• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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.
 
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 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.
 
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:
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.
 
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.
 
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.

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. ;)

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....

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.

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.

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.

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....

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. :roll:

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:
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Not to mention, I have already said that I don't favour smoking pot in parks either. Smoke is smoke. If you're smoking near me then I'm likely breathing it.
do you drive a car? do you go outside when cars are opperating? why are you not bi#$hing about the smoke comming from cars? i'm pretty sure it is far worse than anything comming out of anyone's lungs.
 
do you drive a car? do you go outside when cars are opperating? why are you not bi#$hing about the smoke comming from cars? i'm pretty sure it is far worse than anything comming out of anyone's lungs.

Modern cars produce about 1% of the pollution that cars did half a century ago, when people began to become aware of smog. Cigarettes still produce just as much as ever. We don't have to give up cars for clean air.

There is no good thing about smoking cigarettes. It is an addiction, pure and simple, that causes health problems for the smoker and anyone around them. Cars, on the other hand are far superior to horse drawn carriages, and produce less pollution as well.

Besides, smoking stinks!
 
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.

So people have a double standard. ;) Some things are acceptable, others are not. Despite the fact that cars produce far more air pollution than smokers do. This is why many smokers believe that anti-smokers are hypocritical. Especially when you are comparing the two together.

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

First I just want to state that I didn't even look at your wiki link. Wiki is about as reliable as a cow trying to jump over the moon and actually making it. But yes I do know about the index.

As for the rest I find it hard to believe that they are trying to make that kind of correlation. Even if I did read them saying that more educated people are less likely to smoke. Doing so just ignores the history of smoking. Despite them knowing it.
 
Modern cars produce about 1% of the pollution that cars did half a century ago, when people began to become aware of smog. Cigarettes still produce just as much as ever. We don't have to give up cars for clean air.

Actually that is incorrect. A well maintained 10 year old car can produce less pollution than a poorly maintained 5 year old car. Also we have far more cars on the road today than we did in say the 1960's. Americans drive roughly 6+ billion miles today in one day than compared to around 2 some odd billion in the 60's in one day.

As for smokers producing the same as before that is also incorrect. Thanks to on going education more and more people are 1: quitting smoking and 2: less people are even begining to smoke compared to what it was like in the 60's - 70's.

False or incomplete facts will not get you anywheres. ;)

There is no good thing about smoking cigarettes. It is an addiction, pure and simple, that causes health problems for the smoker and anyone around them. Cars, on the other hand are far superior to horse drawn carriages, and produce less pollution as well.

So? There are lots of things that people do that has no benefit what so ever. Yet those are still acceptable. For example sitting and watching soap operas for hours on end. And not all smokers have any health problems related to smoking.

And no cars do not produce less pollution than smoking. In fact vehicles cause two of our worst air pollution problems, smog and carbon monoxide.

Besides, smoking stinks!

Have you ever smelled what comes out of the exhaust of a car? Not exactly the smell of roses bud.
 
Actually that is incorrect. A well maintained 10 year old car can produce less pollution than a poorly maintained 5 year old car. Also we have far more cars on the road today than we did in say the 1960's. Americans drive roughly 6+ billion miles today in one day than compared to around 2 some odd billion in the 60's in one day.

That's not what I said.

A car from 60 years ago, brand new and well maintained, produced many times the level of pollution at that time as a new well maintained car does today. Cars today produce less pollution than cars did half a century ago, due to improved technology. Of course, a well maintained ten year old car will do better than a poorly maintained newer car. A 1960 model can't be made to produce less pollution without adding modern improvements.

As for smokers producing the same as before that is also incorrect. Thanks to on going education more and more people are 1: quitting smoking and 2: less people are even begining to smoke compared to what it was like in the 60's - 70's.

Fewer people smoke today than 50 years ago, due to our understanding of the health risks. That doesn't do a thing to improve the pollution coming from those who still do smoke. A burning cigarette produces the same level of pollution that it did 50 years ago.

False or incomplete facts will not get you anywheres. ;)

Nor you.



So? There are lots of things that people do that has no benefit what so ever. Yet those are still acceptable. For example sitting and watching soap operas for hours on end. And not all smokers have any health problems related to smoking.

If someone wants to sit for hours and watch soaps, let them. If they want to smoke in their own homes, with no innocent children inhaling their poisons, let them. Not all six hour a day soap opera watchers have health problems from inactivity, either, but most do.

And no cars do not produce less pollution than smoking. In fact vehicles cause two of our worst air pollution problems, smog and carbon monoxide.



Have you ever smelled what comes out of the exhaust of a car? Not exactly the smell of roses bud.

True, and if anyone wanted to leave their car ideling in my favorite restaurant, I'd object to that too.
 
Fewer people smoke today than 50 years ago, due to our understanding of the health risks.

Partly true, but a huge factor has been cracking down on people who sell cigarrettes to minors. Most of the people I know who smoke (myself included) became addicted to them when they were quite young at a time when health risks were'nt something that they had any real understandign of (I was 11 when I first started smoking, by 13 I was a regular smoker). Back then (and it isn't all that long ago. It was the late 80's early 90's) I was able to walk into a gas station and buy cigarrettes with money I got from mowing lawns and such. It was disturbiungly easy to get them. Now, if someone were to sell cigarrettes to an 11 year old they can receive massive fines and even lose their business license.

This is the kind of government regulation that I fully support.

And more people are quitting now than ever, and that is in no small part due to the increased resources available to assist them in quitting. Patches, e-cigarrettes, gum, pills, etc have all made it so that quitting is easier today than it was 20-30 years ago, but it is still a very difficult thing to do. Anyone who has battled with an addiction can understand that it is an ongoing process and that relapes will occur.

One of the things that non-smokers tend to say is that "smoking is a choice, smokers only have themselves to blame for their problems" and that's true to a point. Ultimately I made the decision to become a smoker when I was a kid and I have control over quitting now. But the fact that the decision to become a smoker, and subsequent addiction that I developped came about because of a choice made when I was very young, and very, very stupid, is something to take into consideration. I'm not in the minority. Most smokers today became smokers because of stupid choices they made when they were young and stupid and considered themselves invincible.

This is why most smokers support most the types of government regulations that are effective in preventing underage smoking. It's why I personally don't have as much of a problem with the extremely high taxes on cigarrettes that exist (because the high prices are also a factor in preventing children from smoking).

But one thing I disagree with is the demonization of smokers that exists today. I think that can be counter-productive to the ultimate goal of preventing kids from smoking. Kids are naturally rebellious. They do things specifically to piss off their parents. I believe treating smokers like they are a scourge on society adds an apeal to smoking for the rebelious child.

But treating smokers as if they are sick (and addiction is a form of sickness) and require help and treatment would not create this "rebel" aura for smoking. It would accurately give it the appearance of a personal weakness that smokers have (which it is). It's a weakness that stems from childhood stupidity in many, many cases.

Personally, I would support making some parks and beaches smoke-free environments while having some where smoking was allowed. But the anti-smoking agenda has taken on a stance of demonizing the smoker and has shown itself to be unwilling to make such compromises based on a ack compassion for the plight of the addicted.
 
:confused: Did you miss the part where I described how this is true of my allergy as well?



I have an epipen.




The bolded and underlined portion indicates to me that you might have missed large swaths of my post.




Do you jam that thing in your leg all rambo style?
 
Modern cars produce about 1% of the pollution that cars did half a century ago, when people began to become aware of smog. Cigarettes still produce just as much as ever. We don't have to give up cars for clean air.

There is no good thing about smoking cigarettes. It is an addiction, pure and simple, that causes health problems for the smoker and anyone around them. Cars, on the other hand are far superior to horse drawn carriages, and produce less pollution as well.

Besides, smoking stinks!
perhaps but there are 1000000 X more cars on the road than a half a century ago which puts a wrench in your figuring.
 
That's not what I said.

A car from 60 years ago, brand new and well maintained, produced many times the level of pollution at that time as a new well maintained car does today. Cars today produce less pollution than cars did half a century ago, due to improved technology. Of course, a well maintained ten year old car will do better than a poorly maintained newer car. A 1960 model can't be made to produce less pollution without adding modern improvements.



Fewer people smoke today than 50 years ago, due to our understanding of the health risks. That doesn't do a thing to improve the pollution coming from those who still do smoke. A burning cigarette produces the same level of pollution that it did 50 years ago.



Nor you.





If someone wants to sit for hours and watch soaps, let them. If they want to smoke in their own homes, with no innocent children inhaling their poisons, let them. Not all six hour a day soap opera watchers have health problems from inactivity, either, but most do.



True, and if anyone wanted to leave their car ideling in my favorite restaurant, I'd object to that too.
the earth may seem BIG but compared to the universe it is about as big as your favorite restaurant is compared to the earth.
 
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.

I'm saying that extrapolating general data to the specific situation, as you had been doing prior to our debate on the subject, was intellectually dishonest. I wasn't trying to say you are dishonest as a person. If that's how you saw it, my apologies for not making my position clear.

And what you are saying above is a far cry form the "If I smell it, I'm breathing in toxins and therefore I'm in danger" type argument you had presented before.

While your reasoning is still the fallacy of accident (which is applying the general into the specific), at least it isn't a distortion of the facts anymore because you are essentially admitting that you are engaging in that fallacy for the sake of "erring on the side of caution".

That approach is far more accurate than some of the previous arguments I had seen from you in this thread.



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?

I believe I have been careful to not say that there is no danger presented from fleeting exposures to SHS in open environments, only that the risk presented by such a situation is indeed minimal. This can be garnered by the evidence which suggests that the risks of SHS are correlated with two factors: prolonged exposures and enclosed environments. In essence, the evidence you've presented, which does show that duration and enclosed environments are a factor in the dangers of SHS supports my claims that the effect is likely to be minimal for fleeting exposures in open environments.

The issue at hand with regard to my argument is that the thing being supported in my argument is a negative. It is untestable because of that. There will never be a study that can state "There are no negative effects of fleeting exposures to SHS in open environments". The negative (or null hypothesis) can only be supported by a lack of evidence for the positive (Which would be the hypothesis that you are promoting: that fleeting exposures to SHS in open environments are dangerous).

There is inductive evidence to suggest that my argument has merit (the existence of "acceptable" levels of toxins in an environment, the correlation and proportional nature between dangers of SHS and length of exposure and enclosed environments, etc).

I have admitted that I am unable to "prove" my position because it can only be supported by inductive arguments. I can only show that it makes sense to assume it is correct.

No matter how many studies are done on fleeting exposures to SHS in an open environment, the only conclusion that will ever be achieved is "There is no evidence that suggests that fleeting exposures to SHS in open environments is dangerous" because that is all that can be determined by such research.It wil never be a case where one can say "There is no danger from fleeting exposures to SHS in open environments."

What I've been asking you for research-wise can exist. What you've been asking me for cannot exist.

Because of the position I am taking would be called a tentative acceptance of the null hypothesis, which is the scientifically correct approach to take when the evidence does not directly support the hypothesis, I cannot provide proof of my position outside of the fact that there is a lack of evidence supporting the hypothesis, which is what I have been doing.

Because the position you have been taking would be called tentative acceptance of the hypothesis, which is the scientifically correct approach to take when the evidence does directly support the hypothesis, you should be capable of providing proof of your position by showing the evidence that exists which supports the hypothesis.

The standards I am working with are the scientific method. Since you are taking the position that you are taking, there is a certain standard of evidence that you must adhere to in order to be scientifically "correct" in making that claim. Since I am taking the position that I am taking, there is a certain standard of evidence that I must adhere to in order to be scientifically correct in my claim.

In this instance, I have adhered to the standards required for my claim (a lack of direct evidence supporting the hypothesis), while you have not adhered to the standards required for yours (the existence of direct evidence supporting the hypothesis.

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.

The problem here is that the lack of evidence is in fact the support required to make my assumptions logically and scientifically correct.

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.

Your bottom line is an impossible standard. Both for the allergens and the SHS. Even if a person makes all of the correct choices, they will still be exposed to these things. They can only take precautions to minimize their risk for exposure.

As I said earlier, I would support making it so that a portion of the parks and beaches in a region are smoke-free to assist people in taking such precautions. I'd even support making the majority of them smoke free. But a uniform prohibition of smoking at all parks is something I do not support.

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

But the point was that there exists an acceptable level for almost every type of toxin.


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.

If your awareness stems from my pointing it out, that validates the claims I had made in the process of pointing it out, Orion.

As I said earlier, I wasn't trying to call you dishonest (the above admission itself indicates that you , as a person, are honest and supports my existing hypothesis that you, as a person, are honorable and worthy of my respect). I apologize for that having come across as such. Teh point I had been trying to make was that your argumetn was "intellectually dishonest". When I say that, I don't presume that the perosn is always making such an argument willfully.

I've made intellectually dishonest arguments inadvertently myself in the past, but I consider myself to be an honest person.

Admittedly, I often make the mistake of thinking that others perceive things the same way that I do. I've called my own positions hypocritical in the past, for example, and have often admitted that I was ignorant about a subject. I don't perceive these as pejoratives, nor do I consider an intellectually dishonest argument that was inadvertent to be a defect of character.

But I need to be more mindful about how others perceive these things. For that inconsideration, I apologize.

Right, and I don't agree. That is the crux of this debate.

True. My belief is that positive action taken about a positive claim should be supported by evidence. A lack of action on a positive claim should be the default status when the claim is not supported by evidence.

This is because I feel adherence to that basic standard is the best way to remain objective on an issue. My positions often follow the standards set up by the scientific method.

We disagree on that, and you are correct that this is the crux of the debate.

Thus, my position shifts toward my approach being more objective and less prone to being tainted by personal bias.

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.

I hope I've explained my approach sufficiently above. It is not frustration that drives me. It is actually a flaw in myself, which I am working on, where I assume that people perceive certain things the same way that I do. I did not intend fro my comments to be attacks on you. I made the errenous assumption that you would view my comments the same way that I would view them if directed at me.

Again, for that I apologize.

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 don't agree that this is impractical at all, and I don't believe you have provided sufficient evidence to support the claim that it is impractical. Enforcement would actually be easier with separate smoke-free and smoking parks because there would be fewer parks where enforcement would need to occur.

I don't see how designating some parks as smoking and others as smoke-free is impractical. Again, I'm not talking sections of the same parks, but entirely separate parks.

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.

This would make sense with parks, but why beaches?



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.

I disagree with this assessment for multiple reasons.

1. The use of the shellfish analogy was to describe how I am personally affected by having to engage in the same types of avoidance behaviors that non-smokers would have to engage in for much more pressing reasons.

2. My analogy was primarily related to the "public health" argument where fleeting exposures to SHS in outdoor environments is being treated as a danger, even in the absence of supporting evidence for that hypothesis. Also the claim that fleeting exposures to SHS in open areas is dangerous to all is not accurate at all. You even talked about how there are smokers who can smoke all of their lives without developing cancer. Not everyone who is exposed to SHS develops a health problem from it. Therefore, we can accurately conclude that the risks associated with SHS are not really universal. They are very much akin to the risks of shellfish allergies because shellfish allergies can develop at any time in one's life. Essentially everyone has some degree of risk of developing such an allergy. Obviously some people are more prone to it than others. Just because you've never been allergic to shellfish before doesn't mean that the next time you eat it you will not have an allergy attack. And I also provided evidence supporting my comparison.

3. Just because the analogy is not perfectly identical does not mean it is not a legitimate comparison, especially when it was given in the context of what I personally have to deal with regarding my allergy, which place me at a very high risk of eventually becoming one of those 100 people.

cont'd in next post
 
Possibly... but again, you would need proof of that and you don't have it, do you?

Again, in this case, the total lack of evidence contradicting my belief is a logical reason to accept that belief as probably being accurate.

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.

True. I would even go a little further than just health claims and break it down as it coming down to my criteria for taking positive action on positive claims in the absence of evidence supporting those claims.

I feel that this is the most objective approach and the least prone to bias and hyperbole.



Edited to add: somehow I deleted my response to the last part of your post when I was continuing the post from above. I hope that I've explained what I had meant by the "intellectually dishonest" comments and such and that you accept my apology for how they were perceived. That was not my intention.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom