User Tag List

View Poll Results: do you support a public smoking ban?

Voters
77. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes, I support a smoking ban both indoors and outdoors

    17 22.08%
  • yes, I support a smoking ban, but only indoors

    32 41.56%
  • no, I do not support a smoking ban/keep things as they were

    28 36.36%
First 8910111220 Last

Results 91 to 100 of 212

Thread: smoking ban

  1. #91
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Name one.
    Because you like it.

  2. #92
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    That's a pretty selfish reason.

    I'm also amazed at how many smokers can't even seem to explain what they like about it.
    I'm sure there are those who really do enjoy it, but most just seem stuck to it.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  3. #93
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    Because you like it.
    I hear that there are other drugs that many people like... and don't even share with other people.

  4. #94
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    You asked for reasons to do it, not reasons why it's okay.

  5. #95
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    That's just hair-splitting smart-assery.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  6. #96
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    103

    Default

    [QUOTE=Magic Poriferan;79939]First of all... It is a hell of a lot harder to live without a car than to live without cigarettes. There is no effort to not smoking, unless you already made the msitake of smoking. You're basically demanded to have a car. They aren't really comperable.
    [\QUOTE]
    Are they simply not comparable or are they not comparable to a non-smoker. To someone with an addiction it may be easier to survive without a car than it is not to smoke. There are people in the world that do not even own a car and some who have never been in a car. You don't have to have a car. There are plenty other forms of transportation to get from here to there. It may be hard but not if you have never had a car in the first place.

    Once again, you are obviously pitting a much more extreme and difficult transition against smoking, where the two are not comperable.
    I would essentially agree to all of those things. No, I have not lived by all of them because it would be almost hopelessly hard. All we can do for now, is take smaller steps to reaching that goal.
    On the other hand, I have sub-concsciously and harmlessy not smoked for my entire life. It's actually easier to be a non-smoker than to be a smoker.
    You need to drop that argument.
    This is partly about moriality, and it's partly about practicality.
    Why drop the argument? My point is being proven. It is thought by people who advocate a ban on smokeing that it is easier for smokers to quit smokeing than it is for car users to not use cars or obese people to not eat too much or [ input vise here ]. It only upsets people when their lifestyle is being affected and it's only difficult when you are personally affected. Of course its easy for you to give up smokeing because you don't smoke. It's easy for me to give up gay sex because I've never had it.I don't climb cliffs either. Lets ban it. I'm not single and therefore I find it easy to abstain from premarital sex. I say we ban that too. I prefere plastic bags over paper ones. Lets ban the paper bags. You know for health reasons. All of these things ultimately bring a cost to society that we as a whole end up paying for.


    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    That's fine, but lots of places do have universal healthy-care and
    I advocate adopting it for this one.
    And no, the smokers shouldn't receive that health-care, because they'ew made to pay for it as compensation for the strain they put on it!
    It was already made even by making them pay more.
    Do you not get that?
    No the math does not add up.

    If the taxes are compensation for the strain. Then the taxes collected make the strain = 0. The taxes and collected combined with payment for treatment then is a net profit for the healthcare system.

    example:


    if healthcare costs in perfect non-smoking world = -$100.00
    then
    total cost to society for healthcare = -$100.00

    If healthcare costs before smoking = -$100.00
    and...
    healthcare costs added for smoking = -$100.00
    Then
    total cost to society = -$200.00


    now after taxes

    If healthcare costs before smoking = -$100.00
    and...
    healthcare costs added for smoking = -$100.00
    Then
    taxes collected from smokers = +$100.00
    then
    total cost to society = $100.00

    The overall cost for society is the same with or without smokers because the smokers already paid.

    now force the smokers to also pay for their bill and it looks like this:

    If healthcare costs before smoking = -$100.00
    and...
    healthcare costs added for smoking = -$100.00
    Then
    taxes collected from smokers = +$100.00
    then
    payment for smoking related illness = +$100.00
    total cost to society = $0.00

    hmmm now society pays less then they did before smoking. Doesn’t seem fair to the smokers to be paying the bill for all us deadbeat non-smokers does it?

  7. #97
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    That's just hair-splitting smart-assery.
    No, it's not. There's a difference between motivation and justification.

    Personally, I think there is a real personal-liberty case to be made for NOT banning smoking. People find smoking pleasurable; that's why they do it. They find the risk is worth the reward. More power to 'em.

    Should they keep their smoke to themselves? Sure.

    Should they avoid smoking in the car with the kids? Absolutely.

    Is it unhealthy and self-destructive? D@mn straight.

    Is it a personal choice for an individual to make and the state should keep its oppressive do-gooder nose out of it?

    I say yes.

    And for the record, I'm a non-smoker.

  8. #98
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post

    Is it a personal choice for an individual to make and the state should keep its oppressive do-gooder nose out of it?


    Great sense!

  9. #99
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    I'm done with this.

    You believe what you will.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  10. #100
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by samIam View Post
    Are they simply not comparable or are they not comparable to a non-smoker.
    Not comparable.

    To someone with an addiction it may be easier to survive without a car than it is not to smoke.
    Someone with an addiction has an illness that should be cured not enabled. If it isn't an addiction, then they can stop something "entertaining" while getting to work can be next to impossible without a car.

    There are people in the world that do not even own a car and some who have never been in a car. You don't have to have a car. There are plenty other forms of transportation to get from here to there. It may be hard but not if you have never had a car in the first place.
    I don't have a car but it doesn't make a difference - The bus gets me to work - without going to work, my job doesn't get done. My job doesn't get done, the plans don't get sent around. Plans don't go around, ships don't get built. Ships don't get built, stuff doesn't get transported. Stuff doesn't get transported, we starve.

    The point is that a functional part of making the world move is entirely different than what amounts to entertainment. There are incentive plans and limits on those as well. My bus pass is subsidised both through taxes and employment incentives but gas is taxed heavily (drives subsidise my ride - it rewards my sacrifice and punishes their generation).

    Also, you are creating a strawman out of "banning" vs controlling something. We do have laws regarding how cars can drive and societies do tax vehicles all over the world. We also have environmental laws to measure emissions, and we have idling laws to prevent concentrations of emissions. The ban is about smoking around others in a semi-public area. I'm also pretty sure there are laws to prevent me from running a car in a restaurant, so to speak.

    No the math does not add up.

    If the taxes are compensation for the strain. Then the taxes collected make the strain = 0. The taxes and collected combined with payment for treatment then is a net profit for the healthcare system.
    Do you have any evidence this is so? Also, note that medical care in the states is not socialised, therefore by smoking you directly harm someone else - that they have to individually pay for. The benefit of not being sick is not strictly monetary.

    hmmm now society pays less then they did before smoking. Doesn't seem fair to the smokers to be paying the bill for all us deadbeat non-smokers does it?
    Well, since smokers pay $13+8 (state/federal) billion in taxes and the US spends about 2 trillion a year on healthcare (steadily rising!)... that's about 1% of healthcare costs. Course, I don't know how it is measured in the states, but Canada's "smoking costs" are about 2.5 billion (health care only - roughly 15-20 billion in the built up model, including opportunity costs)... multiply that by 10ish (population), adjust upward for the amount the US spends on healthcare (about 1.6 I think, maybe higher) and for the higher amount of smokers (not much difference, about 19% vs 20%).

Similar Threads

  1. The Banned and The Damned
    By Haight in forum Official Decrees
    Replies: 331
    Last Post: 11-30-2017, 07:12 PM
  2. Smoking Ban
    By WildCard in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 82
    Last Post: 05-02-2011, 12:33 PM
  3. Smoking ban decreases heart attacks
    By burymecloser in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-09-2010, 03:03 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO