CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Yes, and this is just the harmful effects on the smoker himself. Consider all the other harmful effects that the smoker impose on people around him. I think smoking is inherently bad. Just compare the short term gratification and long term health effects.
Weed is fine, and so is tobacco. It is that chemical shit that they add that gets ya. Both weed and tobacco have been smoked for centuries with minimal effects but then some idiot started adding bad stuff. There is more to this story than meets the eyes is all I am saying.
Almost every day I pass some fucking smokers, that stench is revolting. I do not want to have that shit in my nose or mouth, and they do not need that pointless crap in the first place. I am not the one who has to find alternative routes, they must find other places to kill their lungs, places away from the public.
Almost every day I pass some fucking automobiles, that stench is revolting. I do not want to have that shit in my nose or mouth, and they do not need that pointless crap in the first place. I am not the one who has to find alternative routes, they must find other places to drive, places away from the public.
Almost every day I pass some fucking industry, that stench is revolting. I do not want to have that shit in my nose or mouth, and they do not need that pointless crap in the first place. I am not the one who has to find alternative routes, they must find other places to build things, places away from the public.
Almost every day I pass some fucking people having a fire in their fireplace in the comfort of their own home, that stench is revolting. I do not want to have that shit in my nose or mouth, and they do not need that pointless crap in the first place. I am not the one who has to find alternative routes, they must find other places to enjoy a fire, places away from the public.
Almost every day I pass some fucking people having a BBQ, that stench is revolting. I do not want to have that shit in my nose or mouth, and they do not need that pointless crap in the first place. I am not the one who has to find alternative routes, they must find other places to kill their lungs, places away from the public.
Automobiles are actually necessary for society's progress. So is industry. Fire in the fireplace, if there is no alternative or cheaper source of warmth present then it is justified, it is necessary for a decent life (you've heard of such a thing as a winter?). Barbeque is cooking food (I'm not gonna tell you what food is for, figure it out yourself).
Smoking is not necessary nor needed. Never has been and never will be.
So you're only willing to put up with things you dislike if they are absolutely necessary for society's progress? That seems rather totalitarian of you. Isn't providing entertainment or pleasure reason enough for something to be allowed to exist?
And no, I don't know what winter is, I live in California.
Smoking harms the smoker and it annoys many of those who don't and do not want to breathe in that pointless crap. It also is a complete waste of money.
Entertainment and pleasure that is not harming people (many smokers do it because they are addicted) and not annoying others. Smoking as legal is not justified, if it is legal then all drugs should be. A government should see to it that all its citizens are as healthy as possible. Isn't a government supposed to serve its people? Sometimes that means doing things that some won't like, as banning addictive and harming substances like cigarettes. The only reason they don't ban them is because they are taxed, because they get lots of money from people buying that pointless crap.
Too bad you're frying all the time. Winter can be a bitch but still a beautiful one.
Fast food harms the consumer and I'm annoyed every time I see morbidly obese people eating fast food, but I wouldn't suggest a ban on fast food.
Loud music can be annoying at times (through admittedly not particularly harmful so long as your not at a show) but I'm less inclined to propose a ban on loud music than I am to just suck it up when I'm walking by some loud music. I don't see why you can't take this attitude with smoking. It's not your choice, fine. You dont see the point. Fine. But other people do choose to smoke and do enjoy it, and they should be allowed to.
And I agree: all drugs should be legal. Legalize, educate, regulate.
And yes, it is too bad I'm frying all the time. I've got a great tan year-round but that's the only up-side. Both my parents immigrated here from cold ass countries, and I'm really not built for the heat. Once I'm done working my way through college I'm trying to move back to someplace cold.
But seriously, if you met me and you had malevolent intentions toward me and you actually cared to act them out then you'd end up in a hospital. Not joking at all. And furthermore, if you actually saw me you'd probably reconsider...
And smoking should be illegal, just as are other drugs. You want to go further? Just read VecVeltro's arguments again 'cause they reflect reality not your wishful thinking.
We got a real tough guy over here. Well, we've got an internet tough guy, which isn't quite the same thing. In fact, it kind of implies the opposite; we're probably dealing with a skinny, pasty, cowardly 15 year old child who likes to talk big.
That's the beauty of the internet: you can pretend to be whoever you want to be!
In my experience, though, people who go out of their way to act physically tough on the internet (a forum in which no threats or provocations can actually be dealt with or acted upon, physically) are usually physically lacking.
Or you're a meathead who likes to solve his disputes with violence, but then, what would you be doing on an internet debate site? Why not go beat the shit out of some smokers?
If someone was as rude to me about my smoking as you were to smokers in general with your post, and I happened to be smoking a cigarette at the time, I would probably blow a hit in his face, too. Kind of like when some jackass takes it upon himself to yell "SLOW DOWN!" at me when I'm driving 27 in a 25 zone, I promptly rev my engine and speed up. Not very mature, I know, and two wrongs don't make a right, but and eye for an eye, I suppose. You're a jackass to me, and you've got jackassery coming right back at you.
I know blowing a hit of smoke into the face of someone as sensitive and intolerant as you is a severe insult, and I don't believe in unnecessary insults, but I do believe in responding to them in kind.
I don't pretend to be someone I'm not. Never have. I'm rather disinclined to lying.
I said "...and you had malevolent intentions toward me and you actually cared to act them out then..." That indicates I would only get physical if someone attacked me first.
If someone was as rude to me about my smoking as you were to smokers in general with your post, and I happened to be smoking a cigarette at the time, I would probably blow a hit in his face, too.
Smokers are rude to me by polluting the air I breathe. What I said wasn't rude, it reflected how it is. Cigarettes are pointless crap that harm the smoker and annoy many of those that don't. If they aren't smart enough to keep away from that addictive shit then it is their problem if someone says something like I did. I haven't tried not one cigarette in my life and neither do I need any.
If someone'd hit me I'd hit back far worse.
You're a jackass to me, and you've got jackassery coming right back at you.
I'm not the one who initiates trouble. If someone is as disrespectful as to smoke in public then they have it coming anyway. And if they became violent because of something I'd say, instead of leaving and finding some private places, the more they'd have it coming.
The "malevolent intentions" you were talking about would be blowing a hit of smoke in your face after you called the smoker a "fucking smoker," called them "revolting," and otherwise complained about how their mode of pleasure and enjoyment is pointless shit. You go on to imply that no intelligent person would smoke. If you said all that to me, you've got something your way; in this case, a hit of smoke.
If you said all that you would be initiating trouble, just like I would be initiating trouble if I attacked you're interests and pleasures and insulted you personally for it. And it was rude. Even if that was "how it is" you still laid out your argument in an offensive and provocative manner.
Also I can't speak to your country, but here in the US if you're stupid enough to stand around in a DSA and bitch about smoking and smokers (as rudely as you did), best case scenario you get laughed at and ignored worst case you get jumped. Smokers here are not allowed to smoke in many public places, so to place yourself in a designated smoking area and then whine about how smokers are annoying when they smoke in public would come across as extremely infantile.
Also it seems like you're still only willing to tolerate things you find rude or annoying if they are absolutely necessary to our society. This seems like the will of a crazy, tyrannical dictator.
I'm not the one who initiates trouble. If someone is as disrespectful as to smoke in public then they have it coming anyway.
Oh and you banning them from smoking isn't disrespectful, cause you don't like it? Why don't you just let them be and ask them to take a step back or you take a step back, seriously, the smoke doesn't go that far, I don't tell you to stay in your home just because I don't like the way your breathe smells.
Also Vec's arguments are opinionated, baseless claims; he tries to build valid arguments with passion and emotion, not reality. His arguments actually depend on fiction in order to be valid.
Obviously a hit the size of a Hurricane would cause my lungs to explode and would likely kill everyone within a 10 mile radius of me, so you'd be in the hospital to.
Smoking causes respiratory problems, and bonds between your family will weaken. your family members will also get respiratory problems due to secondhand inhalation too. You also have to pay for cigarettes
yes, I am, many say that the government intervening in smoking does nothing, actually, if you regulate it, you will get less smokers, as proven in Canada
I am against smoking. I think it should be disallowed in public places due to the harms caused by second hand smoke, the person would be harming other people when they inhaled the smoke. Smoking on private property should be at the discretion of the owner.
Smokers typically respond with "well you should leave", but why should they leave? So we're not allowed to enjoy the same public space as you are? Just because you want to satisfy your addiction? You want to satisfy your addiction so bad that you don't care if you harm other people's lungs? Carelessness towards the fact that you're harming others is immoral in my opinion.
One, I can't speak for wherever you live, but smoking is already by and large disallowed in public places, and in a lot of private ones, too. I can smoke a cigarette in my car while I'm driving on the road or if I'm walking down the street, but I can't smoke at my apartment complex, or at my past/present schools, or local parks, or shopping centers, beaches, etc. When you smoke cigarettes you pay a lot more attention to all the places you're not allowed to smoke cigarettes, and there are many.
So there are Designated Smoking Areas, places where people can go to smoke that are off the beaten path and won't bother anyone. If you dislike smoke, I suggest you steer clear of these areas.
As for everywhere else, well, you're not guaranteed good air quality in the Bill of Rights, and there are numerous other factors that play into bad air quality other than smoking, although smoking is disproportionately attacked, probably because it smells bad. Or so I hear. For example, you are libel to encounter automobiles, factories, dwellings, BBQs, bonfires, and people dousing themselves with hairspray or some other spray product in public, too. All of these things pose a substantial risk to your health as surely as smoking does. Are you for putting a public ban on any of these things, or are you okay with just walking away from a BBQ some people are having at the park because you dislike the smoke? It seems only natural to take steps to remove yourself from a situation you dislike; it seems infantile to ban an activity in public because you dislike it.
Given that DSAs do already exist in great abundance, choosing to be in a DSA and then complain about air quality comes across as whiny and pointless. That would be like choosing to stand next to a public grill at the park and then getting angry when people start to cook on it. Or standing next to a fire pit at the beach and getting upset when people make a bonfire there. Of insisting on being in a busy parking and then complaining about all the exhaust fumes. To some extent you do have the ability to remove yourself from a situation you dislike, and to some extent that is the most reasonable course of action.
Like I said in the beginning, there is some middle ground; I know there are some areas that are not DSAs or places where smoking isn't allowed, and you may encounter smokers, there (like you might encounter a car spewing exhaust or a factory vent dumping pollution into the air). If you're really so offended and terrified by second hand smoke like this, I would advise investing in a gas mask, because cars and factories aren't going anywhere any time soon. Bu in regards to these situations, I'd be happy to discuss instituting DSAs everywhere public, but not banning smoking everywhere public.
In regards to what you said about being guaranteed good air quality in the bill of rights; You are not guaranteed that, I'm aware.
You spoke of factories, vehicles, BBQs, etc, some of those things are absolutely necessary to live in the modern world. As for BBQs, I don't know anyone who happens to dislike that smell, although I do imagine there must be people out there who dislike the smell. Do BBQs damage lungs as much as cigarette smoke? I don't think BBQs cause lung cancer.
Smoking cigarettes and such is not absolutely necessary at all. It might feel necessary to the smoker, because he is chemically addicted to the substance. But it is really not necessary to live in the modern world.
When I say that smoking should be banned in public, I mean anywhere outside that the government owns. Smoking is not a necessity of modern life, and it raises the chance of lung cancer significantly to people who happen to be nearby.
Yes, I'm against smoking. Because it is very harmful to health. Of course the whole world knows that smoking is bad, but they continue to smoke not understanding how it is actually harmful. Continued dependence on cigarettes leads to heart disease, shortness of breath, it becomes hard to breathe, the person does not maintain strong physical exertion. Smoking also spoils genes. Children born to parents who smoke have a weak immune system.
yes!! smoking is a horrible, terrible thing to do and it affects your lungs badly! if you smoke too much, your teeth will rot, your breath will stink of smoke, and worst of all.... you'll get lung cancer!! lung cancer is horrible and it could cause you to die. so smoking is a horrible thing, and i suggest you shouldn't smoke!
A cigarette stick has many undesirable chemicals like tar or nicotine. Studies show that people reduce their life span by 11 minutes every time they smoke.
I am against smoking since it gives more negative effects to the user.
Here are some bad effects of smoking:
Here is a top 10 list of negative effects of smoking:
1. Coughing: Smokers coughing that is. After a not predetermined time of being a smoker, you will begin to experience smokers cough, because your body uses this as a way to try and get rid of the toxins you inhale while smoking.
2. Yellow teeth: many smokers when they realise the state of their smile, that have gone from bright white to almost yellow stop smiling all that much, or try to hide their teeth while smiling.
3. Trouble with blood circulation: After contaminating your blood for a period of time with the smoke you inhale and that therefore gets into your blood stream, your blood will not circulate as freely in your body as it used to, and your arteries will begin to clog. The ares furthest away from the heart, (hands and feet) will be first to get lowered their blood flow, and you will begin to experience cold hands and feet.
4. Lessened glowing of your skin: A healthy skin have a natural glow about, but with the clogged arteries, the lessened blood flow, will slowly make your skin greyer, and more pale than it used to be.
5. Ugly yellow fingertips: The smoke that several times daily gets in contact with your skin at the fingertips, is slowly going to make the fingers on the hand you hold the cigarette with into ugly looking yellow fingers.
6. Lessened ability to smell the lovely flowers: Well maybe you don't really care about the smell of flowers, but another negative effect of smoking is that rather shortly after becoming a smoker, you taste buds and your ability to smell well be severely worse than before. The good news however is that they return rather quickly after quitting.
7. Lessened lung capacity: Your overall fitness levels are determined largely by the capacity of your lungs, and a negative effects of smoking is a slowly deteriorating lung capacity. When I smoked I had a test as I were doing sport at a serious level, but had collapsed during a track test, and were told my lung capacity were well below par for my age group.
8. Lower Energy: When you smoke, your immune system never relaxes for very long. Immediately when smoke gets in your body, the immune system start fighting it, and is therefore working on overdrive so to speak. That extra use of energy has to come from somewhere, and it does. The energy used is taken from your overall energy levels, Along with that, the lesser lung capacity reduces your bodys oxygen intake, which again reduces your energy levels. so you can expect a lower energy level overall from smoking.
9. Bad breath: Often times when I were a smoker I would wake up dry mouthed, and my girlfriend refused to kiss me because of my bad breath. This point should require no further explanation.
10. Less oxygen for your brain: Lower oxygen in your blood also causes the brain to get lesser oxygen then it needs to function optimally. This may cause you to have a worse than average ability to focus on things, and it may also cause dizzy spells.
These are just some of the more obvious negative effects of smoking, that your body suffers under being a smoker, in the long term your risk of severe blood clogs, lung cancer and heart diseases will dramatically increase the longer you are a smoker.
To put it short, smoking kills and is a waste of time, energy, and money. So why bother? If I am to choose between smoking and masturbating, I would choose masturbating since it is free and isn't risky to health.
Yes I am against smoking, because it not only harm people who smoke but it is also very bad for the people who surrounds you. That is why dont think only about you but also your surroundings
Everyone knows about the dangers of smoking. The impact is said and shown in schools universities, on posters in the streets, even on the cigarette packs. World Health Organization tells us that more than one billion people are smokers in the world, because smoking is a hard habit to break because tobacco contains nicotine, which is highly addictive. Like heroin or other addictive drugs, the body and mind quickly become so used to the nicotine in cigarettes that a person needs to have it just to feel normal. Because of this people find it difficult to break the habit of smoking and it is best way not to start smoking.
I am so anti I can't even describe how anti I am and how angry I am with these idiots. Every day they buy a cigarette box, they could save a live from malaria!! Some people are disgusting and selfish.
I am against people smoking cigarettes but I do not support making them illegal, its their choice and you have no right to take away their personal liberties and rights because you don't like smoking. Your gonna take away someone's rights cause you don't agree with them? What are you, 9?
Well, isn't a smoker taking away my liberty to be in a smoke-free environment?
In this case, whose liberty weighs more? In a public place, does a smoker's liberty outweigh my liberty to be in a smoke-free environment? Am I obligated to leave whenever someone pulls out a smoke? Or is it the otherway around and the smoker is expected to not smoke if he might endanger the clear air of others?
I'm against smoking for the sole reason that I'm against all drugs. I don't find it to be ethical to have the state support self-destructive behavior. The state should not strive for fully fledged freedom, it should strive for the health and well-being of its citizens.
As I take it, your idea of liberty boils down to ''its their choice and you have no right to take away their personal liberties and rights because you don't like _____ (insert blank with).'' With this principle you can allow anything. While I may not like it and be personally against it, I have no right to take away another's liberty to walk around naked, shoot heroin or have sex with animals for example.
Let me turn what you said around - Does a smoker have the right to take away my personal liberty for clean air because he doesn't like the idea of not-smoking?
Well, isn't a smoker taking away my liberty to be in a smoke-free environment?
Not really, the smoker isn't blowing the smoke into your face an following you around, if you don't like the smoke than leave, also your property (if you don't want it to be) is smoke free and there are many other areas that are smoke free.
In this case, whose liberty weighs more? In a public place, does a smoker's liberty outweigh my liberty to be in a smoke-free environment? Am I obligated to leave whenever someone pulls out a smoke? Or is it the otherway around and the smoker is expected to not smoke if he might endanger the clear air of others?
If you don't like the smoke, take a few steps back, move away from them or just leave, they aren't rubbing up against you and breathing it in your face, rather than saying that we should ban their right to smoke how about you take a more reasonable route and stand at a distance that doesn't invade their personal space.
I'm against smoking for the sole reason that I'm against all drugs.
I support smoking for the sole reason that its their right, I hate smoke from cigs, I hate the smell and it does damage to them, but they can do as they want.
I don't find it to be ethical to have the state support self-destructive behavior.
If a state allows fast food stores to open are they supporting self-destructive behavior? Its just as bad as tobacco so it is self destructive. The state isn't supporting it, they just aren't condeming it and locking people up over having a burger and fries.
The state should not strive for fully fledged freedom, it should strive for the health and well-being of its citizens.
The job of the state is to protect our freedom, and people would still smoke, today all drugs accept for alcohol and tobacco are illegal and they are VERY (yes, they are everywhere and cheap) plenitful, you can buy drugs anywhere. You wouldn't stop people from smoking you'd just force them to buy it from other sources and smoke it somewhere else. And again, if its unhealthy and they know it, its fine, their choice. You have no right to take away their liberties cause you don't agree.
As I take it, your idea of liberty boils down to ''its their choice and you have no right to take away their personal liberties and rights because you don't like _____ (insert blank with).''
No, but thats what it boils down to on drugs, its their choice, not the governments and not yours. The government is not meant to be a baby sitter that watches our every move ad tells us exactly what to do, they have no role in my life when it comes to drugs.
With this principle you can allow anything.
If your being niave about it, then yes. I don't support murder because that personal choice led to the death of someone else, I don't support rape because it led to the rape of someone else. Using drugs isn't hurting anyone else.
While I may not like it and be personally against it, I have no right to take away another's liberty to walk around naked, shoot heroin or have sex with animals for example.
Having sex with animals is different because there is a 99.99% chance the animal didn't want to have sex with the human, thus, its rape. As for heroin, again, its illegal but people still do it and its everywhere and when its illegal its not controlled, anyone can buy it and there is not quality control. I'd rather have heroin addicts shoot heroin in an a place where they know what they are taking and if they try to get help they don't have to worry about being thrown in jail.
Let me turn what you said around - Does a smoker have the right to take away my personal liberty for clean air because he doesn't like the idea of not-smoking?
Their not, you can walk away, you don't have to breathe in their smoke, its like saying people playing guitar in the park are violating your right for a quite park, just leave.
Not really, the smoker isn't blowing the smoke into your face an following you around, if you don't like the smoke than leave, also your property (if you don't want it to be) is smoke free and there are many other areas that are smoke free.
If you don't like the smoke, take a few steps back, move away from them or just leave, they aren't rubbing up against you and breathing it in your face, rather than saying that we should ban their right to smoke how about you take a more reasonable route and stand at a distance that doesn't invade their personal space.
The problem with liberty and freedom is that they always come at the expense of other liberties and other freedoms. Some people will end up with more liberty at the expense of someone else.
And you clearly demonstrate this in regards to the smoking issue. You’ve basically told me that the smoker’s liberty is more important than my liberty to be in a non-toxic environment. It’s me who has to leave, it’s me who has to take a few steps back to make room for the smoker’s habits. It is I who has to let smokers encroach on my freedoms.
It’s not the smoker who should leave and smoke somewhere else. Heavens no, it’s the non-smokers who have to put up with it or gtfo. We can’t intrude on a person’s freedom to smoke, so I guess the best thing to do is.. to let them intrude on our freedom to have a non-toxic environment.
The job of the state is to protect our freedom, and people would still smoke, today all drugs accept for alcohol and tobacco are illegal and they are VERY (yes, they are everywhere and cheap) plenitful, you can buy drugs anywhere. You wouldn't stop people from smoking you'd just force them to buy it from other sources and smoke it somewhere else. And again, if its unhealthy and they know it, its fine, their choice.
Basically, you’re saying that not only will illegalizing smoking not stop it, but it will also encourage drug smuggling and under-the-counter style profiteering.
Why do you think murder is declared illegal? It’s not like anti-murder laws actually prevent murder – no they don’t, murder still happens and it happens a lot. Should we then legalize murder because we can’t stop it anyway? No. By keeping it illegal, less murder will be comitted.
Illegalizing actions and substances will most certainly decrease the amount of people making and abusing the said actions and substances. Some people are afraid to get on the bad side of the law, some people are afraid of getting on the bad side of criminals, some people simply out of principle do not want to break the law. The amount of people that smoke and drink alchohol – that amount will inescapably decrease.
The opposite applies to legalizing for example, drug use. People who were afraid to get on the bad side of the law will no longer have this limitation. Some will try doing drugs and some will stick with them. People who are afraid of getting into trouble through association with smugglers and criminals will no longer have this limitation either. Some people will go and legally try drugs, and some people will develop an addiction to them. And finally, people who don’t do illegal things out of principle will also lose these brakes? Some will try doing drugs and some will stick with them.
So yeah, I may not stop people from smoking but I sure as hell will decrease the amount of smokers through illegalizing it.
Also, why should the state protect freedoms that affect other people? Just by being in the close proximity of a smoker has bad effects on my health. Yet not once did you imply that it’s the smoker who has to leave, it is I who has to leave.
You have no right to take away their liberties cause you don't agree.
But a guitar player can take away my liberty to a quiet walk in the park? How come he gets to take away my freedoms because he likes to play his instrument?
If your being niave about it, then yes. I don't support murder because that personal choice led to the death of someone else, I don't support rape because it led to the rape of someone else. Using drugs isn't hurting anyone else.
But you would support anything else? Like nudism, homosexuality, shooting heroin, self-mutilation etc?
Also, are you saying that I can’t for example hire a hitman to kill me? In this case, my death comes with my consent. Who are you to tell me when I can and when I can’t and how I can and how I can’t end my life?
Having sex with animals is different because there is a 99.99% chance the animal didn't want to have sex with the human, thus, its rape. As for heroin, again, its illegal but people still do it and its everywhere and when its illegal its not controlled, anyone can buy it and there is not quality control. I'd rather have heroin addicts shoot heroin in an a place where they know what they are taking and if they try to get help they don't have to worry about being thrown in jail.
I don’t see how consent from animals is relevant? I mean, everything which we use animals for – you do realize it’s without their consent? Medical tests, food, entertainment – it’s all done without their consent. Why? It’s because for the most part, we don’t treat animals as conscious beings, we treat them as resources – as means to make our lives more comfortable and pleasurable.
So yeah, why would a zoophile need consent from an animal in order to have sex with it? Do you ask meat eaters and food corporations whether they got permission from the animals themselves before they killed and ate them lol? I had steak earlier today, I hope whoever killed it got clear consent from the animal. The same applies for my insulin pills. I do hope that animals who were subjected to medical tests and procedures – I hope it was all done with their consent.
And with regards to heroin, see above. While you can’t stop junkies, sure, legalizing heroin will do only one thing – create more junkies. It’s patently absurd the notion that legalizing drugs won’t increase the number of users. My argument for this position is above.
But you would support anything else? Like nudism, homosexuality, shooting heroin, self-mutilation etc?
Also, are you saying that I can’t for example hire a hitman to kill me? In this case, my death comes with my consent. Who are you to tell me when I can and when I can’t and how I can and how I can’t end my life?
I'm not not okay with nudism, I think you always need to have your genetallia covered. As for homosexuality, again, that doesn't take away any of your liberties at all unless you consider the right to force your view on others to be a liberty.
And don't try and be niave about it, I'm not saying people have the right to hire someone to kill themselves because the person they hired would be, in fact, klling someone else.
The problem with liberty and freedom is that they always come at the expense of other liberties and other freedoms. Some people will end up with more liberty at the expense of someone else.
Heres the thing, if smoking is legal and you don't like it, take a few steps back, thats what you have to do. If smoking is illegal all smokers have to give up smoking, all tobacco business would have to close and everyone they employ would lose their job. Tell me, who is giving up more?
And you clearly demonstrate this in regards to the smoking issue. You’ve basically told me that the smoker’s liberty is more important than my liberty to be in a non-toxic environment.
Toxic? They aren't dumping mercury in the water their smoking, the smoke can only be inhaled if your really close to them and the wind is blowing in your direction. You have the liberty to take a few steps back, its not that hard and its what I do when people smoke, I step back I don't grab their cig and stomp it out.
It’s me who has to leave, it’s me who has to take a few steps back to make room for the smoker’s habits. It is I who has to let smokers encroach on my freedoms.
You don't have to leave, you can just take 2 or 3 steps back, they would have to give up smoking or buy them illegally. Your doing more against them.
It’s not the smoker who should leave and smoke somewhere else. Heavens no, it’s the non-smokers who have to put up with it or gtfo.
Have you ever heard of a non-smoking zone? Theres a lot of them.
We can’t intrude on a person’s freedom to smoke, so I guess the best thing to do is.. to let them intrude on our freedom to have a non-toxic environment.
Their "toxic" enviornment is within a few feet of them in whatever direction the wind is blowing, take 2 steps back and your fine, its what I do and it works just fine.
Basically, you’re saying that not only will illegalizing smoking not stop it, but it will also encourage drug smuggling and under-the-counter style profiteering.
That is exactly what I am saying, if you deny this then... well, you need to take a look at recent events and some not so recent events.
Why do you think murder is declared illegal? It’s not like anti-murder laws actually prevent murder – no they don’t, murder still happens and it happens a lot. Should we then legalize murder because we can’t stop it anyway? No. By keeping it illegal, less murder will be comitted.
Don't try and compare murder to smoking they are to entirely different things.
Illegalizing actions and substances will most certainly decrease the amount of people making and abusing the said actions and substances. Some people are afraid to get on the bad side of the law, some people are afraid of getting on the bad side of criminals, some people simply out of principle do not want to break the law. The amount of people that smoke and drink alchohol – that amount will inescapably decrease.
Really now? Then tell me why during the prohibition almost everyone drank and there were more speak easys in most cities than there are bars today? It doesn't decrease anything, just makes it unregulated and distracts police from actual issues... like murder.
Also, why should the state protect freedoms that affect other people? Just by being in the close proximity of a smoker has bad effects on my health. Yet not once did you imply that it’s the smoker who has to leave, it is I who has to leave.
Again, take 2 steps back and your fine, its not bad for your health. Smoking is bad because you hold the smoke in for a long period of time and it damages you over time, catching a wiff of it in your nose isn't going to give you cancer.
But a guitar player can take away my liberty to a quiet walk in the park? How come he gets to take away my freedoms because he likes to play his instrument?
Ever hear of ear plugs? As a musician I use them for performances, but you should buy a pair if you really don't like music. Ever hear of a music player? Listen to your own music. Ever hear of appreciating music and not finding someone who is just strumming a few chords (that you can barley hear anyway) as you pass him to be a nuisnace?
I don’t see how consent from animals is relevant? I mean, everything which we use animals for – you do realize it’s without their consent? Medical tests, food, entertainment – it’s all done without their consent. Why? It’s because for the most part, we don’t treat animals as conscious beings, we treat them as resources – as means to make our lives more comfortable and pleasurable.
This is true, there is nothing against killing animals and suing them as resources, theres no problem with them being used like that, but having sex with them is not making use of an animal its just rape and animal cruelty, not to say killing them isn't but they are being used as food and other resources.
And with regards to heroin, see above. While you can’t stop junkies, sure, legalizing heroin will do only one thing – create more junkies.
Not it won't, all it does is control it, regulate and keep it out of the hands of kids. There are only two effective ways of dealing with drugs, Milton Friedman's way and Mao Zedong's way.
It’s patently absurd the notion that legalizing drugs won’t increase the number of users. My argument for this position is above.
It controls the substance and regulates it, there might be slightly more addicts but there would also be less because they could go to treatment instead of being cuffed by the police and thrown in prison.
I'm not not okay with nudism, I think you always need to have your genetallia covered.
Riddle me this - what liberty am I taking away from you by being naked? Is it your freedom to not see naked people?
Heres the thing, if smoking is legal and you don't like it, take a few steps back, thats what you have to do. If smoking is illegal all smokers have to give up smoking, all tobacco business would have to close and everyone they employ would lose their job. Tell me, who is giving up more?
Toxic? They aren't dumping mercury in the water their smoking, the smoke can only be inhaled if your really close to them and the wind is blowing in your direction. You have the liberty to take a few steps back, its not that hard and its what I do when people smoke, I step back I don't grab their cig and stomp it out.
You don't have to leave, you can just take 2 or 3 steps back, they would have to give up smoking or buy them illegally. Your doing more against them.
Have you ever heard of a non-smoking zone? Theres a lot of them.
Their "toxic" enviornment is within a few feet of them in whatever direction the wind is blowing, take 2 steps back and your fine, its what I do and it works just fine.
But here's my problem. Why should the smoker not take a step back? Why do I have to do it? How do you measure what liberties are more important?
Why do you think that the smoker's right to liberty is so important that I have to get out of his way and not the other way around?
Don't try and compare murder to smoking they are to entirely different things.
I'm not equating them. I just asked why do you think we keep around murder laws when they clearly don't stop people from committing murders.
If illegalizing doesn't stop X, why keep the laws around? Lets regulate it!- That's basically the cookie cutter argument that supports drugs use.
Really now? Then tell me why during the prohibition almost everyone drank and there were more speak easys in most cities than there are bars today? It doesn't decrease anything, just makes it unregulated and distracts police from actual issues... like murder.
No, everyone didn't drink. The problem with prohibition was that the alchohol prices soared and criminal organizations rode those waves. By illegalizing alchohol crime went overdrive. To fight and depower crime gangs, the state legalized alchohol once again.
I just think it's not a solution we should strive for.
Ever hear of ear plugs? As a musician I use them for performances, but you should buy a pair if you really don't like music. Ever hear of a music player? Listen to your own music. Ever hear of appreciating music and not finding someone who is just strumming a few chords (that you can barley hear anyway) as you pass him to be a nuisnace?
Again, you are saying that one persons liberty is more important than someone elses. Why can't the musician play somewhere else where he doesn't bother me?
I think it's ridiculous that I'm expected to buy earplugs just because some bohemian can't find a more remote place to play his guitar. What if I want to play my drums in the middle of the night? I'll give my neighbours some nice sleeping music and if they don't like it, buy earplugs.
This is true, there is nothing against killing animals and suing them as resources, theres no problem with them being used like that, but having sex with them is not making use of an animal its just rape and animal cruelty, not to say killing them isn't but they are being used as food and other resources.
Well, we rape animals already. Legally by the way.
Have you ever heard of forced breeding, artifically masturbating horses to collect their semen for the use of breeding? How about inseminating female horses, cows and other animals and make them produce offspring. That's two crimes in one - raping them and making them give birth.
Besides, sex with animals is not necessarily rape. Dogs often mount humans out of their own free will. Animals can also reject sexual advances from humans by moving away. Some humans may also take extra care in not to harm their animal partners. There are many sides here.
So again - why is bestiality still illegal? We don't care about their consent and sexually abusing them is legal already.
Not it won't, all it does is control it, regulate and keep it out of the hands of kids. There are only two effective ways of dealing with drugs, Milton Friedman's way and Mao Zedong's way.
Disagree. You did not give attention to the various demographics I listed - the people who don't want to do illegal things, people who don't want to associate themselves with criminals etc. All of these people are potential users.
It controls the substance and regulates it, there might be slightly more addicts but there would also be less because they could go to treatment instead of being cuffed by the police and thrown in prison.
And I guess I'm sorry for the long post as well.
There will be more addicts, make no mistake. And people can go and get treatment already, right now. The clinics are actually obligated to be discrete with the identity of their patients. Some clinics actually give out clean syringes to addicts to prevent the spreading of diseases etc. but so far, very few people actually want quit. Legalize it and they won't have any trouble getting a lifetime supply of cheap drugs.
Riddle me this - what liberty am I taking away from you by being naked? Is it your freedom to not see naked people?
When I say nudity I don't mean you can go everywhere naked, I'm refering to nude beaches and nudist camps, nothing wrong with those.
But here's my problem. Why should the smoker not take a step back? Why do I have to do it? How do you measure what liberties are more important?
Than ask them to take a step back, don't tell the police to put them in jail for smoking. Problem solved.
I'm not equating them. I just asked why do you think we keep around murder laws when they clearly don't stop people from committing murders.
Because it does, doesn't stop all of them, but reduces them. If you kill someone there is a shit ton of evidence left behind most of the time and people tend to notice when people go missing. When someone sells you a gram of whatever in an alley and then you go home and use it, no one notices.
If illegalizing doesn't stop X, why keep the laws around? Lets regulate it!- That's basically the cookie cutter argument that supports drugs use.
When drugs are illegal and aren't regulated they are still vastly used. A drug dealer doesn't care about your health, doesn't care about your age doesn't care about you at all and there absolutley no consequences if he/she cheats you, sells your something that is cut or sells to a minor. When drugs are regulated, this tends to go away, I mean for fucks sake its easier for someone under 18 to buy weed the beer.
No, everyone didn't drink. The problem with prohibition was that the alchohol prices soared and criminal organizations rode those waves. By illegalizing alchohol crime went overdrive. To fight and depower crime gangs, the state legalized alchohol once again.
Same thing with other drugs, especially the Mexican cartels, 70% of their income comes from weed, so that would mean 70% less memebers, 70% less guns and 70% less people killed.
Again, you are saying that one persons liberty is more important than someone elses. Why can't the musician play somewhere else where he doesn't bother me?
Ask him to move or keep it down, most park performers play guitar, rather quite instrument in the park, you can barley even hear them if your a few yards away. Your argument seems to be that you not being able to get rid of things you don't like is an attack on your liberties but telling someone they can't do what they like is not.
I think it's ridiculous that I'm expected to buy earplugs just because some bohemian can't find a more remote place to play his guitar.
I think it's ridiculous that musicians are expected to leave the park because you can't appreciate music or tolerate the whopping 10 seconds you have to hear them when you run past.
I'll give my neighbours some nice sleeping music and if they don't like it, buy earplugs.
Thats different, your neighbors have their own property and if your blasting music that loud at 2 am thats disturbing the peace, playing music in the park is not.
Well, we rape animals already. Legally by the way.
Have you ever heard of forced breeding, artifically masturbating horses to collect their semen for the use of breeding? How about inseminating female horses, cows and other animals and make them produce offspring. That's two crimes in one - raping them and making them give birth.
Besides, sex with animals is not necessarily rape. Dogs often mount humans out of their own free will. Animals can also reject sexual advances from humans by moving away. Some humans may also take extra care in not to harm their animal partners. There are many sides here.
So again - why is bestiality still illegal? We don't care about their consent and sexually abusing them is legal already.
I know all of this, but sex with an animal is rape. And let me clarify something a forced handjob is not rape, its sexual harassment, rape is forced sex. A handjob is not sex.
Disagree. You did not give attention to the various demographics I listed - the people who don't want to do illegal things, people who don't want to associate themselves with criminals etc. All of these people are potential users.
Everyone is a potential user already, especially minors. You ever go to high school? Schools are flooded with dealers, you can buy weed really cheap and really easy almost anywhere so having it be illegal doesn't make anynone some how immune to it. Anouther thing, when you make a product like drugs illegal criminals will always get involved your basically saying "hey criminals, heres a market you can monopolize"
There will be more addicts, make no mistake. And people can go and get treatment already, right now.
There won't be more addicts and when someone who knows a drug is illegal and they can be thrown in jail for it the last thing they want is help out of fear of being arrested.
Legalize it and they won't have any trouble getting a lifetime supply of cheap drugs.
They already don't have a problem, thats why there getting alot of drugs, you think if they couldn't afford them that they would be addicts? If you can't afford drugs you can't use drugs and there sure as hell using them.
When I say nudity I don't mean you can go everywhere naked, I'm refering to nude beaches and nudist camps, nothing wrong with those.
You did not answer my question - what liberties am I taking away from you by being naked?
And what you're advocating here is an apartheid policy. If your solution to nudism is to make nudist and non-nudist zones, why don't we apply the same for gays? Lets make gay-zones and non-gay zones. Might as well appease all the racists as well and bring back white pools and non-white pools. Now you have a community where everyone can be happy... well except for those who want mixed pools, who want nudists to get along with non-nudists and people who want gays to get along with non-gays.
Nudism doesn't hurt anyone, people just don't like it. But so what? The majority in the US doesn't like homosexuality either but they're expected to put up with it and tolerate it. So if you don't like nudism, well too bad then. Put up with it or leave, they're not hurting you in any way.
Than ask them to take a step back, don't tell the police to put them in jail for smoking. Problem solved.
Well, I wouldn't put them in jails but a small fine would do.
Because it does, doesn't stop all of them, but reduces them. If you kill someone there is a shit ton of evidence left behind most of the time and people tend to notice when people go missing. When someone sells you a gram of whatever in an alley and then you go home and use it, no one notices.
When drugs are illegal and aren't regulated they are still vastly used. A drug dealer doesn't care about your health, doesn't care about your age doesn't care about you at all and there absolutley no consequences if he/she cheats you, sells your something that is cut or sells to a minor. When drugs are regulated, this tends to go away, I mean for fucks sake its easier for someone under 18 to buy weed the beer.
Of course anti-murder laws decrease the amount of murders being done. It's because people do not want to get into trouble. However, if someone sincerely wanted to murder someone, no laws would stop him from doing so.
The same applies to drugs. As long as they are illegal, people are fearful about purchasing or doing them because nobody wants the police to knock on their door with a joint in their mouth. Or the DEA to crack down on a guy while he's buying some crack from a street-hoodlum.
These laws do not stop drug use, but they prevent and decrease it. Legally regulating drugs just makes them even more easier to get, except now you don't have to worry about any negative legal consequences. People who were afraid to go to jail or to get on the bad side of the mafia can now gleefully buy ice cream and two grams of cocaine every time they go to a gas station for gas and snacks.
And trust me, while alchohol is regulated - it doesn't stop underage kids from getting a hold of it. It's so incredibly easy and cheap whereas during the times of Capone, any kid who even had a single beer was the top dog of his street. Why? Because kids, first of all, didn't have the insane cash that was required to get the beer in the first place and secondly - to get alchohol you actually needed to have connections - things that most 14 year olds did not have.
Same thing with other drugs, especially the Mexican cartels, 70% of their income comes from weed, so that would mean 70% less memebers, 70% less guns and 70% less people killed.
So the drug dealers are punching us in the face by operating an illegal plantation and poisoning our citizens. How are we going to fight this?
Wait, I know! To stop them from selling drugs and poison to our citizens... we will start sellings drugs and poison to our citizens ourselves, but for far less money. We cut off their supply and they'll go out of business by not arresting them but by giving them competition.
Ask him to move or keep it down, most park performers play guitar, rather quite instrument in the park, you can barley even hear them if your a few yards away. Your argument seems to be that you not being able to get rid of things you don't like is an attack on your liberties but telling someone they can't do what they like is not.
Ask him to move or keep it down, most park performers play guitar, rather quite instrument in the park, you can barley even hear them if your a few yards away. Your argument seems to be that you not being able to get rid of things you don't like is an attack on your liberties but telling someone they can't do what they like is not.
It doesn't matter ultimately who asks who to stop. Whether I ask him or he asks me - one of us will encroach on another person's liberty.
And that's why I want you to answer this question - how do you measure what liberty is more important than the other?
Thats different, your neighbors have their own property and if your blasting music that loud at 2 am thats disturbing the peace, playing music in the park is not.
I'm not disturbing the peace, I'm just exercising my liberty to play music. So my liberty to play music in my home is less important than someone else's liberty for a quiet home?
I know all of this, but sex with an animal is rape. And let me clarify something a forced handjob is not rape, its sexual harassment, rape is forced sex. A handjob is not sex.
Look.. this is just so bizarre.
So only sex qualifies as rape? So if a guy sticks his dick in a mare's vagina - it's rape. But if a guy sticks a pipe in a mare's vagina and pumps semen into her womb to ensure quality breeding - that's not rape, oh no! That's what we call sexual harassment.
Lets apply the same thing to humans. A person cannot be convicted of rape because he forcefully fingered a woman and grabbed her boobs. However, he can be convicted of sexual harassment. Or did your sex limitation only apply to animals and if so, than why?
Anyone with a reasonable mind can see that if we are forcefully inserting objects into someone's vagina for the purpose of artifically inseminating them or if a guy forcefully fingers a woman - that this has already crossed the lines of sexual harassment and qualifies as rape - sexual contact without consent.
Everyone is a potential user already, especially minors. You ever go to high school? Schools are flooded with dealers, you can buy weed really cheap and really easy almost anywhere so having it be illegal doesn't make anynone some how immune to it. Anouther thing, when you make a product like drugs illegal criminals will always get involved your basically saying "hey criminals, heres a market you can monopolize"
Sure, they are a potential users. But the laws will ensure that most of them will remain to only be potential and not actual users. Nobody wants drug use on their permanent record, especially ones with career ambitions.
And I don't know what schools you go to, but here we don't have drug dealers and whereever drugs are sold, they're not cheap - unless you had the luck of growing up in an upper-middle class family.
Sure, currently criminal organizations have the monopoly on drugs but what's wrong with it? Because they're illegal, they're expensive and a person also needs to have connections with the underground to get them.
Legalizing drugs will make it accesible and first and foremost - it makes drugs cheap. That's the prime argument for fighting illegal drug profiteering. If you give the people cheap and legal drugs that are just as potent, the cartels will lose the profit they make now and have to lower their price or create some niche drugs just to stay in competition.
The prices will go down and drugs will be far easier to get. And people who wanted to try drugs but were afraid because of legal implications or who didn't want to associate with criminals - they no longer have these problems.
There won't be more addicts and when someone who knows a drug is illegal and they can be thrown in jail for it the last thing they want is help out of fear of being arrested.
This is just liberal wishful thinking. You haven't given me any convincing reasons as to why the usage won't increase.
And if people were sincerely concerned with getting help, they wouldn't care about the legal implications. You would expect me to believe that people will continue to do drugs because they're afraid that if they go and try to break their addiction by seeking help - they would be arrested? So they would just rather keep on doing drugs than seek help? Please...
For some, the support of friends and going cold turkey is enough. And if there was sincere concern for their health, then they would give themselves in and not go visit Martinez for another batch of crack.
They already don't have a problem, thats why there getting alot of drugs, you think if they couldn't afford them that they would be addicts? If you can't afford drugs you can't use drugs and there sure as hell using them.
Yeah, they don't have much problem. But you don't want them to have any problems at all it seems.
Legalizing drugs will make it even more simpler than it currently is. And cheaper.
Well, I wouldn't put them in jails but a small fine would do.
So your gonna fine them for it? Here, you consumed a substance I don't like, $500 now!
So the drug dealers are punching us in the face by operating an illegal plantation and poisoning our citizens. How are we going to fight this?
Wait, I know! To stop them from selling drugs and poison to our citizens... we will start sellings drugs and poison to our citizens ourselves, but for far less money. We cut off their supply and they'll go out of business by not arresting them but by giving them competition.
Well, I was talking about weed and if you consider that "poison" the, we have other issues. But anyway, what you seem not to understand is that crime can't fund its self, drugs are big money especially when they are illegal because it makes it a 100% criminal market. So then the choice is yours, you can have these people buying it drug cartles and the money goes to the cartels. Now go look at what the cartels are currently doing, this is the result of illegal drugs, its like giving organized crime a free way to fund everything they do. If it was grown and made here legally it would 1. be cheaper because since weed is illegal the price is extremely inflated 2. it would be controlled 3. it would stop funding crime 4. people would stop dying over a drug war.
You did not answer my question - what liberties am I taking away from you by being naked?
And what you're advocating here is an apartheid policy. If your solution to nudism is to make nudist and non-nudist zones, why don't we apply the same for gays? Lets make gay-zones and non-gay zones. Might as well appease all the racists as well and bring back white pools and non-white pools. Now you have a community where everyone can be happy... well except for those who want mixed pools, who want nudists to get along with non-nudists and people who want gays to get along with non-gays.
Being gay is something you can not choose, you can choose to be naked or not, its the same thing with smoking you have smoking and non-smoking areas. We would have a community that would make everyone happy if you would quit thinking that someone smoking was taking away your liberties.
Of course anti-murder laws decrease the amount of murders being done. It's because people do not want to get into trouble. However, if someone sincerely wanted to murder someone, no laws would stop him from doing so.
Murder is a totally different issue than drugs, because with the whole "Getting in trouble thing" its not that hard to get caught with drugs, its rather easy to get caught with murder.
The same applies to drugs. As long as they are illegal, people are fearful about purchasing or doing them because nobody wants the police to knock on their door with a joint in their mouth. Or the DEA to crack down on a guy while he's buying some crack from a street-hoodlum.
Vec, have you ever seen any illegal drugs, ever? Drugs are very small most of the time and you can take them somewhere were no one will see, don't try and compare it to murder because the same tactic doesn't apply.
These laws do not stop drug use, but they prevent and decrease it. Legally regulating drugs just makes them even more easier to get, except now you don't have to worry about any negative legal consequences.
Well first off why should you have to worry about legal consequences? SHould I be worried that I'm going to be arrested for enjoying myself? Secondly, its not easier because its already really easy, you meet some shady gay he says something you say something and then congrats you bought some.
And trust me, while alchohol is regulated - it doesn't stop underage kids from getting a hold of it.
No it doesn't, but its much harder for a teen in high school to get booze than weed , LSD or shrooms.
It doesn't matter ultimately who asks who to stop. Whether I ask him or he asks me - one of us will encroach on another person's liberty.
Alright, since you think that having to step back from someone you don't like is taking away more of your liberties than you asking him to stop smoking. Here, how about you both take 1 step back and get out a ruler so you both take the exact amount distance back.
And that's why I want you to answer this question - how do you measure what liberty is more important than the other?
If you truely consider not having to take a step back or ask the smoker to be a more important/bigger liberty than them being allowed to smoke without the threat of the police kicking in the door than you have some problems.
Look.. this is just so bizarre.
So only sex qualifies as rape? So if a guy sticks his dick in a mare's vagina - it's rape. But if a guy sticks a pipe in a mare's vagina and pumps semen into her womb to ensure quality breeding - that's not rape, oh no! That's what we call sexual harassment.
Actually, yes, that is what its called. Rape is forced sex, sexual harassment is harassing someone sexually (as the title shows)
Lets apply the same thing to humans. A person cannot be convicted of rape because he forcefully fingered a woman and grabbed her boobs. However, he can be convicted of sexual harassment. Or did your sex limitation only apply to animals and if so, than why?
Again yes, that is how it works. If he kidnapped her than he's still gonna get the book thrown at him but if you just grab someone's book or put your hand down their pants its sexual assault. Again, rape is forced sex and incase you didn't notice grabbing someone's boobs is not sex.
Sure, they are a potential users. But the laws will ensure that most of them will remain to only be potential and not actual users. Nobody wants drug use on their permanent record, especially ones with career ambitions.
Holy shit! Alright, I'm sorry but your really oblivious to what goes on, almost all people who wanted to try drugs try them. Why? Because there available and hard to get caught with. And thats anouther thing, why should someone have their career ruined because they smoked up? Thats stupid.
Legalizing drugs will make it accesible and first and foremost - it makes drugs cheap. That's the prime argument for fighting illegal drug profiteering. If you give the people cheap and legal drugs that are just as potent, the cartels will lose the profit they make now and have to lower their price or create some niche drugs just to stay in competition.
No the argument is that someone besides organized crime should make them and were sick of seeing so many people being killed and so much money being wasted on this pointless "War on drugs"
This is just liberal wishful thinking. You haven't given me any convincing reasons as to why the usage won't increase.
1. I'm a Libertarian 2. I have presented you with many reasons, you should really listen to more Milton Friedman instead of "This is your brain, this is drugs, this is your brain on drugs"
And if people were sincerely concerned with getting help, they wouldn't care about the legal implications. You would expect me to believe that people will continue to do drugs because they're afraid that if they go and try to break their addiction by seeking help - they would be arrested? So they would just rather keep on doing drugs than seek help? Please...
Then let me ask you, why does this happen so often? With hard drugs you can get thrown in jail for possession, so a heroin addict wouldn't want to go get help at risk of being thrown in prison.
Yeah, they don't have much problem. But you don't want them to have any problems at all it seems.
Legalizing drugs will make it even more simpler than it currently is. And cheaper.
How dare these people enjoy themselves, how dare they.
Your drug war is making thinks pretty simple for Mexican families, one day they have a family, the next day half of them are dead, simple. Without them being illegal this mass cash flow would not being to these cartels.
Legalizing drugs will make it even more simpler than it currently is. And cheaper.
Not really and not at all. Buying drugs illegally is a matter of having the proper contact and some money, which really isn't that hard. Buying drugs legally is a matter of having the proper contact, some money, valid identification, and quite probably some kind of paperwork. You tell me, which is more simple?
As for cheap, don't make me laugh. You're telling me once the government gets it's greedy hands on the illicit drug industry the first thing they'll do is lower prices? Ha!
As it stands right now I can call up one of my friends and illegally purchase about 2 grams of marijuana for about 20 bucks. To get that same 2 grams from a state-sanctioned and monitored club (with my paperwork, going back to the legal method of purchasing being more complex), I would pay about 35 dollars. The money for drugs you buy from a drug dealer is split between re-upping and profit. The money you hand to a business for the same product has to go to building rent, employee paychecks and benefits, paying for proper certifications and licenses, and everything else that goes into running a business. Oh, and you're paying extra money to the government simply for making the purchase in the form of a tax. A "sin" tax, in this case, which tends to be even higher than taxes for other products.
So no and no; buying will not be more simple or cheaper if drugs are legalized.
Why do you think murder is declared illegal? It’s not like anti-murder laws actually prevent murder – no they don’t, murder still happens and it happens a lot. Should we then legalize murder because we can’t stop it anyway? No. By keeping it illegal, less murder will be comitted.
Lol.
The whole argument for legalizing substances to help reduce crime/arrests related to those substances is that the substances themselves are victimless. In your example you substituted "substances" for "murder," which is, like, the definition of a victimfull crime. So your example doesn't work at all because killing someone and taking a substance are not the same thing, or even remotely similar, really.
I understand well that murder is a victimful crime, but I don't see how it's relevant to the context I presented it.
What I'm trying to point out is that legalizing an action or substance will always lead to the increase of the people making these actions and using these substances. If murder were legalized, more people would commit murder. If drugs are legalized, more people would start using drugs. Legalize abortion and more people will start using the service, legalize divorce and more people will start doing it.
It's relevant because if there is an increase in victim-full crime there is in increase in victims - which is almost always a bad thing. And increase in victimless "crime" isn't anything to worry about.
Victimless crime, as in being drug users, is most certainly something to worry about.
If the amount of drug users increase as a direct result of the state's policies, then any self-respecting official would be concerned. The more the citizens poison themselves, the weaker the state and the quality of its population will become.
We've been poisoning ourselves with one of the most powerful (alcohol) and one of the most deadly drugs (nicotine/tobacco) since the founding of our country and we turned out alright. This is true for most first world nations. And people are already doing the other drugs we are talking about in great abundance already, and society as a whole marches on, just fine. I don't see how legalizing a few of these drugs would usurp all that.
Just because we use alchohol and smokes - that does mean that we should therefore give the people even more dangerous, addictive and potent drugs.
Civilization keeps marching on because fortunately, the amount of problematic users isn't that high. However, if we as a society are going to condone the use of drugs through legalizing it, then the amount of users we have now will increase and I don't see why the state should condone and support this kind of destructive behavior.
Not many drugs are more potent than alcohol, or more dangerous than cigarettes.
It's hard to prove one way or another, but there's substantial evidence to support the claim that people actually drank more during the Prohibition, not less. And it is known that Prohibition contrubuted to an increase in drinking among women and children, and that there were more arrests for public drunkenness during Prohibition than either before or after. Making something illegal doesn't necessicarily make it happen less (sometimes quite the opposite) and it eliminates all possibility of a safe substance and a safe environment to take it in, and a safe, helpful system to fall back on should things go south. During the Prohibition, for example, people were making bootleg alcohol which sometimes caused blindness and death; at very least it had an unclear percentage of alcohol, so people didn't know what they were getting into. Nowadays, because alcohol is legal, it's production, sale, and consumption is regulated to try to insure safe intake of a safe product. It is by no means a failsafe system, but it's much, much better than no system at all. Similarly, nowadays if you want to buy coke or MDMA or marijuana, you actually have no idea where your drugs came from, who made them, or what's in them; you are forced to buy and take them in shady, unsafe situations; kids are not properly informed about the drugs that they will inevatably do because the state is forced to teach abstinence only; getting caught with these substances is less likely to result in rehabilitation, counseling, and therapy than a jail sentence - all of this because these drugs are illegal. If they were legal the government could regulate the industry (single handedly eliminating the black market for these items at the same time, just as ending Prohibition put an end to black market alcohol), insuring a clean, pure, and safe product; the sale and consumption of these drugs could be monitored in safe settings (and taxed!); children could be informed of the reality of the drugs they will undoubtedly consume and be taught what constitutes safe use, instead of being taught that drugs are evil and you must never do them ever (or your brain will rot, or some equal bullshit); and our government could be less focused on throwing people with a drug problem in jail and more concerned with treating them properly.
That is why the state should condone this "destructive" behavior.
Well, that and they're a bunch of fat hypocrites for getting around and indulging in "destructive" drugs every time they want to talk about their ongoing (and failing) War on Drugs. You just know every petty and oppressive piece of legislation against drugs they conspire to force through is discussed over Cuban cigars and glasses of bourbon.
That's why I mention the alcohol and smokes; our government has already had ample experience in discovering that prohibition doesn't work. And the government has sustained itself throughout the years on drug money via the tobacco industry. So alcohol and tobacco remain legal. I don't understand why they cant apply the lessons they've learned to this issue, too.
Well, isn't a smoker taking away my liberty to be in a smoke-free environment?
If you choose to be in one of the few public places where smoking is actually allowed, yes, yes they are. However I would like to point out that automobiles, factories, people have BBQs, and the like are all also infringing on this imagined right to clean air. However if you were chilling in the middle of a busy road, or directly beside some factory vents, or standing next to someone elses BBQ, standing there and bitching about the air quality and how everyone else driving and producing and cooking is taking away your liberty to be in an environment with clean air, I think you'd get laughed at. Someone might be kind enough to point out the obvious solution to your problem: move someplace else. This is a classic example of people going way out of their way to make their environment adapt to them instead of taking easy steps to adapt to their environment.
There are a whole shit ton of places smokers can't smoke; I know this, as I'm a smoker myself and pay attention to these things. We can't smoke indoors and when we can smoke outdoors, in a public place, it is never in central areas but off to the side. So if you choose to hang out in a DSA and then expect your complaints about clean air to be taken seriously, you've got another thing coming, my friend.
It seems to me that laws are already in effect to solve this problem you guys are debating back and forth on. There are designated smoking areas for smokers, and everywhere else is a smoke free zone. There's some unaccounted for middle-ground, yes, but realistically unless you are calling for a ban on all things that pollute our air - cars, spray cans, industry, wood-fires, etc - you shouldn't single smoking out. It's unfair. If you want totally clean air, go move out to the unexplored, fresh wilderness out there somewhere. If you want to live anywhere with other people also living there, get used to some degree of air pollution. Simple as that.
Yes, smoking is bad yet it is sometimes a treat to few. Yet, taking them away is going kill jobs (those who make them), cut the income of cigarette companies, make people go insane because they dont have there cigs, and overall is killing our rights. I dislike cigarettes but removing them is just as bad.... BUT! The question says are you against smoking...well i am :3
I don't smoke, but I'm fine with others having the right to smoke.
At this point, the idea that the lifestyles we choose will truly impact our lives is childish. We are all going to die. Some wish to die with a cigarette in hand, others wish to die with completely healthy lungs.
I think the conclusion you've come to is ridiculous. "We're all going to die, so smoking doesn't matter". Okay, well you can live to be 70-80 without smoking. Or you can die at age 50-60 right when you retire due to lung cancer all because of your 30-40 years of smoking. That's 20-30 years you could have spent enjoying your retirement money.
Now, I agree with you that we should not make legislation to stop people from smoking. I just don't think smokers should be allowed to smoke in public where they are damaging other people's lungs.
Well, I thought smoking was disallowed in most public buildings anyways...? Except for a few restaurants of course...
I meant public as in at a park, a playground, any place where people gather on public property. Outside will harm people's lungs if there's like a parade nearby, or some other local festivity.
If there is a local festivity, say a parade or something and you're on the side walk next to a smoker or group of smokers and you are inhaling the smoke, it will cause damage to your lungs. One example being increased chance of lung cancer.
Second hand smoke has been verified to cause damage to people's lungs. Do you really want me to go find a source?
The site I linked says that second hand smoke does indeed cause cancer.
Second hand smoke also causes other diseases such as heart disease in non smokers, worsens asthma and causes other asthma related problems to people with asthma.
And this as well:
Surgeon General’s reports: Findings on smoking, secondhand smoke, and health
Since 1964, 30 separate US Surgeon General’s reports have been written to make the public aware of the health issues linked to tobacco and SHS. The ongoing research used in these reports continues to support the fact that tobacco and SHS are linked to serious health problems that could be prevented
Yes, nothing about how dangerous it really is. Such as if it causes a health problem if outside for only a few hours in short bursts.
The most it said was exposure within a building for several hours. So if you're a bartender in a bar that allows smoking, you are at risk. Kid at a park, virtually no risk.
You don't seem to understand that second hand smoke causes cumulative damage. So a few minutes here and a few minutes there will add up over the course of decades of rampant second hand smoke.
The Surgeon General report says that second hand smoke problems can be prevented.
How can they be prevented though? By minimizing or outright eliminating exposure to second hand smoke.
Secondhand smoke also causes lung cancer, heart and lung disease in non-smokers. There is no safe level of exposure, but long-term exposure increases risk of lung cancer by 10% to 15% and heart disease by 30%. This translates into 5,000 to 10,000 lung cancer deaths and 40,000 heart disease deaths each year in the United States. Worldwide, it is estimated that exposure to secondhand smoke caused 50,000 lung cancer deaths and 379,000 heart disease deaths in 2004.
"There is no safe level of exposure". Meaning any and all exposure is to be avoided. Due to the carelessness of the well being of others by smokers, they not only kill themselves but they also kill thousand of other people as well.
The response was written by Dr. Otis Brawley. He is CNN's Health Conditions Expert.
If anything, this is an argument from authority. In this case, it's perfectly valid. Given the fact that both doctor's I've cited are subject matter experts in their fields.
CHARLES KRAUSE: Does your study--did you have any way of determining how long one would have to--how much second-hand smoke one would have to be exposed to, to have it be harmful to you?
DR. ICHIRO KAWACHI: That's actually the one question that I think needs to be looked at in more refined studies. We weren't able to precisely estimate just how much of a dose and how long one would have to be exposed to in order to get into increased--situations of increased risk, such as we observed. I think it's safe to say that knowing what is in tobacco smoke, any exposure is likely to constitute some measurable degree of risk. In other words, there are no known stage thresholds of exposure for most of the chemicals that we know are harmful in tobacco smoke.
Source of the material is PBS News.
He basically says that any exposure constitutes some measurable degree of risk. Meaning, that it does increase your chances of getting cancer, heart disease, among other thing. By how much, he says we need to do more research. Your argument though is "It won't hurt you that much, don't worry about it". I don't think this is safe at all unless we can be certain that the health effects are so miniscule that they aren't worth considering. And for your sake, I hope you are right. When I'm around second hand smoke, I fear for my lungs, it's an added stressor to the fact that I have difficulty breathing around the smoke anyways. If I could be reassured that the second hand smoke would have an effect so small that it's not even worth considering, that would be comforting to me.
I don't think this is safe at all unless we can be certain that the health effects are so miniscule that they aren't worth considering.
Except that there IS NO EVIDENCE that it is actually dangerous in small doses. Opinions are nice, but not enough to validate you wanting to pass legislation that conflicts with people's civil liberties.
Except that there IS NO EVIDENCE that it is actually dangerous in small doses. Opinions are nice, but not enough to validate you wanting to pass legislation that conflicts with people's civil liberties.
This legislation would not conflict with people's civil liberties. It is a fact that second hand smoke DOES cause harm to people's lungs, among other things. How much? Doctor's don't know exactly how much, just that it does. Therefore, smokers are willingly and carelessly harming other people. Legislation should only be passed when the health impacts of second hand smoke are significant enough to pose a threat.
Is it dangerous? They don't know. They only said it does cause harm, but they don't know how much...yet.
This legislation would not conflict with people's civil liberties.
Legislation that regulates or bans what people use is conflicting with civil liberties.
It is a fact that second hand smoke DOES cause harm to people's lungs, among other things. How much? Doctor's don't know exactly how much, just that it does
I suppose driving cars in public ought to be banned because we know that the fumes CAN be harmful... just unknowable on how much it truly is harmful to someone's lungs. But by your logic, why take the risk? Just ban it until evidence shows that there is no way it can be that harmful.
Your logic is basically ban anything that we don't know that much about.
Therefore, smokers are willingly and carelessly harming other people. Legislation should only be passed when the health impacts of second hand smoke are significant enough to pose a threat.
Legislation that regulates or bans what people use is conflicting with civil liberties.
There's one problem here. I never proposed legislation that would ban what people use. Only where they use it. Specifically, anywhere in public that could harm non smokers lungs. Non smokers rights supersede that of smokers rights because if smokers want to destroy their lungs they can go ahead and do that, but they are not allowed to destroy mine or any other non smokers lungs.
I suppose driving cars in public ought to be banned because we know that the fumes CAN be harmful... just unknowable on how much it truly is harmful to someone's lungs. But by your logic, why take the risk? Just ban it until evidence shows that there is no way it can be that harmful.
Your logic is basically ban anything that we don't know that much about.
Driving cars in public ought to be banned? There's actually laws in place to minimize vehicle fume pollution, so work is already being sought in that area with the goal to eliminate the pollution caused by those vehicles. An example would be the electric vehicle.
And you have a terrible understanding of my logic. You clearly haven't read what I wrote. And instead you change my responses to fit your argument instead of changing your arguments to fit my responses.
You've also changed your criteria for the harmfulness of second hand smoke. First you said "where is the evidence that second hand smoke is harmful", I then provided you the evidence. Then you changed it to say "where is the evidence that second hand smoke is DANGEROUS". It's the moving goal post, and you know it. We know that second hand smoke is harmful, but we do not know the quantity of that harmfulness.
I answered your original question with evidence, statements from the American Cancer Society, and two independent doctor statements who are subject matter experts in their field. And yet all you want to do is say "well, it's just the doctors testimony/opinion".
Specifically, anywhere in public that could harm non smokers lungs. Non smokers rights supersede that of smokers rights because if smokers want to destroy their lungs they can go ahead and do that, but they are not allowed to destroy mine or any other non smokers lungs.
Regardless, it inflicts with civil liberties.
And it's unjustified when the evidence isn't there to back your claims.
There's actually laws in place to minimize vehicle fume pollution, so work is already being sought in that area with the goal to eliminate the pollution caused by those vehicles. An example would be the electric vehicle
No laws exist forcing electric cars to be driven. any use of electric cars are from individual efforts. In fact, electronic cigarettes are being more widespread PURELY from an individual effort. Not by legislation.
As for laws minimizing vehicle fumes, that varies by state. California mostly.
Even so, there is MORE evidence saying that carbon monoxide causes pollution than there is for second hand smoke causing significant damage to a non-smoker's health.
We know that second hand smoke is harmful, but we do not know the quantity of that harmfulness.
I'm humoring your belief that harmfulness can be measured to the most minuscule of data. If you really want me to just flat out say that you're 100% wrong that second hand smoke is harmful, okay. But let's say that the little data you actually presented shows a risk... okay, it can be harmful. Harmful enough to suggest that second hand smoke ALWAYS causes damage? Nope. You didn't seem to read the data that you gave me, and I'm upset that you'd go through all of this without even looking at the science you gave. The best you could give was an expert testimony, which is easily political.
Please give me data, not politically charged statements. Statements are cute, but no efficient in debate. I can easily pull out statements saying that cigarette use actually lowers your risk of cancer, given by two different experts at Congressional hearings under oath. Why won't I? Because expert testimony doesn't matter to me, and it shouldn't matter to any logician who is looking for SCIENCE, not politics.
And it's unjustified when the evidence isn't there to back your claims.
It does not violate smokers civil liberties. I didn't say legislation should be introduced right now to protect us, I said if it is verified that small amounts of second hand smoke can cause statistically significant harm to a persons health, then at that point public smoking needs to be legislated against.
No laws exist forcing electric cars to be driven. any use of electric cars are from individual efforts. In fact, electronic cigarettes are being more widespread PURELY from an individual effort. Not by legislation.
I didn't say there were laws forcing electric cars to be driven.
As for laws minimizing vehicle fumes, that varies by state. California mostly.
False. Laws dictating the minimization of vehicle pollution/fumes are enacted on a national level. States can enforce stricter regulations than the nation, but not less restrictions. By my count, at least 8 states have enacted stricter regulations. You need to do your research.
Even so, there is MORE evidence saying that carbon monoxide causes pollution than there is for second hand smoke causing significant damage to a non-smoker's health.
Perhaps there is, I don't know. What I do know is that second hand smoke does cause damage to people's health. By how much, doctors and scientists are uncertain of. This does not mean legislation must be passed immediately. It means we need to find out how much this second hand smoke causes damage, and if it is significant enough to pose a threat, then second hand smoke must be outlawed in public and only allowed on private residences or businesses.
Harmful enough to suggest that second hand smoke ALWAYS causes damage? Nope.
Any exposure always causes harm. How much harm is still under research by scientists/doctors. So you are wrong there.
Please give me data, not politically charged statements. Statements are cute, but no efficient in debate. I can easily pull out statements saying that cigarette use actually lowers your risk of cancer, given by two different experts at Congressional hearings under oath.
What makes you think these are politically charged statements? If you're talking about the tobacco companies hiring doctors and experts to say tobacco does not cause cancer, then obviously this is ridiculous. They were paid off by the tobacco companies in one giant conspiracy and everyone knows about it.
The two statements I got, one was from PBS. Another was from CNN as a response to a letter that they got. How can either of these be politically charged statements?
You are so concerned with legislation violating smokers rights, but all I am saying is that if the research comes out and says that even small amounts of second hand smoke are dangerous, then at that point is when we need to outlaw public smoking.
I am not saying we need to create legislation right now simply because we don't know if second hand smoke causes a lot of harm or not.
Now, I agree with you that we should not make legislation to stop people from smoking. I just don't think smokers should be allowed to smoke in public where they are damaging other people's lungs.
And
I meant public as in at a park, a playground, any place where people gather on public property. Outside will harm people's lungs if there's like a parade nearby, or some other local festivity.
And you accuse me of changing what i'm saying...
but i'm glad i got you to change your mind, even if you've altered your perception to truly believe that this is what you wanted this whole time.
As for damage... carbon dioxide can cause damage to your lungs. The most you've proposed is regulating how much carbon dioxide cars can spit into the air. I suppose we're all safe as long as we're not outside at the same time as cars.
As for car emission regulation, the most i'm aware of is Cap and Trade legislation, which is only to add incentives like tax breaks and credits for reducing your pollution. And this goes mainly to large businesses, not drivers.
However, if there is stricter regulation I am unaware of, please tell me. I would love to be against more Fascist legislation.
You said public as in public buildings. I meant public as in the second paragraph you just quoted, which also includes public buildings. I referenced parades and festivals as examples of where people would be exposed to significant amounts of second hand smoke, as those two are occasions where people smoke frequently.
Please explain to me how you got me to change my mind...? You've lost me there...
I referenced parades and festivals as examples of where people would be exposed to significant amounts of second hand smoke, as those two are occasions where people smoke frequently.
Saying that people SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED to smoke in those situations because of the dangers of second hand smoke.
when i challenged you, after so many posts, you eventually said "i never said legislation should be passed, but that we should do more research."
Or is there ANOTHER opinion you're about to pull out that is THE TRUTH and will finally put me in my place?
I just don't think smokers should be allowed to smoke in public where they are damaging other people's lungs.
That is what I wrote. I didn't say we need to enact legislation to prohibit them immediately. You then replied with: (quotes are around my statement)
"Outside will harm people's lungs if there's like a parade nearby, or some other local festivity."
I assume there is scientific evidence validating your statement...
I provided the evidence that second hand smoke harms people's lungs. You then became the moving goal post by changing it to "where is the evidence that shows that second hand smoke is dangerous?". The original criteria was harmful.
I said legislation SHOULD be passed if it is concluded that any amount of second hand smoke can cause significant harm. Right now, we know that it causes harm, even small amounts. But we do not know HOW MUCH harm it does. That should be the basis for whether or not we form legislation against second hand smoke, or leave things the way they are.
So no evidence shall be passed? I assume you meant legislation shall be passed.
You should know from my other posts on here that I am very pro civil rights. I'm not interested in eliminating personal freedom, especially when evidence is lacking in terms of how dangerous second hand smoke is exactly.
Like I said, if SHS causes significant damage in even small/trace amounts, then it needs to be outlawed.
If evidence comes up saying that small or trace amounts of SHS pose no significant risk/threat, then things should be left the way they are.
You mean "I'm not interested in eliminating personal freedom when evidence is lacking in terms of how dangerous second hand smoke is exactly."
Okay...? That's barely different than what I said. The meaning is the same. We know SHS causes harm, but we do not know how much harm.
Now you're REALLY playing around with the wording. But i'll just assume that "significant" means "permanent, life threatening, crippling, etc."
How am I playing around with the wording? By significant, I mean a statistically significant effect on possibility of getting heart disease, lung cancer, w/e else SHS causes.
No, when evidence comes up saying that SHS causes significant risk/threat, then we can debate the proper ways to deal with it.
Till then, light up, do what you want. you're gonna die soon.
Um, isn't that exactly what I said?
We know that when exposed to enough SHS, it DOES have significant risks associated with it. We just don't know exactly how much "enough" is.
Well, you said "ban it if it shows to be a risk," which I don't believe to be right in most cases. Prohibition and regulation has never worked for anything... I don't see why smoking would make any difference.
I don't agree with you at all, but I now have a HUGE amount of respect for you. Wow, haven't seen a debate this good in years.
But, just on the side of evidence, demanding evidence for the second hand smoke seems like a kinda heavy thing to ask. There is no evidence that having unprotected sex with someone who has AIDS will guarantee the protraction of the virus. It's just what the studies have shown. And true, there is no immediate evidence to the harm of second hand smoke, but the long term studies have shown that it's harmful. Unless you have unprotected sex with AIDS carriers, then you have a point. ;)
Well we've already agreed that any amount of second hand smoke causes harm. You just don't think the harm is worth worrying about.
Ban it if it shows to be a risk? Ban it in public, yes. Ban it in private residences/business, no. I don't know why you try to defend people who are harming others through SHS.
Actually, I think I've changed my mind. What you propose is ridiculous. Scientists and doctors have already agreed that SHS is harmful in any amount. Therefore it should be banned outright in public.
If we go by what you said, then we all need to wear SHS meters to make sure we aren't exposed to too much SHS.
Scientists and doctors have already agreed that SHS is harmful in any amount. Therefore it should be banned outright in public.
Luckily, that's not how we make decisions in a free country. Well, we did ban drugs and heavily regulate tobacco and alcohol... but ban tobacco in the public... idk, we are pretty Fascist, so i guess your hopes and dreams may not be too far fetch'd.
Luckily, that's not how we make decisions in a free country. Well, we did ban drugs and heavily regulate tobacco and alcohol... but ban tobacco in the public... idk, we are pretty Fascist, so i guess your hopes and dreams may not be too far fetch'd.
Luckily, we don't make decisions from scientists and doctors? How is that a "luckily" ?
I think drugs should be legalized, most notably marijuana. Personal use of drugs should be legal I think. So long as it is not harming anyone else. In the case of SHS, it does harm other people.
Luckily, we don't make decisions from scientists and doctors? How is that a "luckily" ?
Doctors during the Victorian error claimed that masturbation was unhealthy.
Scientists in Germany (and in much of the Western world) advocated Eugenics.
Most doctors used to believe that abortion was murder (hell, there are many still against it.)
Scientists used to support Newtonian Physics (luckily you can't pass much liberty crippling legislation on that.)
Scientists and Doctors believed that prostitution greatly contributed to the spread of disease, and there was actually ample evidence to say that this was absolutely true (unlike SHS causing any significant damage without hours of exposure at a time.)
The point is that opinions, even from a LARGE group, should not justify granting government more power to remove our civil liberties. And you are talking about the opinions of a select few doctors who say "yeah, the evidence isn't there, but I'm SURE that any exposure has to be bad... I'm just sure of it." They weren't even bold enough to say "it's bad enough to kill or greatly harm others even if you're not a bartender or some shit like that."
The errors of scientists in the past don't mean that their current ideas and theories are just as invalid.
This isn't opinions. This is backed by evidence that SHS does cause harm. You're concerned with what the threshold is for significant harm. If we were to go down your path, we would need to outfit everyone with SHS meters to monitor their exposure. This is impractical though.
The errors of scientists in the past don't mean that their current ideas and theories are just as invalid.
Never said it was. Just that it doesn't permit for us to create more legislation taking away more rights.
This is backed by evidence that SHS does cause harm.
At not known significant level. Just that there is something there, whenever smoke temporarily enters your lungs... there is something... no evidence to say that it's going to be long term or permanent. Hell, nothing to say that it's really all that bad... maybe it's good for you. And you want it banned... pfft.
If we were to go down your path, we would need to outfit everyone with SHS meters to monitor their exposure. This is impractical though.
As impractical as banning public smoking just because there MAY be something bad about it... based on the opinions of a few select doctors.
Like, when prostitution was banned after doctors pointed out that prostitution was causing the spread of disease. and as stated, IT WAS TRUE. but as history has shown, big government never makes things better. And it's unjust.
Never said it was. Just that it doesn't permit for us to create more legislation taking away more rights.
It's not taking away rights. It's preventing people who have a chemical dependency from carelessly harming others through SHS. They don't have the right to harm me or anyone else.
SHS is bad, there is no safe amount of the stuff.
This is not based on opinions. There is no safe amount of SHS. Avoid it whenever possible. This really is a violation of the non smoker, for the non smoker has made the responsible decision of not killing themselves through lung cancer or heart disease or whatever else cigarettes cause. But yet I have to suffer the potential health effects from smoking simply because a smoker wants to stand next to or near me? That's a complete violation of my rights.
This is not an example of big government. It would prevent smokers from harming non smokers lungs, among the other negative health impacts of SHS. Smokers would then only be allowed to smoke in their house, or if a private business allows it. Smokers don't have the right to harm others with their smoke.
Except, as countlessly pointed out, the significance of that harm is not proven to be in any way permanent or damaging. Just that the smoke itself is a bad smoke. but no matter how much we all already know this... this is getting boring... it isn't knowledge that you sitting next to a smoker is going to do ANYTHING to you.. at all.
Like, at all. You can spend an entire day with him, just constantly smoking... no evidence has been presented to say that you are, in anyway, being damaged. Temporarily harmed? Sure, but same goes for microwaves, cell phones, car exhaust, school bus exhaust, laptops on your lap, eating pork.
Smokers don't have the right to harm others with their smoke.
A screaming baby is probably harming my ear drums. Sure, no evidence says it's permanent or damaging, but there is no safe amount of baby screaming that you can tolerate, as most ear doctors will tell you. Still, I guess that's all the evidence you need... just the fact that there is no safe amount, or w/e.
But yeah, boring. Is this all we're going to go back and fourth on?
Smoking's fun. And it doesn't hurt anybody unless they are standing right next to you inhaling it. And if you're that fucking worried about accidentally inhaling a couple of carcinogens, I take it you walk everywhere with a gas mask on because car exhaust fumes are far more harmful. Not to mention the fact that any kind of smoke contains carcinogens.
So unless you want to make cars, trains, planes, open fires, gas burners, stoves, fossil fuels, etc etc illegal, shut the fuck up about banning smoking.
You don't think smoking is fun? You must have never smoked the good stuff.
And if it "harms" (slightly annoys) the people standing near the smoker, take a step back or ask him to, seriously, its not that hard, thats what I do when someone is smoking a cig, I take a step back.
You don't think smoking is fun? You must have never smoked the good stuff.
There's nothing good to smoke
And if it "harms" (slightly annoys) the people standing near the smoker, take a step back or ask him to, seriously, its not that hard, thats what I do when someone is smoking a cig, I take a step back.
What if a few of them are around you? What will you do?
Have you ever heard of this lovely little plant called cannabis?
What if a few of them are around you? What will you do?
What, you mean like a mob of smokers that surround you and try and stop you from getting away? Thats a little over the top, but, lets say that did happen, hold your breathe and charge through them.
That's like trying to petition to shut down a factory because you insist on standing right next to their exhaust vents and breathing in all the fumes. If that's your position, you deserve all the second hand lung cancer you've got coming to you.
No they aren't. and do you think we always smell car fumes? More commonly we smell smoke from cigarette
You can smoke cigarettes for years and years and not necessarily even have any adverse health effects; anyone who puts their mouth around the tailpipe of any car for, say, 60 seconds, will die. This is why I think it's funny people spend so much time bitching about second-hand smoke from cigarettes when there are a multitude of other sources of air pollution in the world, some a good deal more dangerous than cigarette smoke, although they are admittedly less smelly to non-smokers, and I think that's the real issue, here. Well, I'm sorry you don't like how cigarettes smell. Personally I think curry smells like a seasoned butthole, but you won't see me suggesting we should "stop" Indian restaurants on that basis.
That's like trying to petition to shut down a factory because you insist on standing right next to their exhaust vents and breathing in all the fumes. If that's your position, you deserve all the second hand lung cancer you've got coming to you.
I always avoid those. You think I would want to get second hand lung cancer? No way
anyone who puts their mouth around the tailpipe of any car for, say, 60 seconds, will die.
Who will do that?
This is why I think it's funny people spend so much time bitching about second-hand smoke from cigarettes when there are a multitude of other sources of air pollution in the world, some a good deal more dangerous than cigarette smoke, although they are admittedly less smelly to non-smokers, and I think that's the real issue, here.
People smoke more then the car fumes emitted. Most of the time the car's engine off. People can sacrifice their sleep just to smoke
Well, I'm sorry you don't like how cigarettes smell.
I have smelled it before. IT STANK like peanut butter mixed with those garbage in those cans.
I always avoid those. You think I would want to get second hand lung cancer? No way
You don't get lung cancer from second hand smoke, there is a huge difference between catching a wiff of the smoke every once in awhile then inahling all of it into your lungs and holding it several times a day. Its like refusing to drink a glass of water because there was beer in it before and you don't want get addicted.
You don't get lung cancer from second hand smoke, there is a huge difference between catching a wiff of the smoke every once in awhile then inahling all of it into your lungs and holding it several times a day.
What do you mean?
Its like refusing to drink a glass of water because there was beer in it before and you don't want get addicted.
That's what I mean. I don't want to get addicted to alcohol
What do I mean? There is a huge difference between second hand smoke and smoking. Lung cancer is developed from smoking cigs (inhaling all the smoke and holding it in your lungs) several times day for years and year and years, catching a wiff of it will not give you lung cancer.
That's what I mean. I don't want to get addicted to alcohol
There was a glass with beer in it, someone drank all the beer or it was poured out. Then someone fills it up with water, if you won't drink that because you don't want to "get addicted to alcohol" then you really don't understand drugs that well. Consuming a few small drops of beer (least potent alcohol beverage) that are to small to even be seen is not going to get you addicted, its not a "well, its different for everyone" kind of thing, its a fact, it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to even get an effect from that amount.
There is a huge difference between second hand smoke and smoking. Lung cancer is developed from smoking cigs (inhaling all the smoke and holding it in your lungs) several times day for years and year and years, catching a wiff of it will not give you lung cancer.
I know there is a huge difference.
what you said is true, but the smoke still smells
Consuming a few small drops of beer (least potent alcohol beverage) that are to small to even be seen is not going to get you addicted
Oh no, you don't like the smell, guess no one is allowed to smoke anymore.
How do you know?
A more important question, how do you not know this? You really think that a few drops that are to small to even be seen can get you intoxicated and make you a alcoholic? Do you live under a rock?
Well presumably there is a reason people do it in the first place, no? It's enjoyable.
I always avoid those. You think I would want to get second hand lung cancer?
Then avoid smokers the way you avoid exhaust vents; don't conspire to have them banned.
People smoke more then the car fumes emitted.
How could you possibly know that? Source?
Most of the time the car's engine off. People can sacrifice their sleep just to smoke
And most of the time a smoker isn't smoking cigarettes? You'd need to be smoking like 4 packs a day or more to be smoking for the majority of the day.
I have smelled it before. IT STANK like peanut butter mixed with those garbage in those cans.
But you see why petitioning to have something banned on the basis that is smells bad to you is silly and infantile? It's a completely subjective opinion.
People may have forced them to do that and get addicted. Its hard to control them
I don't buy peer pressure or chemical dependence as justifications for doing something. Regardless of who is pressuring you to smoke, it is your decision if you choose to or not, and you (and everyone else) needs to accept responsibility for their actions. As for addiction, speaking from years of experience, you only stay addicted as long as your desire to continue using is greater than your will and motivation to stop. In other words, once again, it's entirely a personal issue, one that individuals need to take responsibility for.
Exhaust vents don't come towards me. Smokers come towards me
There are a number of things about exhaust vents that make them on par with smokers (i.e. they are going 24/7, smokers are not smoking 24/7, they are stationary making it so the area around them is a permanently distasteful area to be, whereas smokers move, meaning one might move by you but then quickly move away, etc.) but I get your point. Cars, then? Cars come towards you without your consent.
too lazy to find source. also can't find. most likely lah
If "lah" means "I just made up a fact to support my argument but it turns out that fact doesn't exist," then yes, "lah" indeed.
Yes most smokers do that
Slow learner, eh? I thought we just went over that you can't just bullshit statistics to support your argument. Especially if they're absurd assertions, as yours are, you should know I'm going to ask (as I have) where you got them. And then you're either going to decline to find them or be unable to find them (you were unclear before; you implied both) and then not only did you fail to make your point but you also make an ass of yourself. So why do you do this to yourself?
More to the point, what is your source for being able to say that smokers on average smoke four packs a day?
That it's an entirely subjective choice independent of addiction and peer pressure? Yes. That was my point. What's your point? My point doesn't belong in your dispute unless you are disputing it. I know we should take that into consideration; that's why I said it.
If smokers do not, then why are exhaust fumes exhausted 24/7
I'll give you an example. I used to work at a pool. The pool stayed headed and the water continued to circulate through the pumps all day when the pool was open and continued when the pool was closed. So we had vents outside the pump room dumping fumes into the air all day, every day.
Are you the one?
Wow. Ignore my argument and reply with the intellectual equivalent of, "No, YOU!!"
To answer your question, no, I'm not, because I wasn't the one who made the same mistake I just got done covering my ass for literally directly after covering my ass for it. You did something along the lines of bullshitting/lying and I called you out on it, and right under your acknowledgement of the fact that you bullshitted/lied, you bullshitted/lied some more, and in a manner just as easy to recognize and refute as you did last time. So I'm not the slow learner, you are.
After not being online for so long (4 days due to my exams) how can you expect me to remember?
If you had a statistic and source memorized prior to our debate I would think you would be able to call upon it a mere four days later. If you didn't have it memorized I think it would be a simple matter to just look it up again. I don't have all the statistics I have ever used memorized but I think it's very reasonable for people to ask me to source them, and I do the work required to support my intellectual assertions when that happens. Do you, or do you just make irreverent excuses?
Or you could just save yourself further embarrassment and admit that you just pulled that fact out of your ass, instead of going on defending that stinking, fecal-crusted piece of non-truth.
Okay, but don't you think you should be against taxes instead of smoking?
Because it isn't really the smokers fault that they get free lung cancer transplants, it's the government that decided this.
And actually a lot of smokers are libertarian, because they want the age limit of and the prices down - so the typical smoker acutally votes for a liberal society. Which means they aren't voting for free lung operations and hospital visits.
Do you understand, I know this is easy to misunderstand, so just tell me if you don't ;)
And the debate is whether you are against smoking, not taxes
I am aware of that.
I was asked if I was against smoking, I said no. Then I wanted to give my reason for not being against smoking - because I didn't come here to just answer no or yes. I want to explain why my opinion is how it is.
And why do you have to pay for his hospital bill?
Because I live where the taxes are really high. One of the things the government use my money for is paying people's hospital bills.
I have no problem with people smoking - but I don't feel sorry for them when they get cancer either.
I was asked if I was against smoking, I said no. Then I wanted to give my reason for not being against smoking - because I didn't come here to just answer no or yes. I want to explain why my opinion is how it is.
Then you should be against smoking because then you have to pay taxes
I have no problem with people smoking - but I don't feel sorry for them when they get cancer either.
They make you pay taxes. Why do you have no problem? Not feeling sorry for them is a good thing. They deserve it for smoking.
No, we the people decide and the government regulates. So we could vote against taxes that go towards paying for people who suffer from poor health due to smoking cigarettes, thus eliminating, as you said, your reason for being against smoking: that you have to pay for it. This would still allow the civil liberty of being allowed to have a cigarette while also taking you out of the process of having to take care of them for it.
Like: should be ban fast food or should we ban the taxes that go towards paying for the triple-bypasses the morbidly obese people who eat fast food inevitably need. Which would allow for greater personal freedom for all?
we the people decide and the government regulates Depends on the type of government the country has.
should be ban fast food or should we ban the taxes that go towards paying for the triple-bypasses the morbidly obese people who eat fast food inevitably need. Which would allow for greater personal freedom for all?
You dun pay taxes for this situation. Fast food hardly makes anybody obese
It does depend on the type of government you have. A dictatorship or theocracy might decide for itself, and in a democracy the people decide. Theoretically. Which countries are we talking about, here?
And yes, I do pay taxes for that situation. If some dumbass eats 4500 calorie fast food 3 meals a day, seven days a week until they are morbidly obese and need medical attention they are unable to pay for, I contribute towards paying it, just like everyone else.
Theoretically. Which countries are we talking about, here?
so what is it? Democratic?
And yes, I do pay taxes for that situation. If some dumbass eats 4500 calorie fast food 3 meals a day, seven days a week until they are morbidly obese and need medical attention they are unable to pay for, I contribute towards paying it, just like everyone else.
But for me I don't. Banning smoking can reduce your taxes
if people want to harm their own bodies by smoking, who am i to make them stop, it's not our problem, if you have tried once but they don't listen then you cannot really change their habits.
No, I smoke my self but I always smoke out door's away from people and always ask someone if its ok if they are with me. I also dislike people who want to ban smoking for good. This is my body and my life and I will put what ever I want into it. I know the risk's and the danger I'm not stupid but I live in a free country and will not be told what I can and can not put into my own body.
No, of course not. I have no right to deny someone else a personal choice that doesn't affect me. As other posters have said, it's incredibly easy to avoid second-hand inhilation of cigarette smoke, if you're even that worried about it.
As for a government ban on the stuff...it appears too many people have forgotten (or just haven't learned) about the failure of Prohibition on alcohol in the 20's and how it created a booming bootlegging industry. There is always going to be a high demand for drugs and in general anything with intoxicating effects. Treating these matters of personal choice as criminal issues rather than medical issues is downright preposturous. Furthermore, if someone is addicted to cigarettes..why does it make sense to jail them rather than give them the means to break their addiction? Seems to me they're worth more to society if they're put on a path towards....working, and stuff.
Ok. I started smoking when I was 17. I would like to think I have control as I smoke only once a week. I disagree with people that think it is morally wrong because whilst it does damage your body it is still yours. If people are smart about it smoking might be considered socially acceptable again
I hate cigarette so freaking much but that doesn't mean that everyone else should stop smoking. It's their right to smoke. I mean it can literally kill you but it's not up to me to decide it's up to the smoker.
Weed is fine, and so is tobacco. It is that chemical shit that they add that gets ya. Both weed and tobacco have been smoked for centuries with minimal effects but then some idiot started adding bad stuff. There is more to this story than meets the eyes is all I am saying.
Weed is fine, and so is tobacco. It is that chemical shit that they add that gets ya. Both weed and tobacco have been smoked for centuries with minimal effects but then some idiot started adding bad stuff. There is more to this story than meets the eyes is all I am saying.
