|
Post by Ganbare! on May 12, 2010 20:42:20 GMT -5
^Yeah, that quote is slightly absurd. Hyper-individualists have sacrificed the last remaining ounce of altruism they had left for selfish well-being, most are so indoctrinated into their self-importance they won't listen to reason. Thank God, legislative bodies in social democracies no matter how corrupt still mostly pass laws to insure the perennity of societal welfare, not private and antisocial interests.
|
|
miss feli
Full Member
here kitty, kitty!
Posts: 315
|
Post by miss feli on May 12, 2010 22:45:13 GMT -5
but the danger posed by second hand smoke to you does not merit prohibition of other people's freedoms So your freedoms trumps mine? This isn't alcohol we're talking about here. We're talking about a big health issue. Also, betahat, you pointed out that CVD is the leading cause of death. Which is true. However, what's the biggest cause of it? ... smoking. Can I also make a point that I think some posters are letting their addiction talk ...
|
|
|
Post by betahat on May 13, 2010 1:22:58 GMT -5
^So your freedoms trumps mine? This isn't alcohol we're talking about here. First of all, don't make the mistake of assuming that I'm a smoker. I'm for gay marriage and polygamy too but that doesn't mean I like to have sex with men or want more than my one current wife. It's not about MY freedom. It's about balancing the rights of individuals to engage in activities that are harmful to themselves and potentially have negative effect on others against their freedom. Freedom is never absolute and is always limited by negative external effects and our desire to help people make the choices that we believe are in their best (usually longer-term) interests. Second, I agree we're talking about a big health issue here, which is absolutely why I recognize the need for policies to curtail smoking, make it more expensive, less available, negative social sanction, etc. I'm all for policies to ban smoking near doorways, ban smoking in bars and restaurants, etc. Heck, if you want to ban smoking in certain public areas like parks then fine by me. BUT, and this is important, let's not exaggerate the dangers of anonymous second smoke. You have yet to convince me that someone walking down the street smoking a cigarette is a public danger and we need to fine them or send them to jail. In fact, you won't convince me because I KNOW that there is no evidence to prove this, unlike the STRONG evidence that air pollution from cars and factories - which is regulated but not illegal - contributes to lung cancer. Yes, incontrovertibly annoys you, but that just doesn't cut it. Public policy is not made to please your personal preferences or anyone elses. I don't know where you're going with the alcohol thing. I'm pretty sure the danger to me from drunk drivers is much greater than the danger I face from second hand smoke outdoors. ^Also, betahat, you pointed out that CVD is the leading cause of death. Which is true. However, what's the biggest cause of it? ... smoking. I think that's probably true for people under 65, but since most deaths from cardiovascular disease (over 80%) are for people who are older than that I don't think you can say it is THE leading cause of CVD or THE leading cause of death. Of course that's a quibble, since everyone has to die from something and most smokers won't live into their 70s or 80s so won't get a chance to die from the run-of-the-mill cardiovascular diseases that kill most non-smoking people. A more serious quibble is that while the statistics I could find said that smokers have a 70% higher mortality rate from heart disease (and 40 cigarette a day smokers had 2 to 3 times the overall mortality of non-smokers) www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/tobac-tabac/body-corps/disease-maladie/heart-coeur-eng.phpother statistics also tell me that among non-smokers, obesity increases the mortality rate by - you guessed it - 2 to 3 times. content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/355/8/763Now I'm not going to make a silly argument that tobacco should be as unrestricted as hard cheeses or red meat or potato chips. There's no equivalence for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that fat in moderation is fine (maybe not red meat though) but no cigarette is a safe cigarette. I don't want to go as far as One Eye and argue that you shouldn't complain about smoking or take a lot of reasonable steps to restrict it (just like we should all agree to list calories on foods - just as important and maybe more effective than warning labels on cigarettes since most smokers know how bad smoking is for them). But if, as I believe, you have the right to be obese in a free society and not get sent to mandatory fat camp or get denied food at McDonald's, then you should also be allowed to smoke yourself to death. I don't see how you can look at the data and conclude anything differently. If you are going to be an altruistic paternalist - which seems to be where Ganbare is going - then you have to be consistent when looking at the data and actual quantification of risk factors.
|
|
miss feli
Full Member
here kitty, kitty!
Posts: 315
|
Post by miss feli on May 13, 2010 8:51:45 GMT -5
BUT, and this is important, let's not exaggerate the dangers of anonymous second smoke. You have yet to convince me that someone walking down the street smoking a cigarette is a public danger and we need to fine them or send them to jail. In fact, you won't convince me because I KNOW that there is no evidence to prove this, "Exaggerate" the dangers? Oh come on! I bet no amount of evidence would be enough for you to be convinced. Take a look at a university article system and you'll find hundreds of articles on second hand smoking. There's a reason that there are parts of a cigarette that are called "carcinogens," which literally mean "a substance that causes cancer." How is there not strong evidence that cigarettes contributes to cancer, in general? I also beg to differ that public policy is not "made to please personal preferences." We elect officials in government that have personal preferences that vote as such. You know, it sucks, because I had to try and lobby before and it's blatantly obvious what their personal views are. No, I wasn't going there. I was trying to say that banning cigarettes would be different than banning alcohol. Though cigarettes are more common and have a longer period of no symptoms. Obesity takes time to develop and doesn't effect, health wise, the people around you. You don't carry carcinogens on your body if you're fat. Denying food is one part of the issue -- with cigarettes, it's just don't smoke them. Obesity is a multi-faceted issue where even if you put them on a healthy diet, they may not even lose the weight to be healthy. I can go on, but I'm not sure if you're really interested in my health rants.
|
|
|
Post by admin on May 13, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
^So your freedoms trumps mine? Sure (but not in his case)! Those determinations happen all the time when freedoms collide. I think it works in your favor as a non-smoker. We have ordinances that place one freedom above another. For example, noise ordinances. My neighbor might enjoy weed-whacking at 3am, but I enjoy sleep and something has to give. My city has said that my freedom to enjoy peace and quiet trumps the other guy's freedom to garden with power equipment at 3am. Another example would be the prohibition of keeping farm animals within the city limits. Fred may love cows, but Sally shouldn't have to smell the cow poop next door. Even more to the point, 'community design review' can have your neighbors veto the color you chose for your house or the the style of fence if your city has such a policy. People's freedoms are constantly battling one another and we usually codify a hierarchy if the battles become regular. Restrictions on smoking are based on both health and nuisance concerns. Clearly, I have no right to curb the smoking of a guy sitting 6,967 miles away in a cafe in Manila, but I would if he were sitting next to me on BART. Somewhere in between those two extremes is a reasonable set of laws (and polite customs) which would determine when and where one's smoking is OK and when and where it isn't. If someone wants to smoke themselves to death without injuring or disturbing others, that's their choice and their freedom should be supported. Note that the determinations of health and nuisance are fluid, community-based, and the line has been changing in one direction for the past 30 years.
|
|
|
Post by Ganbare! on May 13, 2010 10:45:25 GMT -5
^Amen to that.
Collective well-being > individual freedom
|
|
palavore
Full Member
I put my pants on just like the rest of you -- one leg at a time. Except, once my pants are on, I make gold posts.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Posts: 298
|
Post by palavore on May 13, 2010 13:23:49 GMT -5
"I know something that you non-smokers don't know. Ready? Non-smokers die everyday. [...] If only you had smoked, we would have the technology to save you. It's you people who die from nothing that are really screwed."-- Bill Hicks Says the guy who died from cancer! Pancreatic cancer. Imagine quitting smoking then dying from the wrong cancer. That was the point of his humor. Life plays jokes like that.
|
|
|
Post by betahat on May 13, 2010 14:26:31 GMT -5
^but I'm not sure if you're really interested in my health rants.
Since you didn't respond to anything I said, but instead launched into a tirade of a bunch of things which I completely agree with - say that cigarettes are a leading cause of death, that they cause cancer, that second-smoke (when you're exposed to lots of it, as in there's a smoker in the house, smoke on an airplane, you work or spend a lot of time in smoke filled board rooms, workplaces or bars) is dangerous, etc. - I would say I'm not really interested in your health rant.
But if you want to keep knocking down straw men rather than contributing actual data or responding to what I actually am arguing:
(a)that banning smoking completely or making it illegal to smoke a cigarette in an outdoor park or while walking down the street or anywhere outdoors with space and good ventilation is not justified by the harm it presents to others, and (b) that if the goal is to prevent people from engaging in risky behaviors that hurt themselves, obesity contributes about the same to mortality risk from ages 50-70 as smoking 40 cigarettes a day, so that all of the taxes, restrictions, and if you're willing to go that far illegality that is applied to smoking should also be applied to obesity
then feel free to continue. But I'm not interested.
However, I AM interested in what you mean by this: "I was trying to say that banning cigarettes would be different than banning alcohol. " You're probably right - they're different substances - but I have no idea why. One is more socially sanctioned, but the degree of social acceptance of illegal drugs doesn't seem overly correlated with the mechanics behind banning them - demand generates a black market, the bigger the demand the bigger the market. Is there more to it than that?
Anyway, thanks Putts for the first sensible post on this thread that succintly states the core of the issue in a reasonable way.
|
|