Smoking

[donbenni]

...supplied in boxes of 20 at £2 a time.

Where's your local supplier??!

Oh and on the whole "should smokers get treatment fo their smoking illnesses?", yes they should because, heavy drinkers get treatment for their liver diseases, and that's just unfair otherwise.

 

[L1ama]

smoking is stupid, mostly people who smoke is that, when they were young they wanted to look cool and smoke, then they got addicted and can't stop, i dont know a person who doesnt want to stop smoking

 

[donbenni]

You suck.

i dont know a person who doesnt want to stop smoking

Ok.. you know, like 2 people in the whole world that probably have been smoking long enough to consider stopping. Why would they want to stop? If they enjoy smoking, good for them.

Your just another kid who has never smoked before and thinks they know best. What's your opinion on driving tractors? Meh.

 

[Duke]

Oh and on the whole "should smokers get treatment fo their smoking illnesses?", yes they should because, heavy drinkers get treatment for their liver diseases, and that's just unfair otherwise.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Neither of them should get treatment unless they have the money to pay for it or they have commercial insurance that will
cover it.

However, alcohol does not directly affect people who don't drink it, whereas smoking very arguably does.

I think smoking is incredibly, amazingly stupid, but I fully support your right to smoke where it doesn't affect others' right to avoid your smoke. But I'll never say you have the right to treatment for smoking-related diseases if you can't pay for it yourself.

 

[Famine]

Don't forget that donbenni and I live in a country where everyone is entitled to free healthcare. The question should be taken in the context it was given - since everyone is entitled to it, is it right or wrong to exclude smokers from it purely because of their habit, since they cause such a load on the service (while at the same time contributing more to it due to their extra taxes)?

This HAS been mooted.


Alcohol does directly affect those who don't drink it. Serious alcohol addicts are more likely to steal from their family to fund their habit, be violent towards others - including their family - when deprived of, or fully-dosed up by their habit. And let's not forget drink-driving. How many smokers are given a blood-nicotine test after a car crash?

 

[Danoff]

This illustrates one of the many problems inherent in socializing healthcare.

All of the sudden everyone feels entitled to tell everyone else how they should live.

 

[Duke]

Alcohol does directly affect those who don't drink it. Serious alcohol addicts are more likely to steal from their family to fund their habit, be violent towards others - including their family - when deprived of, or fully-dosed up by their habit. And let's not forget drink-driving. How many smokers are given a blood-nicotine test after a car crash?

All of those questions are already covered by existing statutes in the penal code, under such headings as assault and battery, theft, disorderly conduct, drunk and/or reckless driving, manslaughter.

Second-hand smoke is not punishable any other way. That's the difference.

And I understood that donbenni is coming from the context of socialized medicine. It doesn't make my point any less valid.

Delaware has an above-average cancer mortality rate. The governor's proposed solution? Instead of looking for causes, she wants to guarantee healthcare for any person in the state diagnosed with cancer.

Ridiculous.

 

[Famine]

And your point has been taken - but you're answering a different question.

Regarding Delaware - "instead of" IS ridiculous. "As well as" wouldn't be.

 

[Danoff]

Alcohol does directly affect those who don't drink it. Serious alcohol addicts are more likely to steal from their family to fund their habit, be violent towards others - including their family - when deprived of, or fully-dosed up by their habit. And let's not forget drink-driving. How many smokers are given a blood-nicotine test after a car crash?

The drunk driver is the one who affected the people who didn't drink in this scenario. Alcohol is an inanimate object.

 

[Duke]

All of those questions are already covered by existing statutes in the penal code, under such headings as assault and battery, theft, disorderly conduct, drunk and/or reckless driving, manslaughter.

Second-hand smoke is not punishable any other way. That's the difference.

This part is not answering a different question. This is right on topic, unlike the socialized health care, which I admit was an aside.

 

[Famine]

The drunk driver is the one who affected the people who didn't drink in this scenario. Alcohol is an inanimate object.

Well, taken in context, smoking doesn't affect anyone who doesn't smoke either since cigarettes are inanimate objects too.

But neither alcohol nor nicotine are inanimate objects - they are both dynamically active biochemical compounds. The alcohol ingestion impairs the drinker's ability to create informed decisions (like, to not drive because they're pissed) and carry out those decisions by inhibiting motor control. Inhalation of cigarette smoke affects the inhaler's ability to breathe.

Both are drugs, both are legal (along with caffeine which is far, far worse than either), both have proven deliterious effects on users, neither has proven deliterious effects on bystanders. I wonder - should both alcohol AND tobacco be subject to the same - either extant or future - laws as other drugs?

 

[Danoff]

I wonder - should both alcohol AND tobacco be subject to the same - either extant or future - laws as other drugs?

Yes. All of the above should be legal.

But neither alcohol nor nicotine are inanimate objects - they are both dynamically active biochemical compounds.

Right, and the chair I'm sitting on is not actually inanimate either since it is made up of molecules with electrons spinning around and subatomic particles. In order for it to be truely inanimate its temperature would have to be absolute zero wouldn't it?

But then again, that's beside the point. And I think you missed my original point. Which is that alcohol doesn't actively do anything. People actively drink alcohol and thus choose to impair their own judgement. That's responsibility for one's actions.

Well, taken in context, smoking doesn't affect anyone who doesn't smoke either since cigarettes are inanimate objects too.

The smoker is the one affecting other people, the cigarettes don't light or smoke themselves.

 

[Carl.]

But then again, that's beside the point. And I think you missed my original point. Which is that alcohol doesn't actively do anything. People actively drink alcohol and thus choose to impair their own judgement. That's responsibility for one's actions.

Is it okay if I sell some uranium to Al Quaeda members?

 

[Danoff]

Is it okay if I sell some uranium to Al Quaeda members?

Hehe... Controlled substances are controlled because of what people might use them for or because (like anthrax for example) they don't require someone to light them up before they're dangerous.


Edit: jp, you're getting to be a lot more fun to talk to all of the sudden.

 

[Famine]

But then again, that's beside the point. And I think you missed my original point. Which is that alcohol doesn't actively do anything. People actively drink alcohol and thus choose to impair their own judgement. That's responsibility for one's actions.

The smoker is the one affecting other people, the cigarettes don't light or smoke themselves.

I clearly have missed your point. I was saying that you cannot divide alcohol and tobacco on the grounds that one affects those around you and the other doesn't, since they both do.

People drink alcohol and thus chose to impair their own judgment - that's true enough. People also smoke cigarettes and thus chose to impair their own breathing. The smoker is indeed the one affecting other people - if you accept that secondhand smoke does affect others - as is the drinker by his subsequent actions. After all, beer doesn't drink itself...

You've yet to say anything which I believe contradicts the fact that both alcohol and tobacco consumption affects those around the consumer. So I've got to wonder what it is you're trying to say to me.

 

[Danoff]

both alcohol and tobacco consumption affects those around the consumer

There we go. It's the consumption, or the effects of the consumption that might have affects on those around the consumer.

So let's go back to your original statement.

Alcohol does directly affect those who don't drink it. Serious alcohol addicts are more likely to steal from their family to fund their habit, be violent towards others - including their family - when deprived of, or fully-dosed up by their habit. And let's not forget drink-driving. How many smokers are given a blood-nicotine test after a car crash?

So alcohol does not directly affect those who don't drink it. It is the drinker of the alcohol that affects them via the drinker's actions. So let's pull in neon's post.

All of those questions are already covered by existing statutes in the penal code, under such headings as assault and battery, theft, disorderly conduct, drunk and/or reckless driving, manslaughter.

In other words, you don't have to outlaw drinking or smoking, but rather outlaw actions that shouldn't happen. Like violence or reckless driving. Effects that might be precipitated by alcohol.

This is how you legalize harder drugs like cocaine or herion. You simply outlaw the unwanted actions like theft or violence and allow people to do what they want to their own bodies.

That being said, second hand smoke does have the ability to affect those who are not smoking. So there are reasons for regulating second hand smoke in publically owned facilities. Privately owned facilities should be left to the consumer to regulate by lack business. However, I would say that the effects of second hand smoke are not great enough to regulate them in outdoor public facilities.

 

[Duke]

I was saying that you cannot divide alcohol and tobacco on the grounds that one affects those around you and the other doesn't, since they both do.

You've yet to say anything which I believe contradicts the fact that both alcohol and tobacco consumption affects those around the consumer. So I've got to wonder what it is you're trying to say to me.

But Famine, there is a difference. Stipulate for a minute here that second hand smoke has at least a potential effect on the person breathing it. Follow here:

• You can stand next to a drunk person all night, and unless you drink some alcohol, you will never get drunk.
  
• Not all drunk people are violent. Some people are very pleasant when drunk, and you can stand next to them all night and never get hit, thrown up on, attacked, or have your pocket picked.
  
• If you stand next to a smoker all night, however, you will inhale smoke, even if you never touch a cigarette, unless the smoker exhales into a vacuum cleaner.

Can you see that clear difference? Leaving the question of effect out of it, being next to drunk people does not cause you to ingest alcohol, but being next to smoking people causes you to inhale smoke.

 

[Famine]

Semantics aside, another thought has crept into my brain.

In the UK it's now illegal to use a mobile phone whilst driving - unless it's a hands-free one. People have also been pulled over, fined and given points for similar offences like drinking a bottle of water while driving and the hideous offence of eating a Kit Kat whilst stopped at traffic lights.

Yet people are allowed to drive holding a cigarette in one hand - not to mention the potential danger of dropping hot fag-ash on yourself or flammable car furnishings. Hell, we even have cigarette lighters built into the damn things.

Is this plainly daft, or is it just me?

 

[Danoff]

Is this plainly daft, or is it just me?

I agree with you, it's totally daft of them. Quite hypocritical. They shouldn't pull people over for talking on the phone or drinking water or smoking or changing the radio station or talking to a friend.

They should pull people over for driving badly.

 

[rjensen11]

You suck.



Ok.. you know, like 2 people in the whole world that probably have been smoking long enough to consider stopping. Why would they want to stop? If they enjoy smoking, good for them.

Your just another kid who has never smoked before and thinks they know best. What's your opinion on driving tractors? Meh.

Meh, I'm still legally concidered a "kid" or "minor", and I know that smoking's not the best decision for me. If other people feel they have to smoke, fine, let them smoke, I'd just prefer it if they respected my choice of not, which so far everyone has.

As for tractors, it's pretty boring stuff. Sure, you can hook up as many attachments as you'd like to them (which means the greater the chance of something breaking, because things are just apt to break on farms), but it doesn't make anything exciting. I guess it's more exciting than driving an 88 Ranger my grandpa used to have before he sold it off to one of his neighbors.

 

[Famine]

I agree with you, it's totally daft of them. Quite hypocritical. They shouldn't pull people over for talking on the phone or drinking water or smoking or changing the radio station or talking to a friend.

They should pull people over for driving badly.

They do that too - but why shouldn't they pull people over for using a mobile phone? If you're concentrating on using the mobile you aren't fully concentrating on piloting a 1-tonne+ chunk of metal twice as fast as any man can run - notwithstanding the fact that with only one hand on the wheel you pose a greater danger should anything go wrong (like someone stepping out in front of you).

The offence is "Driving Without Due Care and Attention"

Three years ago a bloke was imprisoned for killing a child walking on the pavement. The bloke was too busy writing a text message to be bothered about driving his lorry.

How about reading whilst driving?

 

[Danoff]

Three years ago a bloke was imprisoned for killing a child walking on the pavement.

I'm glad he was imprisoned for killing the kid. Doesn't really matter what he was doing at the time does it?

If you're concentrating on using the mobile you aren't fully concentrating on piloting a 1-tonne+ chunk of metal twice as fast as any man can run

I'm not sure I've ever fully concentrated on driving my car. I'm almost always doing or thinking of something else while driving. Put me in jail for thinking about my job on the way home for work? How about daydreaming?

What about changing the radio? Talking to a friend? Looking at a pretty girl? Avoiding a squirrel?

 

[Party for GT4]

All you proved there, Danoff, is that you shouldn't be driving. If you daydream while driving, I fear for the other road-users around you.
Yes, I know lots of people drive like that, but that why deaths from driving are so common.

 

[yeti]

Avoiding a squirrel?

You shouldn't be taking avoidance action for anything smaller than a cat...

If the squirrel is stupid enough to be running in front of your car then it deserves to be dead... natural selection.

If you try and avoid it and end up in a wall/bush/pavement/another car then you'll be to blame...

C.

 

[Danoff]

All you proved there, Danoff, is that you shouldn't be driving. If you daydream while driving, I fear for the other road-users around you.
Yes, I know lots of people drive like that, but that why deaths from driving are so common.

It's actually medically proven that people's minds wander during a routine commute... in other words... you do it too so shut up.

If you try and avoid it and end up in a wall/bush/pavement/another car then you'll be to blame...

I agree. You obviously missed the point.

Edit: Just to help out I'll spell it out. Do you think it should be illegal to be pulled over for avoiding a squirrel as long as you're not driving recklessly?

 

[rjensen11]

...If you're concentrating on using the mobile you aren't fully concentrating on piloting a 1-tonne+ chunk of metal twice as fast as any man can run...How about reading whilst driving?

Okay, granted fat people can't run too well, but that doesn't make them any less dangerous. I say we shouldn't let the severely obeese read while walking, or talk on the phone while talking.💡

 

[Party for GT4]

Sorry Danoff, my mind doesn't wander while driving...ever...I don't drive!

 

[yeti]

I agree. You obviously missed the point.

Edit: Just to help out I'll spell it out. Do you think it should be illegal to be pulled over for avoiding a squirrel as long as you're not driving recklessly?

Ah I see... Um... I believe that people should be informed when they're learning to drive that they shouldn't be avoiding these things... and I don't think avoiding a squirrel could be prosecuted but if in doing so you endanger someone else then it could... it depends on the context of you avoiding the squirrel!!

C.

 

[Sage]

I think you're still missing his point – Let's put it this way: Do you think it should be illegal to be pulled over for avoiding a deer as long as you're not driving recklessly?

 

[yeti]

You should avoid a deer at all costs... those things are dangerous and could write off your car.

And to be serious for a second... Yes. You shouldn't be doing it on the road as it endangers others therefore it should be prosecutable.

C.