The great smoking experiment?

[VoluntaryAmerican]

From a very broad perspective, if the smoker is not allowed to smoke, both can still enjoy what goes on in the room. If the person who does not like smoke has to leave, only one person can enjoy what happens in the room.

Why do you assume that the two in the room can't settle it themselves? Neither of them are forced to be there and if they are in a work situation, that is at the discretion of the owner of the establishment (well it was).

Why is your first reaction more draconian laws dictating banal trivialities of life?

Or as my grandfather would say, "Mind your own goddamn business."

 

[PaulConventionWV]

When I do smoke, I smoke American Spirit. All natural zero additives. I have been told by non-smokers that they don't stink as much as normal cigarettes.

Probably true and much better for you. I have smoked hookah once or twice. The tobacco is much more concentrated, but it doesn't have any of the additives that cigarettes do and it can be quite relaxing in social situations. I have heard that tobacco has a natural affinity for some toxic substances in the ground, but it still isn't nearly as bad as mixing it with raw poison that goes straight into your lungs. At the very least, I don't feel like I have to avoid second-hand smoke from cigars and other smoking alternatives like I do with cigarettes.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I completely agree with your assessment.
How much are we willing to let them control elections?
How much are we willing to let them control the prices of gas and food?
How much are we willing to let them control the value of our wealth through fiat currency?
How much are we willing to let them turn this country into the thing they supposedly fear the most?




I already explained in my previous post. I also provided a link to learn more about polonium-210 and even quoted it. If you consider that tin-foil hat time for me, I'm okay with that. Personally, I believe that the only thing that causes cancer is ionizing radiation. I would bet my life that cell phones and WIFI don't (I'm an RF Engineer). I guess we all have to do our own research and come to our own conclusions on these things. I am a paranoid type by nature, but that doesn't mean they aren't after me : )

Cell phones and WIFI are more of a contributing factor. All electrical appliances give off electromagnetic radiation, and areas where it is particularly strong can certainly raise the risk of cancer when other factors are present. It's not just cancer, though. It contributes to things you would hardly even notice, like reduced energy levels, allergies, mood, and general feelings of well-being. Keeping your cell phone in your pocket can also affect your sexual performance. I know this from experience. Just sayin...

 

[PaulConventionWV]

These are is the questions I'm asking. "We would never take away your rights! This is a free country! We can make you feel guilty and paranoid and maligned if you use them though........" We can place incredibly difficult conditions on them, put you on surveillance for enjoying them, and make you jump through new and exciting hoops to make sure you're still qualified and safe to be enjoying them. You're still free though! If you don't like it, you can always leave! Cue flag wave......Yay.

Well, taxes are coercive by nature, so it certainly doesn't fit the whole "this is a free country!" spiel. Also, I'm pretty sure the US fedgov has shown that they are not afraid to take away your rights if they can do it under the ruse of "public safety."

I have to admit, it confuses me how some people seem to think the political and social environment is hostile to smokers when we were bombarded with positive reinforcers for smoking earlier in the 20th century through movies, commercials portraying it as the "cool" thing to do. It was even used to kickstart the women's movement in the 1950s when Freud so eloquently explained to us that women smoking cigarettes was like getting their own dick and asserting their male-oriented dominance. On another note, Freud was a sick bastard.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Let's go to a bigger scale. A chemical factory moves in next door. They start putting out large amounts of pollution. Do you have the right to clean air or should you have to move if you don't like it? Or should you try to sue the polluter to try to get them to stop?

Smoke is not self- contained. A person cannot smoke and not impose that smoke on those around them- even those who prefer to avoid smoke. Who's right should prevail? The right to pollute or the right to clean air?

 

[Dr.3D]

Let's go to a bigger scale. A chemical factory moves in next door. They start putting out large amounts of pollution. Do you have the right to clean air or should you have to move if you don't like it? Or should you try to sue the polluter to try to get them to stop?

Smoke is not self- contained. A person cannot smoke and not impose that smoke on those around them- even those who prefer to avoid smoke. Who's right should prevail? The right to pollute or the right to clean air?

This reminds me of the man who bought a house right next to a hog farm, then after moving in, started complaining about the smell.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I love it when people lecture about how unhealthy smoking is. 99/100 you can find something that non smoker does that is at least as bad for their health as smoking cigarettes.

I'm not convinced. Nothing I do is as bad as smoking cigarettes. I don't see why it's a bad thing for me to tell people that smoking is bad for them if I'm not using government to force them to stop. The fact that smoking cigarettes adversely affects your health is a well-known fact. The fact that someone else does something else that's bad for them doesn't change the fact that it would probably be worse if they also smoked cigarettes in addition. What's more, things like breathing in car fumes are often necessary to some people's work. Smoking cigarettes is just needlessly inhaling poison when every purpose that cigarettes serve can be gained through other means. There's just no point in that kind of reckless behavior, IMO. I don't deride people in public for doing it, especially if they are my friends, but it's not good for you and shouldn't be treated as a useful or fulfilling activity in any way.

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Let's go to a bigger scale. A chemical factory moves in next door. They start putting out large amounts of pollution. Do you have the right to clean air or should you have to move if you don't like it? Or should you try to sue the polluter to try to get them to stop?

Smoke is not self- contained. A person cannot smoke and not impose that smoke on those around them- even those who prefer to avoid smoke. Who's right should prevail? The right to pollute or the right to clean air?

A few problems with this hypothetical:

(I could be wrong) But I think you are assuming pollution itself is wrong or evil?
Pollution is only bad if it hurts individuals.
If an individual is hurt by pollution they have a right to compensation for injuries, obviously.

Clean air is not a right. You do however have a right to your life.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Yes indeed. Showering in perfumes and colognes give me massive migraines. I worked in companies where I took my lunch breaks outside getting fresh air--winter, spring, summer or fall. I opened windows, to get fresh air and had to endured people telling me to shut them, they were too cold. The same people, mind you, that showered in the very colognes and perfumes I was trying to escape from.

People shower in perfumes? That's news to me. I use a plain ol' block of soap and Burt's Bees natural hair shampoo. That's it.

 

[Zippyjuan]

A few problems with this hypothetical:

(I could be wrong) But I think you are assuming pollution itself is wrong or evil.
Pollution is only bad if it hurts individuals.
If an individual is hurt by pollution they have a right to compensation for injuries, obviously.

Clean air is not a right. You do however have a right to your life.

Perhaps pollution is good.

 

[Zippyjuan]

People shower in perfumes? That's news to me. I use a plain ol' block of soap and Burt's Bees natural hair shampoo.

Not litterally. But some use lot- perhaps their own sense of smell is not very good so they put on a lot of it (more common in older people). My Mom is very sensitive to things like that- strong oders make her feel ill.

 

[tod evans]

Please see the car exhaust post, smells worse, is worse for you, is a "choice".

Only problem......Non smokers like to drive...

Let's go to a bigger scale. A chemical factory moves in next door. They start putting out large amounts of pollution. Do you have the right to clean air or should you have to move if you don't like it? Or should you try to sue the polluter to try to get them to stop?

Smoke is not self- contained. A person cannot smoke and not impose that smoke on those around them- even those who prefer to avoid smoke. Who's right should prevail? The right to pollute or the right to clean air?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Why do you assume that the two in the room can't settle it themselves? Neither of them are forced to be there and if they are in a work situation, that is at the discretion of the owner of the establishment (well it was).

Why is your first reaction more draconian laws dictating banal trivialities of life?

Or as my grandfather would say, "Mind your own goddamn business."

You are obviously reading that post in a much different way than me. I didn't see him advocating any draconian laws. All I got out of it was that a non-smoker is less likely to be able to enjoy what's going on in the room than the smoker if the smoker smokes. That's true. I don't know where you are coming up with all these other assumptions that zippy supposedly made. I disagree with zippy on a lot of things, but this isn't one of them.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

A few problems with this hypothetical:

(I could be wrong) But I think you are assuming pollution itself is wrong or evil?
Pollution is only bad if it hurts individuals.
If an individual is hurt by pollution they have a right to compensation for injuries, obviously.

Clean air is not a right. You do however have a right to your life.

So what you're saying is that it only adversely affects your health if it's so bad that other people can notice it? "Injury" is a subjective experience. If a person has somewhat lower energy levels and suffers from allergies, that's an adverse effect. It might not cause them to have to go the hospital, but it's still something that's adversely affecting the quality of their life. Pollution is bad at all times because it ALWAYS adversely affects your health whether you notice it or not. Some people aren't aware of how bad things are affecting them until they take the time to try and rectify the situation, realizing afterward how much better they feel than they did while they were exposed to certain pollutants or toxins.

 

[awake]

Attacking with law the vice of smoking is the holy grail of the nanny state. From this monumental foundational achievement, all other vices can be taxed and regulated. The people who harm only themselves can be bullied by a fresh batch of violent parasites for their own selfish gain.

You noticed that obesity(gluttony) is the new front for the nannies. And they hold up the National socialist model of tobacco laws as the model every time.

 

[DamianTV]

Hypothetical.

Make smoking illegal.

Once it is illegal, Tobacco Lords will start popping up everywhere. Gangs will sell tobacco in any form to make money, for what ever purpose they want. The street value of Tobacco will be determined by three factors, not two, Supply, Demand, and Risk. The higher the price goes, the more incentive there is for those who are willing to break the law to become involved, thus, it will become a War of Escalation. The War of Escalation wont be the only war, as those involved in the Tobacco Trade will fight to keep on trading. This includes local rival gangs and any form of government that gets involved. People will end up being killed as a result of the fighting. The more resistance they meet, the higher the price will go, the more incentive there will be to become involved in the Tobacco Trade and the more violence will ensue.

Tobacco will be used as an excuse by the Govt for more Govt Power. Families will be destroyed when mom or dad steps outside to have a smoke by either imprisoning the parent for the possession of illegal tobacco (controlled substance), or the child will be seized by the Govt claiming the child was endangered by a parent that was not completely obedient to the corrupt Govt. The integrity of the Govt will be comprimised by the incentives that tobacco offers. Thus, Govt will probably maintain the Tobacco Trade by growing and distributing tobacco themselves. Tobacco will be used to further increase our lead in the category of people in prison, per capita. Private Prisons will lobby against it. Some on the Govt payroll will get paid large ammts of money to look the other way. People wont stop smoking or chewing tobacco. Our govt wont listen to our cries to legalize it because they can make so much more money off of us by keeping it illegal. Higher taxes, more police, more people in prison, more violence, more families destroyed, more people dying, more excuses by the Govt to take what few rights we have away, more corrupt officials looking to line their own pockets, new types of Gangs, new types of Drug Deals, new types of Drug Testing for Employment, and so many more opportunities for those in power to take away from the people who dont smoke in order to punish them by keeping tobacco illegal. Then we discover that the consequences of making tobacco illegal are far far worse than keeping it legal.

Now, replace Tobacco with Marijurana. Does making Tobacco illegal sound like a good idea to anyone? Maybe instead of finding new things to make illegal, we should be thinking just as hard about making Marijuana Legal.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Please see the car exhaust post, smells worse, is worse for you, is a "choice".

Only problem......Non smokers like to drive...

How do you know that it's worse for you? As far as I know, you're not exposed to that much of it if you're just driving your car. You're more likely to be exposed to it by walking past a parked car that is idling. Even then, you're not exposed to as much pollutant as if you were to smoke a pack or two per day, I don't think. I could be wrong, but it seems like you are breathing in a lot more pollutants by smoking than by walking past a parked car.

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Perhaps pollution is good.

When the first man started a fire, he was polluting. He didn't like breathing the smoke, but he cared more about staying warm. So he made a decision.

Do you drive a car Zippy? Well you are making the same type of sacrifice.

Pollution being "bad" is relative to the benefits the product has for society.

 

[Zippyjuan]

My basic point on the issue is that smoking does not only impact the person who chooses to smoke but also those around them. It takes away their right to choose not to smoke. If you can smoke and keep all of the smoke to yourself- fine. Build a bubble suit to contain it or some big bag to breath into with you. Do it as much you want to. It can have potential negative health impacts on others.

A less- harmful example? Music noise. Got iPod with headphones? Blast your eardrums as loud as you want. Got a million watt stereo blasting at full volume at all hours of the day and night? That is imposing on people. Don't like my stereo? Tough. Move. Sell that house you have lived in for 20 years. I have a right to be as loud as I want anytime I want.

 

[donnay]

Attacking with law the vice of smoking is the holy grail of the nanny state. From this monumental foundational achievement, all other vices can be taxed and regulated. The people who harm only themselves can be bullied by a fresh batch of violent parasites for their own selfish gain.

You noticed that obesity(gluttony) is the new front for the nannies. And they hold up the National socialist model of tobacco laws as the model every time.

Thread winner! +rep