Page 37 of 44 FirstFirst ... 273536373839 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 370 of 440

Thread: Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities

  1. #361
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Soviet Technate
    Last Seen
    10-25-10 @ 06:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    359

    Re: Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    It's not my logic. It's the logic used by non-smokers for outdoor smoking bans.

    I've explained why my condition causes me to reject that logic. Have you not read all of my posts in this thread? It's kind of odd to jump in trying to disprove my argumetns when you haven't even read them, don't you think?

    I don't agree with outdoor smoking bans. Indoor ones, yes. But even so, the shellfish logic cannot be applied to smoking, because of the difference in people affected and the consequences of applying such a rule. My reasoning is different from others' reasoning for banning smoking in public. It has to do with scope and practicality.

  2. #362
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities

    Quote Originally Posted by Technocratic View Post
    You're confusing rare with common. You can have a rare disease, that is the most common of the rare diseases among adults. According to your source, it impacts 2% or less of the population.
    Pretty rare. We cannot have a rule to ban X because a tiny minority may have an allergic reaction to it. IT would shut down all commerce.
    Now you are being dishonest. Did you not say "It's more practical, and less socially harmful, to deal with that than to cater to every rare allergen conditon. "

    You created a strawman where this would be about "every rare allergen condition" because it's easier to argue your point when you create a strawman like that (It's impractical because everything would be banned!!1111!!!)

    But it is not a rare allergen condition. It's one of the most common allergen conditions. Had you not placed the allergen in there, you might have had an argument that was legit, but since you did place allergen in there my response was perfectly applicable.

    Your strawman that it becomes impractical is nullified because it is just as practical (with a lack of social harm) to ban shellfish and peanuts (the two foods I actually mentioned) in public as it is to ban smoking in public.




    I mean that smoke SHS inhalation causes eye, nasal, throat infections, as well as basic irritation. It's also known, by the CDC to cause other more serious problems over prolongued exposure, which happens if everyone's doing it everywhere.
    You act like it's common. It's not. the instances are fairly rare, and the actual effects are minimal. It's known ot be correlated to tese things, but the individual instance are not very common, and almost exclusively limited to continuous exposure. Typically with children who have parents who smoke in the house.

    an adult non-smoker who has sporadic and mfleetign contact with SHS is displaying irrational fearts if they truly worry about these things.


    I don't really care about smokers outdoors, so long as there is enough ventillation. But, you earlier were talking about shellfish being cooked in restaurants. Not outdoors.
    Yes. I talked about that when I was explaining to non-smokers what a real burden and health risk is. They seem to have delusions about what constitutes a legitimate health risk, so I explained how my situation is far more severe and the health risks far greater (I'm not worried about "oh noes!!!11 I could get a small dose of sinusitis!111!!!" I'm like "Oh ****. I can die from this in les than 10 minutes.").

    If we applied the logic of "If the scope of people affected doesn't matter, and if someone can claim an allergy we should ban the practice,' we'd be able to do nothing.
    Nice strawman. I never said "and if someone can claim an allergy we should ban the practice". I'm talking about the two most common and deadliest food allergies specifically, where all of the danger could be prevented if the products were banned in public.

    As far as scope goes, my argument was that severity should be a mitigating factor for scope. If many people are minimally affected by one thing while few people are maximally affected, the one that has maximal effects should have a higher priority than the minimal effects when dealing with things in a public safety perspective.

    My ultimate point is that smoking bans have preceicely jack**** to do with safety and everythign to do with non-smokers wishing to be comfortable anywhere they choose to go.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  3. #363
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities

    Quote Originally Posted by Technocratic View Post
    I don't agree with outdoor smoking bans. Indoor ones, yes. But even so, the shellfish logic cannot be applied to smoking, because of the difference in people affected and the consequences of applying such a rule. My reasoning is different from others' reasoning for banning smoking in public. It has to do with scope and practicality.
    So severity of the reaction is not a factor, nor the rarity of the issues cropping up for non-smokers due to second hand smoke. It's all about the larger number of people put at minimal risk. I woudl argue that smaller numebrs of people placed at maximal risk are more important than vast number of people placed at minimal risk, or at the very least, the risk/severity equation should be viewed in order to apply the "public health" argument logically.

    To me, the fact that a person who is allergic to shellfish (of which there are millions in the US) can be immediately killed by exposure whereas nobody is going to die immediately from SHS exposure makes these comomn allergies a more pressing public health concern.

    But I favor bans on neither. I beleive that personal responsibility should be taken and peole who do not wish to be around smokers should make it so that it is profitable for businesses to ban smoking form tehir establishments. I have no problems with that being the case becuse I perosnally do that with regard to shellfish.

    But my belief is that non-smokers do not wish to take that stance because they are unwilling to accept the personal discomfort it brings. They have to put effort into finding non-smoking establishments and they have to be willing to not go to places they otherwise would enjoy if not for the smoking.

    Same thing for me with regards to shellfish. If the non-smokers stance is "Tough ****, you're in the minority, dude. We don't really care if our behaviors might actually kill you." Then why the hell should I care abotu their discomfort? So they get a sinus infection. Big whoop.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  4. #364
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Are you using a narrow definition of "benefit" to only include health benefits?

    And I can start listing the negative health impacts of shellfish if we need to. In fact, shellfish poisoning is a real thing and has been known for centuries.
    Not everyone is allergic to shellfish, but everyone has the potential to suffer ill affects from cigarette smoke. That is the difference. We don't ban shellfish because the cost outweighs the benefit. Cigarette smoke, even second hand, has been proven with several decade's worth of studies as a hazard to human health. Maybe some day if all humans are equally as susceptible to shellfish, we would ban shellfish in parks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    The point I've been making is that your risks from someone else smoking at the beach while you are having your picnic are minimal, nad the issue is primarily that you don't like cigarrettes. Which is perfectly reasonable.

    Whereas when someone comes on by and sets up their picnic and starts grilling shrimp on the barbie, the risk to me is actually higher than the risk you have from the smoke (because the allergens do get expelled into the air, especially during the cooking process). I shouldn't have to pack up and go home just because someone ignorantly starts spewing something that is very poisonous to me up in the air. They should eat their shellfish at home.


    I'm applying the same logic that non-smokers are suing on the smoking ban to shellfish because, for me, shellfish is a very deadly poison even if I do not consume it myself. It is comparable to effects of SHS for me, although more immediate and intense. And I'm not alone. It's the most common allergy among adults. My allergy just happens to be more extreme than normal.

    When most non-smokers choose to leave because they don't want to be around smoke, they are doing so because they wish to avoid mild discomfort. But they do have the option of staying and, in the worst case scenario, endure that mild discomfort.

    But when I leave the area because someone starts grilling up shellfish, I'm not really doing it by choice, I'm leaving by necessity because I'm not taking the risk of having a full blown attack on a beach or at a park because that is legitimately life-threatening. Technically I could choose to stay as well, but if I take that risk the worst case scenario is a hell of a lot worse than just mild discomfort. After having had some major attacks, I don't want to put any degree of risk upon myself anymore becuase the reactions are hard to predict. It's posible to have amajor attack from the particles in the air.

    And I have had to move my location at public places numerous times because of shellfish being cooked because, as I've said, the risk is far too high to take the chance, IMO.

    But I'm not arguing in favor of a shellfish ban. I'm explaining how this "burden" that I have gives me a different perspective regarding a less immediate (although admittedly more common) "burden" placed on the average non-smoker.

    My belief is that the argumetn in faovr of such bans have nothig to do with the dangers of second-hand smoke in public.

    If it was, there would be little resistance to my position about shellfish from those in favor of the ban.

    Instead, I believe this is entirely about their own discomfort. They don't like being around it, so they wish to make it so that they never have to be. If it didn't cause that mild discomfort, they wouldn't be btohered by smoke.

    I use my expereinces with shellfish to expose what I believe is the lie in their arguments. It's not really about the danger posed to people who choose to not engage in the behavior, because they support another behavior being allowed which poses a more immediate danger to those who choose not to engage in the bahavior. The difference being that if that behavior were "banned", it would lead to discomfort for them, because most of them enjoy engaging in that behavior themselves. Moot did a great job of proving my point on that by expressing sympathy for me since I cannot eat something that the "loves, yum".

    The point is, even something we personally consider benign can be an extremely malignant action for other people who may be in our presence.

    And here's the thing, at least some non-smokers will abide by a request to not smoke around them if asked politely. They can place themselves into the non-smokers shoes and be considerate of their desires.

    I have yet to meet a shellfish eater that I do not already know who will do the same. Try it sometime. If you are at a restaurant and the person at the table next to you starts ordering shellfish kindly and politely ask them if they would be willing to get something else because you have a severe shellfish allergy. Or try it next time you are out with a large group of people where you may not know everyone at the table with you. Politely request that nobody orders shellfish becuase of your allergy. If someone doesn't listen, ask the server if you can be seated elsewhere on your own. You'll be treated like an asshole. With the stranger at the other table, you'll moist likely get a "tough ****. Don't go to restaurants then" and with the people at your table they might abide by the request, but they are going to act like you victimized them by making it. Snide comments about somebody spoiling their dinner or asinine bull**** like "I think you are just overreacting. I'm allergic to (insert something they have a mild allergy to here) and I can be around it without any problem."
    You're not applying the same logic as non-smokers at all. You say shellfish eaters are ignorant of your condition or the risks to others, but that's only because the majority do not suffer from the same allergy. I'm allergic to kiwi fruit, but I cannot expect every establishment to be free of kiwis. It is my responsibility to know where I am eating and what I am eating. That is me exercising choices. The hazards of cigarette smoke are universal; the hazards of shellfish are confined to a minority of people. If a smoker lights up near me and I smell it, that smell indicates I am already breathing it. My choice has been removed.

    Cigarette tobacco should be banned in general for what it costs the health system every year, and its hazards to public health; but we all know how well prohibition works, so the next best thing we can do is limit where it can take place. People who don't obey get fined. If you want to sit in a soup of toxic gases then do it at home or in a private establishment that allows smoking. I don't see why that's so hard to comprehend.

    Your argument is comparing apples and oranges. Again, I am sympathetic to your allergy, but it's not universal so it doesn't carry the same risk to public health as smoking does. The main complainers to these kinds of laws are, surprise surprise, SMOKERS. I think the majority of non-smokers support this kind of law.
    Last edited by Orion; 09-24-10 at 05:57 PM.

  5. #365
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities

    Quote Originally Posted by WI Crippler View Post
    That pretty much sums it up. They think they ought to be entitled to go pretty much anywhere and not have to "endure" the smell of cigarette smoke. And bars. I mean banning smoking in bars. I don't get it. its a place to go where someone wants to unwind after a hard day/week and maybe smoking gives them a feeling of relaxation. But we can't have that, while we simultaneously pursue marijuana legalization and build safe houses for people to shoot up heroin.
    That doesn't sum it up whatsoever.

    The argument here can be boiled down to this:

    Don't like smoke in your home? Then don't smoke at home.
    Don't like smoke in bars or restaurants? Then don't go to bars or restaurants.
    Don't like smoke in public parks or beaches? Then move whenever someone lights up, or better yet, don't go to parks or beaches.

    It makes much more sense to make parks and beaches smoke neutral than to give smokers entitlement to light up wherever they want. Smokers have the option of going to other places to smoke, or they can sit at a park or beach and simply not smoke during their time there. Non-smokers already aren't smoking. The only thing they seem to be guilty of is being in proximity to a smoker and not appreciating it. If it were a simple matter of dislike, then I would agree with you; but second hand smoke has established health hazards. I should not have to breath in one iota extra of cancerous material than I have to, and smokers take that choice away from me.

    As for your straw man of heroin and cannabis... heroin users aren't directly hurting me. Their heroin doesn't magically end up in my body. All other smokers, including cannabis smokers, will be covered under these laws. Smokers are smokers. Cops could choose to be pests and decide to book cannabis smokers for possession if they wanted to, in addition to the smoking fines. So you see, the rule is consistent.

  6. #366
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    That doesn't sum it up whatsoever.

    The argument here can be boiled down to this:

    Don't like smoke in your home? Then don't smoke at home.
    Don't like smoke in bars or restaurants? Then don't go to bars or restaurants.
    Don't like smoke in public parks or beaches? Then move whenever someone lights up, or better yet, don't go to parks or beaches.

    It makes much more sense to make parks and beaches smoke neutral than to give smokers entitlement to light up wherever they want. Smokers have the option of going to other places to smoke, or they can sit at a park or beach and simply not smoke during their time there. Non-smokers already aren't smoking. The only thing they seem to be guilty of is being in proximity to a smoker and not appreciating it. If it were a simple matter of dislike, then I would agree with you; but second hand smoke has established health hazards. I should not have to breath in one iota extra of cancerous material than I have to, and smokers take that choice away from me.

    As for your straw man of heroin and cannabis... heroin users aren't directly hurting me. Their heroin doesn't magically end up in my body. All other smokers, including cannabis smokers, will be covered under these laws. Smokers are smokers. Cops could choose to be pests and decide to book cannabis smokers for possession if they wanted to, in addition to the smoking fines. So you see, the rule is consistent.
    You are not making it neutral. Neutral is when both people have choices. You are eliminating one choice. How does that make it neutral?

    Neutral would be having BOTH non-smoking beaches and parks and smoking beaches and parks. That's neutral.

    Think of it like electrons and protons. You are proposing that all beeches and parks become electrons (negative smoking environments). Thus there are no positive charges anywhere. The overall effect is that everything combined has a negative charge. If you add an equal number of positive charges, the net effect is neutral.
    Last edited by Tucker Case; 09-24-10 at 06:20 PM.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  7. #367
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    You are not making it neutral. Neutral is when both people have choices. You are eliminating one choice. How does that make it neutral?

    Neutral would be having BOTH non-smoking beaches and parks and smoking beaches and parks. That's neutral.

    Think of it like electrons and protons. You are proposing that all beeches and parks become electrons (negative smoking environments). Thus there are no positive charges anywhere. The overall effect is that everything combined has a negative charge. If you add an equal number of positive charges, the net effect is neutral.
    That makes about as much sense as having "smoking" and "non-smoking" sections in bars. Smoke disperses and travels... first rule on the laws of the physics of gases. Non-smoking beaches are neutral to human health as it pertains to this particular argument.

    As for the electron/proton bit, you can't get anymore non-sequitur than that. We're not talking about the charges of molecules, but human health. I understand the metaphor you're trying to use but it's still like comparing apples and oranges. Positive and negative charges aren't in of themselves harmful, but smoking is. Smokers in parks is not a consequence of non-smokers also existing in parks. The two are mutually exclusive. A smoke-free park can exist all on its own and be in perfect balance; in fact, that is just what human health requires in its natural state.

    Smoking is an addiction and it's one that causes harm to bystanders. This law may not receive total enforcement but in principle its a good thing. People should indulge in their self-destruction in places where others will not be put at risk, or where they are in private establishments with patrons that are mutually self-destructive.

  8. #368
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    That makes about as much sense as having "smoking" and "non-smoking" sections in bars. Smoke disperses and travels... first rule on the laws of the physics of gases. Non-smoking beaches are neutral to human health as it pertains to this particular argument.
    Actually, I'm not talking about sections, but entirely separate beeches and parks. I know that no anti-smoker would like that though, because for them its all about their selfish need for comfort. Smokers are willing to compromise. It's the selfish non-smokers who refuse to do so.

    As for the electron/proton bit, you can't get anymore non-sequitur than that. We're not talking about the charges of molecules, but human health. I understand the metaphor you're trying to use but it's still like comparing apples and oranges. Positive and negative charges aren't in of themselves harmful, but smoking is. Smokers in parks is not a consequence of non-smokers also existing in parks. The two are mutually exclusive. A smoke-free park can exist all on its own and be in perfect balance; in fact, that is just what human health requires in its natural state.
    Once you brought up "neutral" the situation warranted the comparison. If the analogy doesn't apply, then you've redefined a word to suit your purposes, thus falling prey to the fallacy of equivocation. Can any non-smoker present a fallacy-free defense of their position?

    Smoking is an addiction and it's one that causes harm to bystanders.This law may not receive total enforcement but in principle its a good thing. People should indulge in their self-destruction in places where others will not be put at risk, or where they are in private establishments with patrons that are mutually self-destructive.
    Nice hyperbole. There is little to no risk for bystanders form SHS in public environments. It's all about discomfort and selfishness. That's why you want it to be removed from any place you might visit and completely disregard any chance for an actually neutral solution.
    Last edited by Tucker Case; 09-24-10 at 07:11 PM.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  9. #369
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Actually, I'm not talking about sections, but entirely separate beeches and parks. I know that no anti-smoker would like that though, because for them its all about their selfish need for comfort. Smokers are willing to compromise. It's the selfish non-smokers who refuse to do so.
    Actually, I would be against that for completely different reasons. Mostly, if it's all public space then all of the public should have access to it. Smokers don't need to smoke in parks. They can exit parks and take their unhealthy activities elsewhere. I don't see the problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Once you brought up "neutral" the situation warranted the comparison. If the analogy doesn't apply, then you've redefined a word to suit your purposes, thus falling prey to the fallacy of equivocation. Can any non-smoker present a fallacy-free defense of their position?
    I believe I already pointed out how your electron analogy was flawed; I also pointed out how your shellfish allergy does not compare to the universal toxicity of smoking to all humans. It's ironic because thus far all I have seen from those against this law are non-sequitur comparisons to other things that are not even comparable to the issue of smoking. Now because I'm pointing that out, I'm equivocating? What a joke.

    Can you present a fallacy-free defense for your position? Can you even form of an argument in favour of smoking in parks without comparing it to other irrelevant things?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Nice hyperbole. There is little to no risk for bystanders form SHS in public environments. It's all about discomfort and selfishness. That's why you want it to be removed from any place you might visit and completely disregard any chance for an actually neutral solution.
    All objective studies on SHS prove it to be harmful, which is why it's also called "passive smoking". The vast, vast majority of studies that dispute this are funded by the tobacco industry. Do some basic research on how the studies are funded and the facts will be very clear to you; it's one of the few instances in health research where the info lines up in a rather black and white manner. Outdoor smoke poses lesser risk, but there is still risk. There is no excuse for exposing others to the toxic material in cigarettes. This isn't about my comfort, but my health. If that makes me selfish, then oh well. Maybe my health matters more to me than yours does to you.

    I'm a fairly staunch defender of people being able to do what they want to do. I think you can find evidence of that on DP. I sympathize with most libertarian arguments; this, however, is not one of them. Smoking is a menace to the well being of society and the more limits put on it, the better. The only reason why I'm against an all out ban on tobacco itself is because it, like the war on drugs, would be a dismal failure. But the government might as well tax and fine the hell out of smokers in order to make up some of the cost to society.

  10. #370
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-23-17 @ 05:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,429
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    That doesn't sum it up whatsoever.

    The argument here can be boiled down to this:

    Don't like smoke in your home? Then don't smoke at home.
    Don't like smoke in bars or restaurants? Then don't go to bars or restaurants.
    Don't like smoke in public parks or beaches? Then move whenever someone lights up, or better yet, don't go to parks or beaches.

    It makes much more sense to make parks and beaches smoke neutral than to give smokers entitlement to light up wherever they want. Smokers have the option of going to other places to smoke, or they can sit at a park or beach and simply not smoke during their time there. Non-smokers already aren't smoking. The only thing they seem to be guilty of is being in proximity to a smoker and not appreciating it. If it were a simple matter of dislike, then I would agree with you; but second hand smoke has established health hazards. I should not have to breath in one iota extra of cancerous material than I have to, and smokers take that choice away from me.

    As for your straw man of heroin and cannabis... heroin users aren't directly hurting me. Their heroin doesn't magically end up in my body. All other smokers, including cannabis smokers, will be covered under these laws. Smokers are smokers. Cops could choose to be pests and decide to book cannabis smokers for possession if they wanted to, in addition to the smoking fines. So you see, the rule is consistent.
    There is no such thing as "smoke-neutral". You either have establishments that allow smoking, or establishments that prohibit smoking. Smoke neutral is a made up term, probably just now, to make it sound fair to everybody, when it is only "fair" to one segment. If we keep making areas both indoors and outdoors "smoke neutral", then smokers will not have anywhere to go to not smoke near you. But you don't care, because they won't be allowed to smoke near you. Its ironic that you say smokers don't give you a choice, when by your support of smoking bans, you are enforcing a lack of options on them. Now they cannot smoke in bars/restaraunts, beaches/parks, etc....

    When I was training for my half-marathon, I originally ran a route on a busy street. The car fumes from the traffic made me feel as though it were inhibiting my O2 uptake. Did I call the city council and try to ban cars on the road between 3:30-5:00 PM due to concern for my health, and other people that like to run on that street. No, I either ran at a less congested time, or found another route of equal length to run.

    My point about marijuana/heroin is that its ironic that we are choosing to demonize a perfectly legal activity in smoking, yet trying to be tolerant, supportive, and understanding about people who are doing drugs that are illegal, and in the case of heroin, much more socially and physically damaging. Its backwards retarded monkey logic.
    "Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis

Page 37 of 44 FirstFirst ... 273536373839 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •