Page 41 of 44 FirstFirst ... 313940414243 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 410 of 440

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

  1. #401
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,257

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

    FWIW, all quality policy decisions are made upon the basis of a cost benefit analysis. Fairness, and neutrality are non issues in this regard. Take for example the current gun laws.

    I am allowed to possess a fully automatic weapon within the confines of my private property. I am not however allowed to possess tomahawk missiles and their ground based launching stations. Why, because the cost of allowing such possession outweighs the benefit, even though both of these weapons can be used to kill multiple people.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  2. #402
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    Tucker, I honestly sympathize with your allergy, but you can always make the choice to not eat at restaurants and prepare your food at home. People with allergies to peanuts have it worse than you; many can't even smell peanuts or be exposed to their residue without being sent into anaphylaxis. Many packaged foods now say "may contain traces of nuts" and that has been a relatively recent innovation to packaging. There is a lot of cross-contamination in food production and it's something that industry and restaurants are gradually becoming aware of. If you have a severe allergy you should always carry an epi pen or two (each one will give you approx. 15 minutes of leeway before an ambulance can arrive if you're in a severe anaphylactic state).

    That said, I would still not compare this to outdoor smoking. What happens in private establishments is fine. If a restaurant has smoking, I don't have to go there; just like if a place might have cross-contamination of shellfish, there is nothing forcing you to go there. But smoking outdoors is in public spaces. What am I supposed to do, stay at home? At least with your shellfish allergy, your exposure mostly relates to eating the stuff, and not breathing the scent. You can go to a park and enjoy yourself without worrying about it. Smoke disperses into the air, and I can't stop myself from breathing.
    You are still breathing that garbage coming out of that car that just drove past you, So quit yer crying.
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

  3. #403
    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
    I accept your concession then, and respect that you want to back out.

    Later.
    It's not a concession. It's merely recognition of the futility of debating with you on the topic because your arguments are intellectually dishonest, but when that is pointed out, your feelings are hurt. I don't want to hurt your feelings, so I have chosen to stop debating with you on the topic. That isn't a concession to your arguments.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  4. #404
    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
    It's not a concession. It's merely recognition of the futility of debating with you on the topic because your arguments are intellectually dishonest, but when that is pointed out, your feelings are hurt. I don't want to hurt your feelings, so I have chosen to stop debating with you on the topic. That isn't a concession to your arguments.
    That's a cop out. My feelings aren't hurt, I was simply asking you to debate the facts instead of constantly making useless segues into calling me a liar, etc. I think you have serious problems differentiating when you disagree with someone versus when they are pulling your chain. Additionally, you have a difficult time with boundaries... you can't seem to resist telling me over and over again what I'm really feeling or really thinking, even if I make statements to the contrary. Maybe if you want to focus on what Orion is thinking and feeling today, you should start a thread in the basement.

    As for the actual topic...

    I asked you to prove that outdoor SHS exposure isn't harmful. You said you can't prove a negative. Fine. I turned it into a request for positive proof. I asked you to provide evidence that there is an acceptable level of SHS smoke exposure, scientifically speaking. If the answer is no exposure is acceptable, then it means there is no valid distinction between indoor or outdoor exposure since any amount is not okay. If there is an acceptable exposure level, then we could probably draw comparisons between different venues.

    Now you are calling me intellectually dishonest, thereby avoiding my request. If you simply don't feel like debating anymore, that's fine, but don't cloak your true intentions within a personal attack. I debunked your other analogies, whether or not you want to admit it. (Speaking of honesty.)

    Answer my request for evidence, otherwise you are indeed conceding. The choice is yours.
    Last edited by Orion; 09-25-10 at 08:49 PM.

  5. #405
    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's a cop out. My feelings aren't hurt, I was simply asking you to debate the facts instead of constantly making useless segues into calling me a liar, etc. I think you have serious problems differentiating when you disagree with someone versus when they are pulling your chain. Additionally, you have a difficult time with boundaries... you can't seem to resist telling me over and over again what I'm really feeling or really thinking, even if I make statements to the contrary. Maybe if you want to focus on what Orion is thinking and feeling today, you should start a thread in the basement.

    As for the actual topic...

    I asked you to prove that outdoor SHS exposure isn't harmful. You said you can't prove a negative. Fine. I turned it into a request for positive proof. I asked you to provide evidence that there is an acceptable level of SHS smoke exposure, scientifically speaking. If the answer is no exposure is acceptable, then it means there is no valid distinction between indoor or outdoor exposure since any amount is not okay. If there is an acceptable exposure level, then we could probably draw comparisons between different venues.

    Now you are calling me intellectually dishonest, thereby avoiding my request. If you simply don't feel like debating anymore, that's fine, but don't cloak your true intentions within a personal attack. I debunked your other analogies, whether or not you want to admit it. (Speaking of honesty.)

    Answer my request for evidence, otherwise you are indeed conceding. The choice is yours.
    There is no evidence that suggests that fleeting exposure to SHS in an outdoor environment is dangerous. That's all the evidence my position requires. You are the one arguing a position that requires evidecne to support it (that fleeting exposures to SHS in outdoor environments is dangerous). You haven;t provided one iota of evidence to support your claims. You provided evidence from indoor situations and prolonged exposurtes.

    Any person who is intellectually honest will know that prolonged indoor exposures are the exact opposite of fleeting outdoor exposures.

    Low levels of toxins are often benign. We encounter them daily without any ill effects. In fact, they are even beneficial in some circumstances and low-level toxin treatments are often employed for medical purposes.

    So, the facts we do know are that your position has no evidecne to support it. I also know that it relies on the fallacy of accident becuase you are making a general statement (SHS is dangerous) and applying it to a specific situation (fleeting outdoor exposures) as though that should be the end of discusssion.

    My stance is that until there is evidence of a legitimate threat posed by fleeting exposure to SHS in outdoor environments, the default state is that no bans should occur in these environments.

    Or, as I had proposed earlier, designated beeches and parks that allow smokign with other ones that ban smoking. But you rejected that option.

    And you never debunked my analgies. That's another distortion of reality. You pretended to with intellectuallly dishonest arguments that distorted the facts.

    For example, you mentioned that there were 100 death in teh US due to food allergies. That was fine. But then you tried to compare that to ALL smoking related deaths, which is pure intellectual dishonesty. If you compare it to the number of deaths from fleeting outdoor exposures to SHS, then you'll present an honest argument.

    My guess is that there were 100 more deaths from food allergies than there were from fleeting outdoor exposures to SHS.

    But everytime I prove one of your supposed "debunkings" of my analogies wrong, you turn around and create some new fallacious response that doesn't actually address what I've been saying.

    So I'll take the stance you take, since you are the one making the POSITIVE claim. Prove that fleeting exposures to SHS outdoors is actually dangerous.

    I know you cannot do that, so I expect some other intellectually dishonest argument as your rebuttal. This, too, will be viewed as a concession on your part.

    But remember, there is a very specific type of evidecne being asked for. Sso please stop presenting evidence of the opposite situation being dangerous or general information that SHS is dangerous.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  6. #406
    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
    There is no evidence that suggests that fleeting exposure to SHS in an outdoor environment is dangerous. That's all the evidence my position requires. You are the one arguing a position that requires evidecne to support it (that fleeting exposures to SHS in outdoor environments is dangerous). You haven;t provided one iota of evidence to support your claims. You provided evidence from indoor situations and prolonged exposurtes.
    I know that. We have beaten that portion of the debate to death. Where we disagree is in jumping to the conclusion that outdoor exposure could also be harmful. You think we shouldn't do a ban until the jury is in; I disagree, based on prior precedent of smoking being harmful in other situations. I don't see why this disagreement makes me dishonest, it just makes our standards for forming laws different.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Any person who is intellectually honest will know that prolonged indoor exposures are the exact opposite of fleeting outdoor exposures.
    Without scientific evidence, how can you know without a doubt that it's indeed the exact opposite situation? That is as equally as preposterous as you claim my position is. Based on your own standard of evidence, you would need conclusive proof before forming such an opinion. Or does that standard only apply to me?

    The fact that you cannot acknowledge that this too is an assumption lacking in evidence shows some lack of logic on your side as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Low levels of toxins are often benign. We encounter them daily without any ill effects. In fact, they are even beneficial in some circumstances and low-level toxin treatments are often employed for medical purposes.
    As was established before, each person is different. Some people can die from merely smelling a toxin or allergen. Some people can smoke their whole lives and never get cancer; some people can develop cancer from SHS. The bottom line is, exposure should always be a choice.

    I agree about the second part... toxicity has medical uses, but not always.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    So, the facts we do know are that your position has no evidecne to support it. I also know that it relies on the fallacy of accident becuase you are making a general statement (SHS is dangerous) and applying it to a specific situation (fleeting outdoor exposures) as though that should be the end of discusssion.
    I am well aware (after you pointed it out) that I don't have evidence for the outdoor claim, but I am comfortable making the educated assumption based on what SHS does in other situations. I would rather side with caution given prior precedent, and I believe that's what the different municipalities are doing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    My stance is that until there is evidence of a legitimate threat posed by fleeting exposure to SHS in outdoor environments, the default state is that no bans should occur in these environments.
    Right, and I don't agree. That is the crux of this debate.

    I think maybe you are annoyed because of what this implies for individual rights, but you are expressing that frustration in the form of intellectual attacks. Simply acknowledging that we have a difference of opinion in approach would suffice, at this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Or, as I had proposed earlier, designated beeches and parks that allow smokign with other ones that ban smoking. But you rejected that option.
    I rejected it because it is impractical on a policy level to create and enforce. The pubic shouldn't have to choose between a healthy side and a side with SHS exposure. The people smoking should go elsewhere. In fact, it's not even that hard to exit a park and go to the street level where smoking is still allowed.

    I discovered another implication as well, at least for the pacific northwest. Another reason Vancouver banned smoking in parks and beaches is because in the summer time the risk for forest fires is high, and many have been started by people tossing their butts into the woods.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    For example, you mentioned that there were 100 death in teh US due to food allergies. That was fine. But then you tried to compare that to ALL smoking related deaths, which is pure intellectual dishonesty. If you compare it to the number of deaths from fleeting outdoor exposures to SHS, then you'll present an honest argument.
    If I was dishonest, then so were you for making the shellfish comparison in the first place. I simply went with an analogy that you brought up. You asked why shellfish shouldn't be banned since it also harms people, and I gave you reasons: barely anyone is affected, the deaths are less than 100 per year, and people have measures like epi-pens to provide some protection for accidental exposure. Shellfish does not present a universal risk to people as smoking does. I believe this conclusively debunks your comparison to shellfish. Apples and oranges.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    My guess is that there were 100 more deaths from food allergies than there were from fleeting outdoor exposures to SHS.
    Possibly... but again, you would need proof of that and you don't have it, do you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    So I'll take the stance you take, since you are the one making the POSITIVE claim. Prove that fleeting exposures to SHS outdoors is actually dangerous.

    I know you cannot do that, so I expect some other intellectually dishonest argument as your rebuttal. This, too, will be viewed as a concession on your part.
    I already explained my reasoning. I even went a step further to define for you the crux of our disagreement. It comes down to the criteria you think are needed for laws to be created versus mine when it comes to health.

    Calling me intellectually dishonest is, ironically, intellectually dishonest. I think my reasoning is pretty clear. Just accept that you disagree with my take and move on.

  7. #407
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,859
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    In amounts miniscule compared to what is contained in cigarettes, and only in the apple seeds, which most people don't eat when they eat apples.



    I accept that, for you, the risk is negligible and you are willing to take it; don't presume that what's negligible for you is the same for everyone.
    Do you realize that you are contradicting yourself here? While the amounts might be miniscule in apples compared to what is in cigarettes we are talking about SHS in the outdoors. The amount is probably roughly the same. Anyways, you use two words that basically mean the same thing. One of them argueing for your point, the other you say is (roughly...) too much of a chance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    Tobacco is never used in medicine. That's not to say it has no medicinal value, especially the raw, unprocessed forms; but for the benefits it provides, there are alternative plants/methods that do far less damage to the body. It is for this reason that no medical professional advocates smoking, whether they are a western doctor or a doctor of TCM. Cost outweighs benefit.
    Again you contradict yourself here. First you say that tobacco is never used and then you say that it may. In anycase yes it is used in medicine...interestingly enough it can be used to help fight cancer.

    Tobacco Used To Make Cancer Vaccine

    As for smoking it, no doctor suggests smoking anything. Much less smoking tobacco. But then there are lots of things that doctor's suggest that a person not do. Yet people still do them. In anycase I wouldn't put much faith in doctors anyways on this subject. Every prescription that they give you has some sort of side effect...at least half of em can be deadly. So I wouldn't be touting the "cost outweighs benefit" too much.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    Well now that you have brought up what I "should" know as a DTCM, I'll say that individuals vary. Just because there is no established data about SHS outdoors doesn't mean you can automatically draw the conclusion that it harms no one, especially when there are already plenty of anecdotal reports on people being affected. The bans wouldn't be going into the place if there weren't already health issues arising.
    Remember this....

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    You can white wash it as selfishness all you want, but that is condensing the health argument to a very simplified point of view.
    Isn't that what many anti-smokers do? Condense it all down to a simplified view? "Smoking cigarettes = death". I even seen a sign with those exact words on it once.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    I'm only arguing it for the sake of arguing, because you keep pushing it; I don't think a study is needed. We don't need more studies to prove that tobacco smoke is toxic and a detriment to health. The fact that outdoor smoking dilutes it to a degree doesn't have much bearing on the inherent toxicity of the contents.
    The same can be said for Tuckers allergy. And yet as you proved there are studies done on it. And yes it being diluted has much bearing on the case. Remember, has Tucker has shown there is evidence that some things have an acceptable risk. Like the apples. I'll even throw in a coulple more. Like driving or tomatoes. The tomato being a part of the nightshade family. The nightshade family contains a toxic substance called solanine. Tomatoes are no exception to this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    No one is banning tobacco itself. You can still smoke, just not in shared spaces. You can't drink alcohol in vehicles, or in public spaces either. There are acceptable locations for where people can get intoxicated and not face legal penalties. This is no different.
    Actually the part in bold is incorrect. How many people drink beer in a football stadium? That is a public area. How many drink beer while fishing? You can even drink a beer in a park. What is illegal is being intoxicated while in a public area. As for the no drinking in vehicles while true that is to make sure that the driver is not drinking and driving. Last I knew you could still smoke in your vehicle.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    That matter is secondary. Banning smoking in parks is for the good of all who visit them. If smokers don't like that, then I say, sour grapes.
    Remember this....

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    Deaths from Food allergies - WrongDiagnosis.com
    "Deaths information for Food allergies: Approximately 100 Americans, usually children, die annually from food-induced anaphylaxis. (Source: excerpt from Allergy Statistics: NIAID)"

    Compare that to deaths related to SHS. Yeah, let's ban shellfish.

    Sorry but deaths related to smoking takes priority to those less than 100 deaths per year due to shellfish.
    Ok, this is why I told you to remember the above. Now while you may not have meant it to sound like what I am about to say when all is put together this is what it sounds like...

    Those few hundred that die due to allergies don't matter. Because you are in no way even remotely possibly affected.

    That's how it sounds. Especially when you start talking about "cost outweighs benefit". Aren't those 100 lives worth more than all the money in the world?
    Last edited by Kal'Stang; 09-26-10 at 12:40 AM.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  8. #408
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:24 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,467

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    You are still breathing that garbage coming out of that car that just drove past you, So quit yer crying.
    The difference between smoking and cars is that cars increase our standard of living and provide many benefits and because of that we accept a certain amount of risk to drive them. Cigarettes do not increase our standard of living and there is no valid reason we should accept their risk.

  9. #409
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,859
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    The difference between smoking and cars is that cars increase our standard of living and provide many benefits and because of that we accept a certain amount of risk to drive them. Cigarettes do not increase our standard of living and there is no valid reason we should accept their risk.
    While cars increase our standard of living alot of the cars that are on the road today are wasteful. And I'm not talking about just the mpg of one. Could you imagine how much less crap would be in the air if we started increasing public transportation and decrease individual transportation? When that starts happening then maybe your point would be completely valid. As it stands it's only partly valid.

    In anycase every person has a different standard of what their standard of living should be like. For those that smoke it is obvious that it is an acceptable standard of living.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  10. #410
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:24 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,467

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    While cars increase our standard of living alot of the cars that are on the road today are wasteful. And I'm not talking about just the mpg of one. Could you imagine how much less crap would be in the air if we started increasing public transportation and decrease individual transportation? When that starts happening then maybe your point would be completely valid. As it stands it's only partly valid.
    I definitely agree with you about increasing public transportation to help clean the air, but unfortunately with Americans love of their automobile and the lack of adequate mass transportation, especially in LA and all over the west, you'd hard pressed to convince many people that their standard of living would be better without a car.

    In anycase every person has a different standard of what their standard of living should be like. For those that smoke it is obvious that it is an acceptable standard of living.
    Of course, every individual has their own notion of what makes a good standard of living, but there is a Standard of Living Index and one of the indicators is life expectancy and it would be very difficult to argue that cigarettes or SHS increase life expectancy. The other indicators are education and purchasing power and the World Health Organization studies show that nonsmokers on average are better educated and earn more than smokers. So I don't know about you but imo, earning more money does make for a better standard of living.

    Scanning the Statistics on Smoking - For Dummies

    Human Development Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page 41 of 44 FirstFirst ... 313940414243 ... 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
  •