Jump to content

Troy Davis


VCH

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 194
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

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.
Originally Posted By: Kelandon

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.


Re both of you: The plural of anecdote is not data. Neither of you are doing your argument any favors by claiming personal experience for/against secondhand smoke as somehow authoritative or indicative that the other side is wrong. Statistical studies with solid methodology is how you would prove that, not blasé personal stories.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Trenton the dragon lord
Why would that be illegal. Peanuts are tasty!


Some people have highly sensitive allergies to peanuts. This can be so severe that even having peanut dust in the atmosphere around them can spur an allergic reaction. It's the reason many airlines have phased out giving packets of peanuts to passengers during flights.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Dantius
Re both of you: The plural of anecdote is not data. Neither of you are doing your argument any favors by claiming personal experience for/against secondhand smoke as somehow authoritative or indicative that the other side is wrong. Statistical studies with solid methodology is how you would prove that, not blasé personal stories.

The claim being argued over is "second-hand smoke is harmful to some people." "Some" is defined as "one or more." Even if Kel's anecdote were literally unique, it would still be sufficient to prove his case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Sarachim
Originally Posted By: Dantius
Re both of you: The plural of anecdote is not data. Neither of you are doing your argument any favors by claiming personal experience for/against secondhand smoke as somehow authoritative or indicative that the other side is wrong. Statistical studies with solid methodology is how you would prove that, not blasé personal stories.

The claim being argued over is "second-hand smoke is harmful to some people." "Some" is defined as "one or more." Even if Kel's anecdote were literally unique, it would still be sufficient to prove his case.


That's funny, I was under the impression that the claim was "Second-hand smoke is harmful to enough people that the government should restrict smoking", which would make much more sense as a topic of discussion naturally evolvng from the prior comments made n the thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point was that cigarette smokers pollute public air with a foul odor. I don't need to do a study to know that; it's pretty obvious. Would you really need a study to know that most non-smokers find that cigarette smoke smells offensive?

 

This means, at the very least, that cigarette smokers should not be allowed to impose their foul odors on others in a regular and predictable fashion (e.g. in closed-air restaurants). This is not overbearing nannying; this is protecting those who would otherwise be harmed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Second-hand smoke is a risk factor for asthma in children raised in smoke-heavy environments and an asthma attack trigger for many asthmatics. Even if second-hand smoke had no link to cancer or emphysema, it has risks.

 

And, frankly, this is like global warming. Neutral parties find strong statistical evidence for harm from second-hand smoke. Studies by the tobacco industry do not. The tobacco industry is also most responsible for calling doubt on the CDC, NCI, and WHO studies, including by simply lying. I know which scientists I find credible.

 

But mostly...

Originally Posted By: Harehunter
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.

It's hard to test. Smoking has been declining for decades. Is it faster with taxes? Maybe. It's definitely faster with various bans on smoking in the workplace, in restaurants, and in bars, and it looks like the decrease is also larger where cigarette taxes are higher.

 

(Source!)

 

Given that you're making a claim that runs counter to the demographic data, I don't find the rest of your assertions terribly credible.

 

Most of all, second-hand smoke is not the primary issue. Studies show that it's harmful, but even if they didn't there is enough reason for states to ban and tax smoking. The taxes raise revenue; the bans reduce smoking. Given how much of a public health expense smoking is, it is in the interests of the states' budgets to do both.

 

—Alorael, who can't agree that banning smoking in restaurants for reasons of distaste is reasonable. Restaurants could decide for themselves if they wanted to allow smoking, and smoke-free restaurants would appeal to non-smokers while smoke-friendly restaurants would draw the smoking crowd. It's the desire to get rid of all smoking that draws bans. The effects of second-hand smoke on employees is also important, but without that there would still be enough reason to impose taxes and bans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Kelandon
My point was that cigarette smokers pollute public air with a foul odor. I don't need to do a study to know that; it's pretty obvious. Would you really need a study to know that most non-smokers find that cigarette smoke smells offensive?

This means, at the very least, that cigarette smokers should not be allowed to impose their foul odors on others in a regular and predictable fashion (e.g. in closed-air restaurants). This is not overbearing nannying; this is protecting those who would otherwise be harmed.


Now, I wouldn't go to any of the extremes that you are proposing. First of all, your individual experience cannot just be expanded to general opinion because you say that it can; I have never smoked in my life, nor do I intend to, but I find the smell of smoke of any nature to be pleasing. So, to answer your question, yes, I would require such a study.

Moreover, just because an odor is displeasing does not mean it is the duty of the state to intervene to prevent it from spreading. Should the state also mandate that garbage be perfumed, or that everyone must wear deodorant at all times? Moreover, where do we draw the line at what is or is not a displeasing odor? Do we allow this logic to expand to displeasing sights and sounds, as well?

Obviously, the difference is that cigarette smoke is going to have some detrimental effect, whereas not wearing deodorant is just an annoying inconvenience. However, constantly trying to securitize against every possible threat just means that the state will constantly expand. Lines need to be drawn to prevent slippery slopes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Kelandon
My point was that cigarette smokers pollute public air with a foul odor. I don't need to do a study to know that; it's pretty obvious. Would you really need a study to know that most non-smokers find that cigarette smoke smells offensive?

This means, at the very least, that cigarette smokers should not be allowed to impose their foul odors on others in a regular and predictable fashion (e.g. in closed-air restaurants). This is not overbearing nannying; this is protecting those who would otherwise be harmed.


Cigarette smoke is rather disgusting, but bans on smoking and tobacco apply to all kinds of smoking- including pipe smoking, which I find to have a pleasing odor. So yes, I would say that "foul odor" is a personal feeling, and as such the State probably shouldn't legislate your personal opinions, no matter how strongly you hold them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's play multiple choice. Everyone pick the answer that represents your opinion, so we can find out what people are REALLY saying. Pick 1, 2, or 3, and if you pick 3, pick some letters as well.

 

(1) I don't think there is ANY possible justification to ban smoking in enclosed public spaces, regardless of what evidence is presented.

 

(2) I don't think there is ANY possible justification for allowing smoking in enclosed public spaces, regardless of what evidence is presented.

 

(3) I think bans might or might not be reasonable, as follows:

 

(3a) I would NOT support bans based on links between second-hand smoke and medical problems, even if I believed the links existed.

(3b) I would support bans based on links between second-hand smoke and medical problems. I DO NOT believe those links exist, however.

(3c) I would support bans based on links between second-hand smoke and medical problems. I DO believe those links exist, so I support bans.

 

(3d) I would NOT support bans based on reactions to the smell of smoke, even if I believed those reactions were common.

(3e) I would support bans based on reactions to the smell of smoke. I DO NOT believe those reactions are common, however.

(3f) I would support bans based on reactions to the smell of smoke. I DO believe those reactions are common, so I support bans.

 

(3g) I would NOT support bans based on the public health cost of smoking.

(3h) I WOULD support bans based on the public health cost of smoking.

 

This way, we can clear up which people still don't believe second-hand smoke has a health impact, etc.

 

My answer is: 3c/d/h.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might be somewhat affected in my current state by the fact that I literally cannot escape from the smell of cigarette smoke in my dorm right now, save by closing all the windows and not walking in the hallways. This might be causing me to overstate my true position, and I might change my mind tomorrow.

 

But I think that my support for a ban on forcing tobacco smoke on others (generally — maybe the better example is, say, an airplane) is not simply based on a single factor. It's a combination of the fact that second-hand smoke is medically harmful to others (to greater and lesser degrees; obviously more to asthmatics) and a public nuisance (again to greater and lesser degrees). I don't want to decide whether any one factor is decisive, because not only one factor is present. They're all present. And one factor happens to affect me more than most people, so I obviously care about it more than most people.

 

That said, where do we draw the line? I've thought about this occasionally, usually when I'm walking ten or twenty feet behind someone who's smoking and desperately trying to pass him or her so as to get away from the stink. I'm in favor of restrictive laws on smoking but not on banning it entirely, but why? I suppose I draw the line here: people need to not damage the health and well-being of others, but they can damage their own health and well-being as much as they want. So if people can smoke in completely open air such that no one else has to breath it (an open-air concert obviously doesn't count, since even with festival seating you usually can't choose your spot very well), then smoking is okay. In all other circumstances, smoking can be limited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, upon further consideration, I'll change my answer to 3c/d/g. I don't think any ban ought to take the public health cost into account, as luxury taxes on cigarettes seem designed to cover this cost. Besides, many smokers are quite affluent and can afford to pay higher premiums to get health insurance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, what Lt. Sullust said. I certainly don't want to be exposed to second-hand smoke, but how far do you go? For another example, I know a few highly asthmatic people. Our church discourages using scents because of these people, but in the past we have had unaware visitors come in with perfumes or colognes, causing an asthmatic member to start an attack and have to leave the sanctuary.

 

Now, do you impose a ban on scents in public enclosed spaces? Probably not, because not everyone is asthmatic. But then people like Harehunter will jump up and say they are resistant to tobacco smoke. I suppose everyone has to come up with some threshold of when to ban behaviour that affects a percentage of bystanders (or continue studies that will show that second-hand smoke affects everyone).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't follow the slippery-slope argument here, because smoking by definition releases a cloud of smoke particles into the air, while eating peanuts, even for the messiest eater, does not release a cloud of peanut particles into the air.

 

While second-hand smoke is pervasive, the only realistic vector for second-hand peanuts is mouth-to-mouth contact. Unless you kiss random people on the street, there is no danger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have asthma, but I have asthmatic responses to many colognes and perfumes. Kind of odd, and I have the same kind of response when I walk into a craft store.

 

Originally Posted By: Stugri-La
You know, upon further consideration, I'll change my answer to 3c/d/g. I don't think any ban ought to take the public health cost into account, as luxury taxes on cigarettes seem designed to cover this cost. Besides, many smokers are quite affluent and can afford to pay higher premiums to get health insurance.

I don't think most smokers are affluent, though. In fact, most of the regular smokers I know are in the lower income brackets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Arancaytar
I don't follow the slippery-slope argument here, because smoking by definition releases a cloud of smoke particles into the air, while eating peanuts, even for the messiest eater, does not release a cloud of peanut particles into the air.

While second-hand smoke is pervasive, the only realistic vector for second-hand peanuts is mouth-to-mouth contact. Unless you kiss random people on the street, there is no danger.
Funny story: for the longest time, I thought people allergic to peanuts could be triggered by scent alone, because I knew one kid (Grade One at the time) who went into anaphylactic shock because someone on his bus had a peanut butter sandwich.

Later on, I found out that said peanut butter sandwich was being rubbed into his face at the time.



Sorry, did I say funny story?



(To be "fair", the other side of the story was that the sandwich owner was merely holding it a few inches away from the kid's face, and it was a bump on the road that was the real culprit. Because waving a lethal substance in front of someone's face is juuust fine.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3c(e/f)h. If a smell is noxious to many people, it's quite reasonable to restrict its presence, and I do believe most people dislike the smell of cigarette smoke—that's one reason why smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants existed back when there was smoking in restaurants. The question is whether a ban is justified, and I don't think reactions as strong as Kel's, and to as little smoke as Kel is sensitive to, are common. Separating smoking and non-smoking mostly worked well enough for odor purposes.

 

A ban based on the public health cost of smoking can't be based on any cost, because everything has a public health cost if it has even the slightest danger associated with it. But if the cost to the government of permitting smoking is high, it should be banned. If the cost can be controlled by banning smoking in many places without banning it absolutely, that should be done.

 

If peanuts were dangerous to people if they were consumed publicly, I would support a ban in the most dangerous circumstances. There's a critical difference, though: smoking is undeniably dangerous to everyone. Peanuts are dangerous to a minority, and they are an area-of-effect danger, if you will, to a tiny fraction of the population that is aware of this and can act to protect themselves.

 

—Alorael, who thinks it's reasonable to slightly endanger the few, who know the risks and how to minimize them, for the convenience of the majority. It is not reasonable to endanger the non-smoking majority in a way that is virtually inescapable. The other difference, of course, is that peanuts aren't harmful and are a valuable food. Cigarettes are harmful to everyone. There is a public benefit to their discouragement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 CDG

 

Even if I'm not convinced that smoking in a park is not going to negatively affect someone else in that park in any detectable fashion, I can concede that this isn't going to be true of all situations. Airplanes, for instance, based on recycled air.

 

That said, more artificial costs to society, like stench and cost, I am fine with having to pay. I do support an excise tax on tobacco products, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Lt. Sullust
Please note that the question only referenced enclosed spaces. My answer would be 2. Though I believe (perhaps mistakenly) that I have a right to clean air.


My answer remains the same. In airplanes, no smoking is a good idea. In a different setting, like a bar? I believe that should be up to private choice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Goldenking
Moreover, just because an odor is displeasing does not mean it is the duty of the state to intervene to prevent it from spreading. Should the state also mandate that garbage be perfumed, or that everyone must wear deodorant at all times? Moreover, where do we draw the line at what is or is not a displeasing odor? Do we allow this logic to expand to displeasing sights and sounds, as well?


we already do. pile up some garbage on your front lawn or keep a dog that barks all night and see how long it takes you to get a knock on your door from the authorities

incidentally the main driving force behind indoor smoking bans over here has been occupational health and safety. there have been a number of successful lawsuits from people who worked in smoky bars and developed health problems as a result. it's not so easy to say "if you can't stand being around smoke, just don't go to places where people smoke" when your livelihood depends on it

Originally Posted By: Stugri-La
You know, upon further consideration, I'll change my answer to 3c/d/g. I don't think any ban ought to take the public health cost into account, as luxury taxes on cigarettes seem designed to cover this cost. Besides, many smokers are quite affluent and can afford to pay higher premiums to get health insurance.


"many" is kind of a weasel word (er, so to speak) in this context: smoking is more prevalent among people with lower incomes. i think cigarette taxes are problematic for this reason: they do reduce tobacco consumption to some extent, but only when they place such serious financial pressure on people that affording cigarettes becomes a significant hardship.

Originally Posted By: The Turtle Moves
I'm probably one-sixteenth Mohawk


that's a lot of hair
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Lilith
Originally Posted By: Stugri-La
You know, upon further consideration, I'll change my answer to 3c/d/g. I don't think any ban ought to take the public health cost into account, as luxury taxes on cigarettes seem designed to cover this cost. Besides, many smokers are quite affluent and can afford to pay higher premiums to get health insurance.


"many" is kind of a weasel word (er, so to speak) in this context: smoking is more prevalent among people with lower incomes. i think cigarette taxes are problematic for this reason: they do reduce tobacco consumption to some extent, but only when they place such serious financial pressure on people that affording cigarettes becomes a significant hardship.


:{P I had never before heard of that phrase, but it certainly fits. Yeah, I knew I was being rather wishy-washy when I threw in that "many," as I had little idea about the demographic distribution of smokers. Most of the smokers I've known have been students (at various levels of education), especially my peers from foreign countries. But it does make sense that smokers in the general populace are often quite poor. It's still a far more diverse population socioeconomically than crack cocaine smokers, for example, but that does not diminish the plight of impoverished nicotine addicts.

You're quite right that for an addict, exorbitant taxes will not serve as a deterrent. I suppose some bargain-basement brands are still fairly cheaply available, but they could still stand to be less of a strain on the wallets of those that are struggling to make ends meet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Goldenking
Originally Posted By: Lt. Sullust
Please note that the question only referenced enclosed spaces. My answer would be 2. Though I believe (perhaps mistakenly) that I have a right to clean air.


My answer remains the same. In airplanes, no smoking is a good idea. In a different setting, like a bar? I believe that should be up to private choice.

Except if bars fear to ban smoking because they will lose profits, meaning no one bans them, meaning all workers are still exposed to smoke.

From the statistics, loosely, it looks like the effect of higher tobacco taxes go beyond the demographic that experiences hardship due to the prices. Money has a lot of funny psychological effects. But no, I can't really cite this.

—Alorael, who cannot understand the dispute over E-cigarettes. You inhale stuff, then you exhale stuff. Some of what you exhale is the stuff from the cigarettes. And if you really want to defend it, just say that no one wants a slippery smoking slope on planes. Politicians love slippery slopes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan
Best. Emoticon. Ever.


Thank you! :{D

Some months ago I tired of conventional emoticons, as they failed to represent my emotions adequately. Having set out to construct a mustachoied emoticon, I quickly achieved my object, with the kind assistance of the squiggly bracket. I can achieve most any effect with this base template.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Alorael

Except if bars fear to ban smoking because they will lose profits, meaning no one bans them, meaning all workers are still exposed to smoke.
Here in Pennsyvlania, where it is legal to smoke in bars, there are plenty of smoke free bars or bars that allow smoking only outside or in a designated smoking section. I'm not saying that what you describe doesn't happen, but there are certainly bars that ban smoking even when the law does not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Tyranicus
Here in Pennsyvlania, where it is legal to smoke in bars, there are plenty of smoke free bars or bars that allow smoking only outside or in a designated smoking section. I'm not saying that what you describe doesn't happen, but there are certainly bars that ban smoking even when the law does not.

Now there are, because people are used to smoke-free bars: due to the smoking bans in place in many parts of the country. 30 years ago, I doubt there were more than an odd handful of "smoke free bars" in Pennsylvania or elsewhere.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:
"Everybody knows that when you are smoking on an airplane that's an absolutely a no-no. But this is not smoking. This is vaping," said Ray Story, CEO of the Tobacco Vapor Electronic Cigarette Association.

this is a perfect example of a really, really, really, really poor choice of neologism
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:
—Alorael, who can't agree that banning smoking in restaurants for reasons of distaste is reasonable. Restaurants could decide for themselves if they wanted to allow smoking, and smoke-free restaurants would appeal to non-smokers while smoke-friendly restaurants would draw the smoking crowd. It's the desire to get rid of all smoking that draws bans. The effects of second-hand smoke on employees is also important, but without that there would still be enough reason to impose taxes and bans.

That is the crux of the issue; should the State dictate behavior or should it be left to individual business owners to establish their own policies. You can make a strong case for either business plan for each option. Let the better business plan win out.

In Texas, there is no statewide ban on smoking in restaurants or bars. Restaurants are required to have separate sections. Some cities, including Houston, do have absolute bans including bars. There has been an increase in patronage of restaurants and bars outside the city limits. The debate on whether to institute a statewide ban is as heated as it can get.

BTW, I did point out that there are circumstances where second hand smoke can be problematic. Aircraft cabins have limited recirculation and can serve to concentrate the smoke to a level almost equal to that of first hand smoke. It makes sense to ban smoking there. There are other places where this is possible. Taverns and bars have high concentrations of smoke which could affect non-smoking employees. It is easy to say "If you don't like the smoke, go find another job". Not so easily done. With more lofts being built in the downtown area that attract a population of more educated people who choose not to smoke, there is a strong business reason for smoke free bars. But there is a goodly sized population that go to bars to smoke. There is room in the marketplace for both rules.

I think that high taxes on smoking affect the lower income people more than those who earn more. I would hypothesize that this is because those people who have higher incomes do so because they made the right choices, more than making wrong choices. However they learned to make those decisions, they learned also that smoking was not a good one. There are successful people who do smoke. But they smoke less than your average middle to low income population. This is just a theory, and as full of holes as a block of swiss cheese, so if you don't like it, feel free to slice off a chunk and chew hearty.

I don't smoke. I don't know why, I just don't. I don't advocate smoking. It is a dirty habit, the health risks of first hand smoke is confirmed (just as coal dust, grain dust, asbestos dust, dust in general, benzene fumes from gasoline, H2S releases from chemical plants, ozone formed from high UV days, etc). There is a greater risk of dying in a car crash than from lung cancer (the number of deaths from lung cancer are high, too blasted high).

I don't smoke, but I know how difficult it is for a smoker to quit. My wife tried vainly for years to quit. She finally did, thank God. You cannot cajole a smoker to quit; it just makes them more determined to -not- quit. All you can do is praise them when they do well, and shut the fluff up when they backslide. The State attempting to mitigate a behavior of choice is futile, and invasive. I have said it before, you can't regulate stupid behavior.

I don't smoke, but I generally oppose regulations that would ban it. I feel this is a personal choice option, the same as that of religious, sexual, or political affiliation. I may oppose your view, but I would defend to the death the right you have to express that view. Kufis, saris, yamikas do not offend me. They make me proud that I live in country where people are free to express their religious or cultural beliefs publicly.

BTW, Slarty. Re your questionnaire, 3b*,3d,3g**.

* While I think the general risk of second hand smoke to be inflated, I will agree that there are circumstances where the risk is real. I believe the basis of the second hand smoke scare lies in those restricted conditions, which is then taken to apply to all exposures.
** Again, I think the perception of the cost of lung disease due to second hand smoke on the public is greater than reality. Is there an effect of first hand smoking on the public? More than likely. I just think that there are far greater risks to be concerned about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are certainly greater risks. Many of them just aren't as easy to deal with.

 

—Alorael, who did research. The studies he dug up showed that smoking bans seem not to have impact on income of bars and restaurants, although the ban in question was statewide and limited that important fringe effect. The public health cost is probably inflated, though. See, if you don't die of smoking, you live longer and die of something else that's expensive. Getting people to quit smoking saves money in the short term but not in the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last year my supervisor and friend died of a heart attack. He had never smoked, drank only in moderation, but had been clinically obese for most of his life. When he was diagnosed with type II diabetes, he changed his life style radically. He changed his diet, his exercise, and lost about 100lbs. He was joking about about having to replace his entire wardrobe, but he looked great. One day after going shopping with his wife, he laid down and had a massive stroke. He died a few days later.

 

Long story short: There are many risks in life, but it is not worth worrying about them. Avoid the ones you can, prepare as best for the ones you can't. Most importantly, live each day as if it might be your last. Let the people you love know it on a daily basis. You never know when the good Lord will call you away.

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...