Smoking

[MrktMkr1986]

Ah, but how many people, that do drugs do you know that just sit in their house and quietly do it? Or don't drive after they've had a few beers or whatever. For your example, that would be fine. But the challenge is that people take it out of the private realm and into the public. So you say, punish the offense. That's great, but I think that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" is better then having to tell someone there husband/wife/daughter/son was just killed by a drunk or high driver. I think the point that I am making is that people don't keep things like this private. It always spills into the public eye. I mean, if we were really serious about drunk driving, we wouldn't let people drive to bars. You'd have to take public transporation or a cab(from your home). That would alleviate a lot of the drunk driving issues we have. But that's infringing on their rights, to accidentally kill someone after they leave the bar. Hmmm....well, considering the possible outcome, I'm willing to give up a bit of freedom to know that Joe Schmoe isn't coming at me at the wrong side of the road with no lights on.

I totally agree! Especially the part about "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." I've been trying to say that the whole time! The same things applies to smoking. Why wait until someone has lung cancer, emphysema, throat cancer etc. When young people see adults smoke (not just their parents), they are also MORE likely to get into smoking as well.

Teens who smoke are three times more likely than nonsmokers to use alcohol, eight times more likely to use marijuana, and 22 times more likely to use cocaine. Smoking is associated with a host of other risky behaviors, such as fighting and engaging in unprotected sex.

Conclusion, YOU ARE NOT ONLY HURTING YOURSELF! How many times do I have to say this before it sinks in?!

That's a pretty moot point though, because the money you spend on orange juice could also go to charity, your kids college fund and Peugeot 205 XRD's for the entire family.

Yes, you're right. Which is why I gave a better example above.

 

[sn00pie]

Where are you getting those probability rates from, MrktMrk1986?

(and what the hell is up with your username)

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Where are you getting those probability rates from, MrktMrk1986?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or CDC.

(and what the hell is up with your username)

I wrote about this before in another thread... I'll PM it to you if I can find it. I would prefer if you called me Brian, though.

 

[Danoff]

That's great, but I think that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" is better then having to tell someone there husband/wife/daughter/son was just killed by a drunk or high driver. I think the point that I am making is that people don't keep things like this private. It always spills into the public eye. I mean, if we were really serious about drunk driving, we wouldn't let people drive to bars. You'd have to take public transporation or a cab(from your home). That would alleviate a lot of the drunk driving issues we have. But that's infringing on their rights, to accidentally kill someone after they leave the bar. Hmmm....well, considering the possible outcome, I'm willing to give up a bit of freedom to know that Joe Schmoe isn't coming at me at the wrong side of the road with no lights on.

Except that what you're advocating is unethical. I don't care if you can do good with your restrictions, they're immoral restrictions. To tell someone that they can't drink because they might go out and hurt someone is to violate that person's rights. To tell someone that they don't have free will because they might use that free will to break the law is to shackle that person - even if they're willing to be shackled.

I don't care if you came up with a wonderdrug that would elminate death - you can't force me to take it. Only if I hurt someone have I committed a crime - and I can guarantee you that if you make the penalty high enough, I won't hurt anyone.

In this case, 5000 tons of cure is easy to come by - while an ounce of prevention requires selling your soul.

 

[PS]

There are the 3 letters and 3 numbers again...

I still don't see what's wrong with smoking pot or cigarettes (aside from it obviously harming yourself) alone, or privately.

And does anyone care to dig up stats on the deaths as a result of marijuana overdose?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Except that what you're advocating is unethical.

Who decides if it's ethical or not?

I don't care if you can do good with your restrictions, they're immoral restrictions.

Who decides if it's immoral or not?

I don't care if you came up with a wonderdrug that would elminate death - you can't force me to take it. Only if I hurt someone have I committed a crime - and I can guarantee you that if you make the penalty high enough, I won't hurt anyone.

People will still do bad things even if the penalty was high.

In this case, 5000 tons of cure is easy to come by - while an ounce of prevention requires selling your soul.

?! I thought you were an atheist?! Since when you YOU believe in soul?

 

[sn00pie]

Smoking is [therefore] associated with a host of other risky behaviors, such as fighting and engaging in unprotected sex.

These two risky behaviorial actions are far more likely to relay to fundamental characteristical traits.

 

[Danoff]

Who decides if it's ethical or not?

That's just it isn't it? Who decides? You? Me? God (no I don't believe in God)? The pope (oh wait)? The president? Congress?

You (general you) have to decide for yourself what is ethical. Everyone gets to decide for themselves what is ethical. So the state must preserve all rights that are feasible to be preserved for man to use or not use as he sees fit.

In otherwords, the state must not get in the way of your decision about what is ethical. The state's proper function is to allow society to exist - but leave as much as possible to the individual (including questions concerning ethics and morality).

The only wrong in the state's eyes should be the prevention of other people to live their lives as they saw fit - the violation of basic human rights. For the state to do anything else would violate those rights (which is what I was calling unethical earlier - the violation of rights by anyone including the state).

Who gets to decide what the basic set of human rights? They are maximized. Nobody decides but logic - rights are maximized for each individual - which inherently restricts them but to the least possible extent.



Hey, you asked.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

That's just it isn't it? Who decides? You? Me? God (no I don't believe in God)? The president? Congress?

Perhaps a combination of all?

The pope (oh wait)?

NOW WAS THAT NECESSARY?!

You (general you) have to decide for yourself what is ethical. Everyone gets to decide for themselves what is ethical.

Do you want to know why I find that humorous? If I decided it was ethical to run around shoot people because they disagree with me, wouldn't it be infringement on MY rights to imprison me?

So the state must preserve all rights that are feasible to be preserved for man to use or not use as he sees fit.

I thought you didn't believe in a centralized state?

In otherwords, the state must not get in the way of your decision about what is ethical.

Even if it means savings lives...

The state's proper function is to allow society to exist - but leave as much as possible to the individual (including questions concerning ethics and morality).

According to the anarchist Oops! I meant to say Libertarian...

The only wrong in the state's eyes should be the prevention of other people to live their lives as they saw fit - the violation of basic human rights.

Said the Libertarian...

For the state to do anything else would violate those rights (which is what I was calling unethical earlier - the violation of rights by anyone including the state).

Said Dan.

Who gets to decide what the basic set of human rights? They are maximized. Nobody decides but logic - rights are maximized for each individual - which inherently restricts them but to the least possible extent.

Very detailed to say the least... I still disagree, but there's no point in going back and forth... as this is a thread about smoking...and I have [unsuccesfully] tried to bring the conversation back to that.

Hey, you asked.

I know, but I wasn't expecting that much detail!

These two risky behaviorial actions are far more likely to relay to fundamental characteristical traits.

Perhaps, to a certain extent. I think we can BOTH agree, though, that smoking cigarettes will only exacerbate the issue.

 

[Danoff]

Do you want to know why I find that humorous? If I decided it was ethical to run around shoot people because they disagree with me, wouldn't it be infringement on MY rights to imprison me?

This is the kind of statement that makes me wonder if I'm just doing a bad job of communicating. If you've been reading my posts, I would think you would know the answer to this question. In fact, I answered it in the post you were quoting.

Right here...

They are maximized. Nobody decides but logic - rights are maximized for each individual - which inherently restricts them but to the least possible extent.

See? Right there. Your freedom have to be restricted in order to maximize everyone's freedom. Those restrictions on you are called rights for everyone else, and they are set up to ensure the maximum possible freedom. Because without that freedom is contradictory - your freedom to kill me is at odds with my freedom from you.

I'm just surpsied that you would post the above question considering the number of times I have answered it. It's like you think it's a flaw in my reasoning but I explain over and over why it is not.

 

[sn00pie]

Perhaps, to a certain extent. I think we can BOTH agree, though, that smoking cigarettes will only exacerbate the issue.

This particular argument lacks a lot of context, so let's agree that the enthousiastic consumption of alcohol may feed any agressive tendencies.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

This is the kind of statement that makes me wonder if I'm just doing a bad job of communicating. If you've been reading my posts, I would think you would know the answer to this question. In fact, I answered it in the post you were quoting.

Right here...

Got it now.

I didn't understand exactly what you were trying to say there... rather than asking ( ), I assumed you meant something else.

See? Right there. Your freedom have to be restricted in order to maximize everyone's freedom.

That's what I've been saying all along. Then I get called a fascist for saying the same thing?!

Those restrictions on you are called rights for everyone else, and they are set up to ensure the maximum possible freedom.

Rights can be interpreted differently... rather than everyone defining "rights" on their own terms (which will only complicate things), why not come to a general consensus. We can all agree that smoking cigarettes is harmful. I know I don't want anyone to die "faster" by smoking cigarettes. I know YOU don't want anyone you know to die "faster" by smoking cigarettes -- so it's simple. We've JUST FORMED A CONSENSUS that smoking cigarettes is dangerous. Restriction = right to life. Just like the suicide example I gave you -- which I will gladly repeat here in case someone missed it.

This particular argument lacks a lot of context, so let's agree that the enthousiastic consumption of alcohol may feed any agressive tendencies.

I can agree with that. However, my previous statement does not lack context (according to the statistics at least). People with addictive personalities are more likely to engage in risky) behavior.

 

[Danoff]

Rights can be interpreted differently... rather than everyone defining "rights" on their own terms (which will only complicate things), why not come to a general consensus. We can all agree that smoking cigarettes is harmful. I know I don't want anyone to die "faster" by smoking cigarettes. I'm know YOU don't want anyone you know to die "faster" by smoking cigarettes -- so it's simple. We've JUST FORMED A CONSENSUS that smoking cigarettes is dangerous. Restriction = right to life. Just like the suicide example I gave you -- which I will gladly repeat here in case someone missed it.

That's not consistent with my objective of maximizing freedom. By preventing someone from smoking, you've limited their freedom beyond what is necessary. It is not necessary to prevent people from smoking to have a society. It is necessary to prevent people from running around killing each other to have a free society - because freedom is limited unnecessarily when people are not protected from random violence.

I admit on looking at my own views - they're complicated. But at least they're consistent, and they don't require that I draw arbitrary lines or appeal to an arbitrary sense of right and wrong or appeal to majority rule.

 

[194GVan]

I agree with most no smoking laws in public places, I smoke cigarettes but unless Im smoking one I generally cant stand second hand smoke. weird, huh? just my 2 cents.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I agree with most no smoking laws in public places, I smoke cigarettes but unless Im smoking one I generally cant stand second hand smoke. weird, huh? just my 2 cents.

Interesting... here's my 2 cents. QUIT!! QUIT WHILE YOU HAVE THE CHANCE!!!

It is not necessary to prevent people from smoking to have a society.

Of course, but can you imagine a society without cigarettes? 435,000 people would have lived last year.

It is necessary to prevent people from running around killing each other to have a free society - because freedom is limited unnecessarily when people are not protected from random violence.

That's a bit extreme, but yes. OK.

I admit on looking at my own views - they're complicated.

That, we can agree on.

But at least they're consistent, and they don't require that I draw arbitrary lines or appeal to an arbitrary sense of right and wrong or appeal to majority rule.

Perhaps... but given this situation:

I urge all who read this to SERIOUSLY consider [and answer] this question:

“Imagine if a very close friend of yours is suicidal. They just broke up with their boyfriend/girlfriend, lost her job, had been drinking heavily, and is severely depressed. If you knew they would feel better in the morning, would you physically restrain them from killing them self?”

What then? PLEASE, EVERYONE ANSWER THIS! IT'S VITAL TO THE THREAD!!!

 

[Swift]

I agree with most no smoking laws in public places, I smoke cigarettes but unless Im smoking one I generally cant stand second hand smoke. weird, huh? just my 2 cents.

Yes Van, you are weird. But we like you anyway Didn't know you smoked though, you should cut that out if you can.

Danoff, your argument is unsound. If the only way to commit a crime is to violate one's rights, then how do you define what is a violation? How do you define "measurable" damage. Here's the fundamental flaw with your logic. It's based on a people that are willing to take responsibility for their actions. Our history(American) shows that we simply don't want to do that. Personally, I would welcome that. However, your point of view wouldn't work unless you changed just about every aspect of our current gov't and legislation.

Do you really value the right of some moron to drink, drive, possibly kill your mother/father over outlawing drunk driving? Man, what is that about?

 

[Danoff]

Danoff, your argument is unsound. If the only way to commit a crime is to violate one's rights, then how do you define what is a violation? How do you define "measurable" damage. Here's the fundamental flaw with your logic. It's based on a people that are willing to take responsibility for their actions.

People don't have to be willing to take responsibility for their actions, they'll be forced to by the police if they violate someone else's rights.

A violation is pretty clearly defined. If I have a right to not be harmed and I could show that someone harmed me, that would be a violation. I'm sure that you can make a grey area out of it, but that exists in laws today and is dealt with quite efficiently. Suffice it to say that any harm to you would have to be evident.

See? No Flaw.

Do you really value the right of some moron to drink, drive, possibly kill your mother/father over outlawing drunk driving? Man, what is that about?

He has no right to kill my mother/father, but outlawing drunk driving is not the only alternative.

Of course, but can you imagine a society without cigarettes? 435,000 people would have lived last year.

Sure. I wish people made better choices. It's too bad that they don't, but they probably think my life is boring by comparison. They choose to smoke or do drugs, but I choose not to - they would probably hate life if it meant no drugs, life wouldn't be nearly as interesting to them - even if it meant living longer.

What then? PLEASE, EVERYONE ANSWER THIS! IT'S VITAL TO THE THREAD!!!

I stand by my response in the libertarian thread.

 

[Swift]

People don't have to be willing to take responsibility for their actions, they'll be forced to by the police if they violate someone else's rights.

A violation is pretty clearly defined. If I have a right to not be harmed and I could show that someone harmed me, that would be a violation. I'm sure that you can make a grey area out of it, but that exists in laws today and is dealt with quite efficiently. Suffice it to say that any harm to you would have to be evident.

See? No Flaw.

Uh...so your forcing someone to believe in your view of rights. Sounds contrary to your whole policy.

He has no right to kill my mother/father, but outlawing drunk driving is not the only alternative.

Then what is!?!? Alcohol removes the inhibitions of the drinker. So it's not like they "think" they can't control the car or something. What do we do? Wait till someone dies, then just put them in jail or kill them? What about the life that was lost? We can't get that back. Your views are toying with lives in a way that simply isn't sound. It's putting the public in danger of people's "personal choices". That's what I'm saying. I don't care how you punish someone, the person they killed cannot be returned.

BTW, our laws do not deal with the grey areas very effeciently. If they did, we wouldn't have the debacle of the court system that be do now. I mean, a woman getting money for spilling hot coffee in a Mcdonald's parking lot? That's just ludicrous. That should've been thrown out of court. What rights did Mcdonald's violate against her? giving her hot coffee because that's how you serve coffee? You have stated that ignorance of the rules isn't an excuse. But anyway....

 

[Silverzone]

I have been around smokers for my entire life. My parents smoke and my grandparents smoke also. I am totally for banning smoking in all public places because of second hand smoke. My lungs are all messed up from being around smokers all my life, even though I have never smoked one. I will most definately feel this as I grow older. I really have the feeling my parents don't understans what could happen to me, or worse, themselves. But the one thing I believe that is stopping smoking from being banned is one thing: Money. These people are being paid millions of dollars every year in America capitalizing on people's addictions, and in some cases killing their most valued customers. I want to know why these people aren't getting jail time for giving these people lung cancer. Hypothetically, If someone was to go out and kill someone with their bare hands, they are going to get caught and jailed for a long time. But when you think about it, The tobacco industry is the killer, the tobacco is the weapon, and the consumers are the victims. (Yes, I know not everyone dies from smoking, but a lot do.) And the tobacco death is worse than getting murdered by bare hands, or a weapon. Lung cancer is a very slow process and with it, the death is long and drawn out. You will start caughing uncontrollably, and recover, but it gets worse everytime. And it will keep getting worse until it finally takes control. I could go on and on, thats how bad smoking is.

 

[Zrow]

. I want to know why these people aren't getting jail time for giving these people lung cancer. Hypothetically, If someone was to go out and kill someone with their bare hands, they are going to get caught and jailed for a long time.

The tobacco company is not forcing anyone to buy their products. It's the consumer's choice. It's the same reason gun manufacturers aren't held responsible - they aren't killing anyone.

The tobacco industry is the killer, the tobacco is the weapon, and the consumers are the victims

The consumers are the killers - it's their choice to start.

 

[a6m5]

The consumers are the killers - it's their choice to start.

I hate to make excuses for the people who smokes, but I think many smokers start smoking when they are teenagers(some, even younger than that). By the time they know better, they are already hooked.

I just wanted to point this out. Yes, if you're addicted to cigarettes and are not able to quit, you could get help.

Edit:

I have been around smokers for my entire life. My parents smoke and my grandparents smoke also. I am totally for banning smoking in all public places because of second hand smoke. My lungs are all messed up from being around smokers all my life, even though I have never smoked one. I will most definately feel this as I grow older. I really have the feeling my parents don't understans what could happen to me, or worse, themselves.

I don't wanna say much here, because I don't want to insult your parents, but I can't respect anyone, who puts their kids in that kind of situation. It's great that you are a nonsmoker, having grown up in that type of environment 👍

But the one thing I believe that is stopping smoking from being banned is one thing: Money. These people are being paid millions of dollars every year in America capitalizing on people's addictions, and in some cases killing their most valued customers. I want to know why these people aren't getting jail time for giving these people lung cancer. Hypothetically, If someone was to go out and kill someone with their bare hands, they are going to get caught and jailed for a long time. But when you think about it, The tobacco industry is the killer, the tobacco is the weapon, and the consumers are the victims. (Yes, I know not everyone dies from smoking, but a lot do.) And the tobacco death is worse than getting murdered by bare hands, or a weapon. Lung cancer is a very slow process and with it, the death is long and drawn out. You will start caughing uncontrollably, and recover, but it gets worse everytime. And it will keep getting worse until it finally takes control. I could go on and on, thats how bad smoking is.

Tobacco business is immoral, IMO, but like Zrow said, they are not forcing anybody to smoke. Also, as long as they keep on making the "big bucks", they will have enough influence in the politics to protect their interest.

 

[Danoff]

Uh...so your forcing someone to believe in your view of rights. Sounds contrary to your whole policy.

Did you read what I wrote? I said that people's rights are consistent with maximum freedom - so some freedoms are inherently resricted. I just wrote about how what I propose doesn't require anyone to believe in anyone else's view of rights.

 

[Swift]

Did you read what I wrote? I said that people's rights are consistent with maximum freedom - so some freedoms are inherently resricted. I just wrote about how what I propose doesn't require anyone to believe in anyone else's view of rights.

Yes it does. But it just doesn't give them a choice. They say, "I should be able to drink and drive as long as I'm not 'drunk' " But it's cleary putting others in danger to do so. What would be your response to this case.

Also, how about people throwing their cigarettes out of a moving car. That could very easily get caught in another car somehow and cause some major damage.

 

[Danoff]

Also, how about people throwing their cigarettes out of a moving car. That could very easily get caught in another car somehow and cause some major damage.

If they caues property damage they get penalized because they have violated someone else's rights.

They say, "I should be able to drink and drive as long as I'm not 'drunk' " But it's cleary putting others in danger to do so. What would be your response to this case.

Others are in danger when they get on the road in the first place. You're in danger sitting in your bedroom. Just because you think allowing other people to have cars or guns or drink alcohol puts you in greater danger doesn't give you the right to regulate their behavior. How is that determined? (I'll say it again) Freedom should be maximized - which inherently puts restrictions on freedom.

Why should freedom be maximized? Because anything else begs the question you just asked - it puts someone in charge of someone else's life.

 

[Swift]

If they caues property damage they get penalized because they have violated someone else's rights.




Others are in danger when they get on the road in the first place. You're in danger sitting in your bedroom. Just because you think allowing other people to have cars or guns or drink alcohol puts you in greater danger doesn't give you the right to regulate their behavior. How is that determined? (I'll say it again) Freedom should be maximized - which inherently puts restrictions on freedom.

Why should freedom be maximized? Because anything else begs the question you just asked - it puts someone in charge of someone else's life.

Hmm...no. I'm in danger from MYSELF in my bedroom. Hense, nobody is messing with my rights. But if someone else is rasing the level of risk that I'm taking getting to work, how is that fair? Go ahead and tell me, I'd love to know.

 

[Danoff]

Hmm...no. I'm in danger from MYSELF in my bedroom. Hense, nobody is messing with my rights. But if someone else is rasing the level of risk that I'm taking getting to work, how is that fair? Go ahead and tell me, I'd love to know.

It's fair becaue you have no right not to be at RISK. You have a right not to be harmed. It is impossible for you not to be at risk.


...and you are in danger from other people in your bedroom. Somebody could walk in your door - hopped up on drugs and looking for cash - and blow your brains out.

 

[Swift]

It's fair becaue you have no right not to be at RISK. You have a right not to be harmed. It is impossible for you not to be at risk.


...and you are in danger from other people in your bedroom. Somebody could walk in your door - hopped up on drugs and looking for cash - and blow your brains out.

Is it possible for you to look at common examples instead of ridiculous almost impossible extremes? Sheesh.

And yes I DO have the right for someone else not to RAISE my level of risk. Thank you.

 

[PS]

Is it possible for you to look at common examples instead of ridiculous almost impossible extremes? Sheesh.

And yes I DO have the right for someone else not to RAISE my level of risk. Thank you.

Ok then, what if someone suddenly plows into your house with their car? It just happened here, so it's normal. In fact, my friend know the guy who did it. And apparently this street in question is particularily prone to it happening for some reason. That puts you at risk, but you can't take away their right to smoke or drink just because something could happen. There is a difference between risk and harm, you know. Everyone is at risk of something, regardless of who they are or where they are. There could accidentally be water spilled in the hallway. thats an unforseen risk which you take accountable every time you go to school or work, and it's noone's fault. You can't hold anyone responsible for that just because it puts you at risk, it's within their rights to say "screw it" and leave the water there.

 

[Swift]

Ok then, what if someone suddenly plows into your house with their car? It just happened here, so it's normal. In fact, my friend know the guy who did it. And apparently this street in question is particularily prone to it happening for some reason. That puts you at risk, but you can't take away their right to smoke or drink just because something could happen. There is a difference between risk and harm, you know. Everyone is at risk of something, regardless of who they are or where they are. There could accidentally be water spilled in the hallway. thats an unforseen risk which you take accountable every time you go to school or work, and it's noone's fault. You can't hold anyone responsible for that just because it puts you at risk, it's within their rights to say "screw it" and leave the water there.

No it's not. That's negligence. That's knowingly putting someone in harms way and would be found that way in court in a heartbeat.

I dont' see how your other example applies to what I'm saying. That's really rough that a car ran through someone's house. That's simple bad. But I CAN take away the "right" of a person to drive on public roads intoxicated. Period, nobody will ever have a convincing argument to get me to believe otherwise.

 

[PS]

Even if it was only a sip of beer?

My point is, you put yourself at risk EVERY SINGLE DAY, and there's nothing noone can do about it.