Thread: I'm Glad I'm on the Downhill Side of This Life

Outlawing generally hasn't worked out too well, as the prohibition proved.

Another reason to against total ban is strong resistance of industry and smokers alike, as we have seen in this thread. Politician's generally try not ruin their chances of re-election. They generally have a better chance to improve matters by taking not so black an white stance on the whole thing.

I feel that smoker's rights movement has been in effect since tobacco was discovered. What has recently come up, is the non-smoker's rights movement. I'm glad it did and I'm glad that there is discussion on this. The fact is that modern society need to limit some rights. You can still smoke, just not in everyplace since that would infringe on the rights of other individuals. I commend JimmyHAD for admitting their rights, and his choice in this matter, which shows great understanding. I have no qualms about somebody having a quiet smoke somewhere, as long as nobody else has to be affected.

If you believe smoking ban is discriminating against smokers, I submit to you that are we discriminating against criminals since they end up jailed while honest people go free. Should we really let them loose on the streets? I think not. Society needs rules.

Originally Posted by ursus

If you believe smoking ban is discriminating against smokers, I submit to you that are we discriminating against criminals since they end up jailed while honest people go free. .

Of course we are.

a : to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of b : distinguish, differentiate
2 : to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences; especially : to distinguish from another like objectintransitive verb 1 a : to make a distinction b : to use good judgment

Originally Posted by ursus

Society needs rules.

Yes, and those rules are discriminatory. It's just an accepted form of discrimination.

Originally Posted by livingontheedge

Does not the gov. allowing tobacco sales, insinuate to some that it is not a harmful product, the gov. is quick to ban many harmful products i.e lead paint, DDT and even certain types knives because they might cause harm, so why not tobacco? If it in fact causes death or even the shortening of ones life, than it should be outlawed, or am I missing something?

Yes, you are.

It would not work.

Lead paint, DDT and ever certain types of knives have alternatives, people did not seek out lead paint because it was better than the replacements or they felt it enriched their lives in some way. DDT was one of many pesticides and it became socially unacceptable to use it, those types of knives are used by a minority of people, tell the public they are used by criminals and whey they're socially unacceptable as well.

The absolute minimum you need to make banning something largely effective is wide spread public support. The people need to believe you're doing the right thing otherwise they will simply find ways around it.

Jimmy, I think there are plenty of widows and widowers who would disagree with you. In any case, it is not a competition about which is worse.

Originally Posted by gregs656

Yes, and those rules are discriminatory. It's just an accepted form of discrimination.

EDIT: Ok. I seem to be grasping what you're coming from with this. It all depends on how strictly one defines it. Semantically you are correct. In spoken languages it however has negative connotation, which I picked up.

Hehe. Seems like saying ""me" is technically discrimination. Better not say it much then =D

Originally Posted by livingontheedge

Does not the gov. allowing tobacco sales, insinuate to some that it is not a harmful product, the gov. is quick to ban many harmful products i.e lead paint, DDT and even certain types knives because they might cause harm, so why not tobacco? If it in fact causes death or even the shortening of ones life, than it should be outlawed, or am I missing something?

No your not missing anything.
I would like to know if smoking and second hand smoke is so deadly trimming years off life, then why do countries like JAPAN, ISRAEL, GREECE, CUBA, with smoking rates of 45% to 60% All have some of the highest life expectancies in the world,japan with 60% smoking rate coming in at number two. The rest also in the top ten.
How can it be then that countries like the U.S.A and Australia with smoking rates of23% can,t even make the top ten, The U.S.A being at number 16 behind France who have a 40% smoking rate.
There are obviously health issues in our countries but I don,t think smoking or second hand smoke is the number one problem,far from it.
As the director of WHO was told in 1975 " to futher denormalise smoking ,we must foster an atmosphere where it is percieved that they are not just harming themselves, but those around them. especially thier family and children"

I am not so nieave as to believe that primary smoking is totally harmless, but nothing in this world is. If anyone questions my smoking I ask If they drive a car.If the answer is yes, it is the end of the discussion.I just cannot abide someone who would have a go at me for having a smoke but for themselves it is OK to drive around spewing the same pollution as 15,000 cigarettes every hour out of their exhaust and they couldn,t give a damn who has to breath it.I can tolerate a lot of things but not hypocrits.

Your comparison isn't useful because it presumes that smoking is the overwhelmingly most significant cause of shortened life expectancy; outweighing all other causes combined. Without this presumption, you can't draw any conclusion from the data you present.

For instance, the number of homicides, the obesity rate and related illnesses, the number of fatalities in automobile accidents, and several dozen other causes of death are significant enough that they would need to be removed from your life expectancy calculation to get a truly representative sample. And at that point, I'm fairly certain the numbers would look a lot worse for the point you are making.

Originally Posted by IanS

And at that point, I'm fairly certain the numbers would look a lot worse for the point you are making.

Nice to be certain if only fairly certain.

Homicides and obesity I know are much much higher in the US vs Japan.

Car accidents, ya that's a presumption, but I'd wager it's a pretty sound one.

Also, I trust that the life insurance industry isn't bigoted towards smokers. They're smart fellows. They give smokers much less coverage because they run the numbers and they can prove mathematically that a smoker is X times more likely to die. That is how they determine coverage and rates.