we have to pay taxes to house, feed, and clothe them. I accept that we have to pay taxes to pay for the training and salaries of the guards who keep them. These things I accept as the cost for the protection of our society from these criminals. But it bears no fruit.

It's the cost of keeping them from doing whatever they were doing. You're removing them from society for the betterment of society.

Unless it's Maricopa County. Arizona, US where Sheriff Joe does it for free publicity. Pink prison underwear, female chain gangs, tent city in super heated Arizona summers, and other bizarre stunts to attract attention and do very little to cut down on crime since time isn't spent hunting down people with outstanding arrest warrants and the other day to day activities of real police forces.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would just like to see more done to rehabilitate those who are likely to be paroled or set free. Train them in a skill so that they have less reason to re-offend, and instead become a contributing member of our society. As for those who are in for longer terms, they should be able to do something to contribute to their upkeep. Most people go to work to pay for their own food, clothes and shelter. Most people pay taxes to provide services shared by the community, state and nation.

 

And I think that there are too many people put in prison for crimes that only affect themselves. I don't think it is right to try to regulate being stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Trenton the dragon lord
I would rather have ten people who are guilty to go free than one innocent person being put to death wrongly.


It always annoys me when people voice this view. I mean, it's a noble sentiment, and more power to you if you can actually keep it as a personal principle. But in my experience, the people who wind up saying are the first ones to turn around and condemn someone who was exonerated by a jury of their peers because they want to- or rather because they magically "know" that the person is guilty. "Sure, it's better to have a guilty man free than a innocent one imprisoned, but isn't it obvious that OJ's guilty?" Or "It's clear that Casey Anthony committed the crime, she should be in jail!".

Originally Posted By: Harehunter
I would just like to see more done to rehabilitate those who are likely to be paroled or set free. Train them in a skill so that they have less reason to re-offend, and instead become a contributing member of our society. As for those who are in for longer terms, they should be able to do something to contribute to their upkeep. Most people go to work to pay for their own food, clothes and shelter. Most people pay taxes to provide services shared by the community, state and nation.


I'mm all for this, but it would never work. The problem with this is that as soon as you tell people what it would actually entail they'd freak out.

Take sex offenders. They show among the lowest recidivism rate of any convicts, yet are the most heavily punished even after their conviction- but the split second you talk about maybe not publicly making all their information available and forcing them to "register" (seriously, why not just make them wear patches on their jacket if you're going that far), making it almost impossible for them to work or be integrated members of society, people look at you like you're one.

It's the same with drug legalization- I've never touched and never will touch an illegal drug in my life, but the second I say that maybe imprisoning thousands of people a year for an ounce of pot is a waste of money and effort, people act like you lit up a joint and offered it to their kids. It's like they're unable to divorce "disagreeing with a law" and "disobeying a law".

This is probably just a side-effect of democracy. A politician being "tough on crime" gets an electoral boost (cough Perry cough), but someone who suggest lenient sentences for sex offenders based off of logic and historical data and trends is totally unelectable because the attack ads literally write themselves. It's a shame that things are that way, but I don't think they'll be changed any time soon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Dantius
This is probably just a side-effect of democracy. A politician being "tough on crime" gets an electoral boost (cough Perry cough), but someone who suggest lenient sentences for sex offenders based off of logic and historical data and trends is totally unelectable because the attack ads literally write themselves. It's a shame that things are that way, but I don't think they'll be changed any time soon

Vote for me and I'll let you pork anything you want.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Harehunter
Originally Posted By: Trenton the dragon lord
I would rather have ten people who are guilty to go free than one innocent person being put to death wrongly.

That is a good sentiment. However, too often this sort of thing happens.

Fair enough -- but can you walk the walk?

Would you accept being wrongfully imprisoned, let's say for 20 years, if it would save one other person's life?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S
Originally Posted By: Harehunter
And I think that there are too many people put in prison for crimes that only affect themselves. I don't think it is right to try to regulate being stupid.
What did you have in mind here?


There's around a 90% chance that was in reference to drugs, or it certainly seemed so- the criminalization of drug possession with intent to use is arguably both the biggest and easiest to fix problem facing the criminal justice system.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Dantius
It always annoys me when people voice this view. I mean, it's a noble sentiment, and more power to you if you can actually keep it as a personal principle. But in my experience, the people who wind up saying are the first ones to turn around and condemn someone who was exonerated by a jury of their peers because they want to- or rather because they magically "know" that the person is guilty. "Sure, it's better to have a guilty man free than a innocent one imprisoned, but isn't it obvious that OJ's guilty?" Or "It's clear that Casey Anthony committed the crime, she should be in jail!".


just because there enough evidence to justify imprisoning someone doesn't mean everyone is required to treat them as if they're totally innocent. in fact in some cases that would be a pretty foolish thing to do. that doesn't mean we should just straight-up imprison everyone who seems kinda shady

Originally Posted By: Dantius
There's around a 90% chance that was in reference to drugs, or it certainly seemed so- the criminalization of drug possession with intent to use is arguably both the biggest and easiest to fix problem facing the criminal justice system.


not so easy as all that. to fix it you first have to fix the private prison industry, which is literally writing laws in many US states and doesn't have any interest in reducing the prison population
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Lt. Sullust
Originally Posted By: Trenton the dragon lord
I would rather have ten people who are guilty to go free than one innocent person being put to death wrongly.


I'd want to know what those ten people did before I'd make that kind of decision...


Doesn't matter at all. The legal system says that one is innocent until proven guilty. This limits the type 1 error. At some point society, or those with power, decided that it's better to let a killer go than kill an innocent. I agree fully with that; it's just the price of doing business.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Dantius
Take sex offenders. They show among the lowest recidivism rate of any convicts, yet are the most heavily punished even after their conviction- but the split second you talk about maybe not publicly making all their information available and forcing them to "register" (seriously, why not just make them wear patches on their jacket if you're going that far), making it almost impossible for them to work or be integrated members of society, people look at you like you're one.

Plus, some sex offenders aren't even sex offenders. It might just be a 19-year-old guy who had consensual sex with a 17-year-old girl. "Statutory Rape"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crazily, in certain jurisdictions and at certain age cutoffs, sex can be legal one day and a felony the next. And then legal the next day!

 

—Alorael, who really thinks the states could use the economic boost of more fines and less prison time now. It's good sense to wring more money out of the poor if their taxes might go down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Excalibur
Plus, some sex offenders aren't even sex offenders. It might just be a 19-year-old guy who had consensual sex with a 17-year-old girl. "Statutory Rape"
That's possible in only a few places in the US. Most states have an age of consent of 16 or 17, and many that do not have exceptions for people close in age.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: miscommunication horribly maims

—Alorael, who really thinks the states could use the economic boost of more fines and less prison time now. It's good sense to wring more money out of the poor if their taxes might go down.


Do prisoners count in regard to unemployment statistics?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Lilith
Originally Posted By: Lt. Sullust
Do prisoners count in regard to unemployment statistics?


nnnope. only people who are actively looking for work count as unemployed

Within the last 6 months. They keep a separate number for those who have been out longer that is much higher.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slarty, Lilith, and all the rest of you:

You may find this post to be most controversial. Please do not take this as an endorsement to do what I consider to be very stupid.

 

A big cause of crime is related to the 'war on drugs'. It reminds me of the time of prohibition. Make something illegal to use, manufacture or sell, and an entire industry of crime syndicates was formed. These syndicates began committing more than just the crimes related to the distribution of alcohol, but theft and murder became commonplace. Prohibition was one failed experiment to try to regulate stupid.

 

I do not advocate the use of drugs under any circumstance. I do indulge in the occasional drink, I have never smoked, and I have never used illegal drugs. However, I have heard in interview after interview with cops that pot users are about the least offensive people they have to arrest. Other drugs cause far more violent incidents. There is good reason to restrict the use of such drugs; they can be the cause of crimes of violence against other people. If weed were to be made legal, it could be regulated and taxed. There are even some indications that it could be medically beneficial for some things It would also be one less source of revenue for the criminal gangs that have taken over the border towns in Mexico; gangs that have replaced all law and order in those towns, and are bringing their violence into the U.S.

 

It is stupid to use drugs that can destroy your body, but it is stupid to try to regulate stupid behavior. It clogs our courts and our jails. It brings non-violent criminals into close proximity to hardened, violent ones. It costs unknown amounts in law enforcement, all in vain, in what amounts to fighting a losing war. Education is the only deterrent against doing drugs. Rehabilitation is the proper treatment, not incarceration. Most importantly, it takes parents who take an active part in teaching their children how to succeed without them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Harehunter
Most importantly, it takes parents who take an active part in teaching their children how to succeed without them.

Largely agreed. I would qualify this last sentence though: I would say it takes parents who teach their children how to succeed at life, period. I have never seen an anti-drug program or protocol targeting children that works, unless misinformation and brainwashing is involved on a massive scale.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The choice of whether or not to use psychoactive substances comes down to one's priorities. If you're the sort of person that is goal-oriented, ambitious with regard to achievements, and intent on living a long life and raising a family, then dabbling too deeply in drugs is probably inadvisable.

 

If, on the other hand, you are the sort that is uninterested in a conventional lifestyle, ambitious more for experiences than achievements, and more concerned with seeking pleasure in the present than status in the future, it is not necessarily 'stupid' to dabble in substance use. It would be advisable to choose one's substances and regulate one's dose carefully, though, as it would be folly to invite death before having a chance to acquire a full range of experiences and enjoy the full gamut of pleasures that drugs can provide.

 

As for the War On Drugs, it is a prime example of the "Nanny State" approach the U.S. government and many others take in regulating the activities of their people. I would much prefer my government to treat me like a mature adult who is capable of making my own life decisions than a helpless child in need of protection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Stugri-La
As for the War On Drugs, it is a prime example of the "Nanny State" approach the U.S. government and many others take in regulating the activities of their people. I would much prefer my government to treat me like a mature adult who is capable of making my own life decisions than a helpless child in need of protection.
The problem with this, at least in my own personal observations, is that most people act like helpless moron children. And these people tend to ruin it for the rest of us.

I mean, when taken in moderation there isn't that much wrong with cannabis, in fact I am given to understand there are many benefits. There's also nothing wrong with having a pint now and then. It's just that people tend to get baked/drunk out of their mind and ruin it for everyone else.

It also seems like that with American politics in general--There's no 'middle ground' in politics, everyone is completely for or against something. I don't think I've ever seen a politician say that the middle ground was okay, and any law that isn't extremely towards one end of a debate is usually just a half-assed compromise that doesn't really do anything except allow them to say they got something done.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Sylae
Originally Posted By: Stugri-La
As for the War On Drugs, it is a prime example of the "Nanny State" approach the U.S. government and many others take in regulating the activities of their people. I would much prefer my government to treat me like a mature adult who is capable of making my own life decisions than a helpless child in need of protection.
The problem with this, at least in my own personal observations, is that most people act like helpless moron children. And these people tend to ruin it for the rest of us.

I mean, when taken in moderation there isn't that much wrong with cannabis, in fact I am given to understand there are many benefits. There's also nothing wrong with having a pint now and then. It's just that people tend to get baked/drunk out of their mind and ruin it for everyone else.


In most cases, people that overindulge will only be endangering their own health and lives. If someone cannot enjoy himself responsibly, I feel that it's his own lookout. If someone fails to respect the power of a substance and overdoses or suffers a fatal accident, I don't see why his own tragic lack of good judgement should prohibit me from enjoying whatever I wish in a responsible manner.

As for those morons that get behind the wheel when intoxicated or otherwise endanger others with their irresponsibility, they are a legitimate hazard to society and should be treated as such. I'd never advocate for the abolishing of penalties for DUIs. In fact, I would support a mandatory feature on car ignition systems which would require that a prospective driver pass the breathalyzer test before being able to start the vehicle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Stugri-La
In most cases, people that overindulge will only be endangering their own health and lives. If someone cannot enjoy himself responsibly, I feel that it's his own lookout. If someone fails to respect the power of a substance and overdoses or suffers a fatal accident, I don't see why his own tragic lack of good judgement should prohibit me from enjoying whatever I wish in a responsible manner.


What happens when it's not fatal and they don't have the money to cover their own medical expenses? Someone has to pay...

Originally Posted By: Stugri-La
In fact, I would support a mandatory feature on car ignition systems which would require that a prospective driver pass the breathalyzer test before being able to start the vehicle.


This seems like it'd be expensive and ineffective.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Lt. Sullust
Originally Posted By: Stugri-La
In most cases, people that overindulge will only be endangering their own health and lives. If someone cannot enjoy himself responsibly, I feel that it's his own lookout. If someone fails to respect the power of a substance and overdoses or suffers a fatal accident, I don't see why his own tragic lack of good judgement should prohibit me from enjoying whatever I wish in a responsible manner.


What happens when it's not fatal and they don't have the money to cover their own medical expenses? Someone has to pay...

The same way it happens currently, which is granted, not terribly great, but legalizing a drug isn't going to cause a sudden spike in traffic accidents.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As per your point regarding hospitalization expenses, Sully, I agree with Excalibur. I support the concept of universal health care, anyway.

 

Originally Posted By: Lt. Sullust
Originally Posted By: Stugri-La
In fact, I would support a mandatory feature on car ignition systems which would require that a prospective driver pass the breathalyzer test before being able to start the vehicle.

 

This seems like it'd be expensive and ineffective.

 

Certainly expensive, and I can imagine folks enlisting the aid of rogue mechanics to disable the system. So, fine, no need for such extreme measures. I believe the existing draconian DUI policies would suffice even if all drugs were legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Lt. Sullust
What happens when it's not fatal and they don't have the money to cover their own medical expenses? Someone has to pay...

Between new taxes on now-legal drugs (which would have to be low, obviously, or else people are still going to by them illegally) and all the money that now doesn't have to go into arresting, prosecuting, and locking up drug users, there should be some extra money to spare for health care.

Dikiyoba.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba
Originally Posted By: Lt. Sullust
What happens when it's not fatal and they don't have the money to cover their own medical expenses? Someone has to pay...

Between new taxes on now-legal drugs (which would have to be low, obviously, or else people are still going to by them illegally) and all the money that now doesn't have to go into arresting, prosecuting, and locking up drug users, there should be some extra money to spare for health care.

Dikiyoba.


Great point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba
Between new taxes on now-legal drugs (which would have to be low, obviously, or else people are still going to by them illegally) and all the money that now doesn't have to go into arresting, prosecuting, and locking up drug users, there should be some extra money to spare for health care.


I had not considered this, not to mention that regulated drugs will probably be much safer than non-regulated.

While non-users will be paying less than before, I still think there will be an associated cost. I mean the taxes from smoking cigarettes your entire life still isn't going to cover the resulting medical conditions. There's also the potential risk for corporations to take advantage of the legalization. If you thought those big tobacco lobbyists were powerful now, just wait until they get an entirely new market...

While it's not a perfect solution, I suspect legalization may at least be a step in the right direction.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excise tax - regulation cost = profit. Simple enough. Of course, you can't put too high of an excise tax or people will continue to purchase the drugs illegally. And then the regulation costs have to deal with quality, vendors, and not other issues that we already have with alcohol. Does the excise tax on alcohol cover all of the funds spent enforcing DUI laws? Not at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba
Between new taxes on now-legal drugs (which would have to be low, obviously, or else people are still going to by them illegally)


not that low; cigarettes and alcohol are heavily taxed in many places, and yet moonshine and black-market tobacco don't comprise a huge share of the market
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Lilith
Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba
Between new taxes on now-legal drugs (which would have to be low, obviously, or else people are still going to by them illegally)


not that low; cigarettes and alcohol are heavily taxed in many places, and yet moonshine and black-market tobacco don't comprise a huge share of the market


Right, because consumers value the presumed safety of FDA-approved products. The same would go for legally sold pot, opiates or whatever. Like alcohol, these would be sold at varying degrees of potency and purity, but within safety limits.

Perhaps hard-core junkies would still opt for cheaper stuff from their friendly neighborhood dealers, but with most users likely being willing to pay slightly more for safe, standardized drugs, these dealers would soon find their occupation quite unprofitable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strong Disagree. Once upon a time, cigarettes were very lightly taxed around the country. There mostly just weren't illegal channels to purchase cigarettes because there was no reason for them to exist: cigarettes were pretty cheap so it wasn't worth the effort to run a black market on them.

 

Now cigarettes are an order magnitude more expensive in many places due to high taxes. Guess why the people who are addicted to cigarettes still buy them legally? Because the entire culture was used to doing so for decades upon decades before the incredibly high taxes appeared. If you legalize marijuana, for example, AND put high taxes on it, black market supply chains already exist in large numbers so people will continue to use them.

 

If you legalize harder drugs where quality and safety are a legitimate concern, I'm sure some recreational users would turn to taxed, regulated products. But not all; most addicts would probably still buy the cheaper versions; and for lighter drugs like marijuana where there is no risk of getting a "bad batch," nobody would care about the possible safety benefits of regulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here in Ontario, where cigarettes are up to about $10 a pack, lots of people drive to Indian reservations* to buy them dirt cheap. Technically this is illegal, and the government gets no revenue from it. I don't know why the RCMP doesn't just park a few vehicles on the access roads - though I like to think they have better things to do than harassing lower-income citizens.

 

 

 

*Yes, we call the people aboriginals or first nations, but for some reason we still say "Indian reservations". Anyway, I can say Indian, because I'm probably one-sixteenth Mohawk. tongue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S
If you legalize harder drugs where quality and safety are a legitimate concern, I'm sure some recreational users would turn to taxed, regulated products. But not all; most addicts would probably still buy the cheaper versions; and for lighter drugs like marijuana where there is no risk of getting a "bad batch," nobody would care about the possible safety benefits of regulation.


In the short-term, yes; however, I think in the long-term (decades) the black market would be minimized. It's just a matter of convenience; I mean you can already pick up cigarettes and beer at the grocery store...

I think the main problem here is that short-term/long-term scenarios are significantly different, with most people only focusing on the short-term.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People value convenience. Addicts with dealers they buy from could keep buying from the same dealer, but knowing you can just drive to your local cocaine shop and buy some, no hassle, would get some customers.

 

Moreover, legalized drugs with taxes save the money that crime syndicates lose to having to circumvent the police. I'm not actually sure of the costs, but they're probably substantial.

 

—Alorael, who thinks legalization would work better for some drugs than others. Marijuana is not hugely addictive or damaging, and legalization should be no worse than tobacco or alcohol. Heroin cannot be used safely, and broke, desperate criminal activity by addicts would still be a problem. Legalization might mitigate them, but you can't make drugs safe, and it's in the governments interests to minimize their use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason for such high taxes on cigarettes is to try to discourage their use; it was the intention of the 'nanny state' politicians that if they could raise the cost of cigarettes high enough, fewer people could afford them and would have to give them up in order to pay for other necessities. Since prohibition did not work for alcohol, they figured that prohibition on tobacco would meet with equal failure.

 

How successful is this tactic? From what I see, it has made a little impact, but not a lot. Then there is the issue of 'second hand smoke' regulations. This appears to me to be another case of the 'nanny state' politicians concocting a junk science proof to support their cause.

 

I have studied science and statistics, and I know how experiments and studies can be manipulated to show a 'proof' that the researcher wishes to support. Reference the 'proof' that saccharin caused cancer; but only if you consumed some nonsensically high amount. I question the models they use; do they take into account other factors besides being around other smokers, such as ozone or other such chemicals, or exposure to asbestos, or a myriad of other possible causes of lung cancer? How did they choose their samples for their statistical studies, what proofs did they use, what was the deviation? I could go on but in short, I have a basic distrust of scientific studies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Harehunter
I have studied science and statistics, and I know how experiments and studies can be manipulated to show a 'proof' that the researcher wishes to support. Reference the 'proof' that saccharin caused cancer; but only if you consumed some nonsensically high amount. I question the models they use; do they take into account other factors besides being around other smokers, such as ozone or other such chemicals, or exposure to asbestos, or a myriad of other possible causes of lung cancer? How did they choose their samples for their statistical studies, what proofs did they use, what was the deviation? I could go on but in short, I have a basic distrust of scientific studies.


And this is exactly why you should trust science. Yes, humans are fallible, but the scientific method complete with peer review is the best method we have at this point to eliminate human bias.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you seriously questioning that long-term inhalation of second-hand smoke can cause medical conditions?

 

Quote:
I have a basic distrust of scientific studies.

While I support all basic distrusts on principle, and think it is an important thing to ask the sorts of questions you asked above (what about other factors, sample choice, etc), I have to ask: what is the better alternative to scientific studies? They aren't perfect, but they have a number of trappings that make them easier to trust when you actually see them -- most notably, that tons of information about how they reached their conclusion is published in detail, and secondarily, peer review. For scientific studies where those two things don't happen (or quotes that go "studies say..." without actually citing any) I agree with you 200%, but for legitimate studies, I have to ask what provides better evidence.

 

(Again, I'm saying the evidence is better not because it's scientific, but because it's explained at length and subject to peer review.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slarty, you are correct in that most science is done by people who adhere strictly to the scientific method with the resulting conclusions being more often accurate than not. I'm just saying that there are some people who, for some unkown motive, will attempt to prove their assertion by presenting some study as scientific proof. It is those people I distrust. Maybe it is because they are too closely associated with politicians, or who have something to gain financially from such 'science'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I grew up with two parents who smoked like chimneys. I served in the military at a time there was still a policy of "Smoke 'em if you've got 'em". I married a woman who smoked, I helped clean the tobacco grime in the house. I've worked in offices where more than half the people smoked (this was before laws were enacted that banned smoking in offices). I have never had any medical condition related to all that smoke.

 

In a word, Yes I question the assertion of second hand smoke as a general rule. I can see that there are some circumstances where it may be a valid claim; aircraft cabins for example. But as a rule, where ventilation is adequate, the risk is greater that other pollutants such as H2S or O3 could be the cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genetics have a good deal to do with one's susceptibility to carcinogens, you know. There are quite a few lifelong smokers out there who have never had any health complications in their lives due to their habit. Your own experience does not constitute nearly a large enough sample size to judge the health effects of second-hand smoke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Slartucker
Are you seriously questioning that long-term inhalation of second-hand smoke can cause medical conditions?


I would second the assent on doubting secondhand smoke. In the book Tobacco, a cultural history of the use and spread of tobacco, Iain Gately, the author, outlines the somewhat troubling technique by which studies on secondhand smoke are conducted. Gately concluded that, due to the fact that most of the toxins go into the smoker themselves, and that the rest is distributed thinly in the immediate atmosphere, any actual harm from secondhand smoke is so incredibly negligible that it is irresponsible to assert that it causes any real medical harm in the vast majority of instances. Who has ever died of secondhand smoke?

Obviously, there are people with asthma and other conditions where the threat is more actual. However, I'm more inclined to believe that secondhand smoke is an instance of threat construction rather than a genuine health concern. I'm open to evidence to the contrary, however.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Harehunter
In a word, Yes I question the assertion of second hand smoke as a general rule. I can see that there are some circumstances where it may be a valid claim; aircraft cabins for example. But as a rule, where ventilation is adequate, the risk is greater that other pollutants such as H2S or O3 could be the cause.

Okay, you question the assertion based on a single anecdote (you). I don't know how familiar you are with first-hand smoking disease rates, but a decent fraction of people who smoke heavily never develop serious disease from it. Nonetheless, the majority of heavy smokers eventually do. So at most, your anecdote suggests that something similar goes on with second-hand smoke. Of course, it is one data point and is not statistically significant anyway.

But here is some evidence for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_hand_smoking#Evidence

EDIT: Goldenking, this can be for you too. One or two studies by groups with an obvious bias are easy to hand-wave away; numerous studies by different groups in different countries are very hard to hand-wave away. There are also some easy answers to questions like "where do the carcinogens go?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Harehunter
The reason for such high taxes on cigarettes is to try to discourage their use; it was the intention of the 'nanny state' politicians that if they could raise the cost of cigarettes high enough, fewer people could afford them and would have to give them up in order to pay for other necessities. Since prohibition did not work for alcohol, they figured that prohibition on tobacco would meet with equal failure.
Actually, the taxes on cigarettes are not really meant to discourage people from purchasing cigarettes. Rather, the government knows that people will continue to buy cigarettes whether they tax them or not, so they might as well tax them at a reasonably high rate. It's a guaranteed source of revenue.

Originally Posted By: Harehunter
I grew up with two parents who smoked like chimneys. I served in the military at a time there was still a policy of "Smoke 'em if you've got 'em". I married a woman who smoked, I helped clean the tobacco grime in the house. I've worked in offices where more than half the people smoked (this was before laws were enacted that banned smoking in offices). I have never had any medical condition related to all that smoke.
By that same token, there are people who have smoked a pack of cigarettes every day for their entire adult life and never gotten cancer or emphysema. Does this mean it doesn't cause serious medical problems in other people? There are people who have ridiculously unhealthy diets and are not obese. Does this mean diet has nothing to do with obesity?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba
Harehunter: Answer Slarty's question, please.

Can we take out the "Harehunter" and put this in giant letters at the top of every debate thread, please?

I enjoy discussing tricky topics with people who hold very different opinions from me. What I don't enjoy is when they want to make assertions, but refuse to respond to questions about them. I know that not every point is going to get followed up on in a sprawling debate, but direct questions should really always be answered: that's how we have a dialogue and learn from each other's views in depth, rather than just shouting at each other.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Harehunter
Then there is the issue of 'second hand smoke' regulations. This appears to me to be another case of the 'nanny state' politicians concocting a junk science proof to support their cause.

This is where I think you're indisputably wrong. I don't smoke, and I'm extremely sensitive to cigarette smoke. If I'm stopped in traffic and someone is smoking in a car with closed windows several cars in front of me, I can smell it. If someone is smoking on the other side of the building from me, and I have the window open, I not only can smell it but have to close the window because it is so putrid, and I may have to leave my room for a few minutes for the smell to go away. People who smoke around me are probably negatively affecting my health — I find it hard to imagine that the stuff in cigarette smoke isn't harmful, but I haven't studied the statistics carefully — but they are definitely causing me harm. It would be far worse if smoking were allowed in restaurants, etc., as it used to be, since I would be (almost literally) forced out.

It's fair to check out statistical studies to verify that their methodologies were acceptable, that they're not drawing excessively broad inferences, and all those sorts of things. It's another thing entirely to dismiss statistical studies entirely.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...