Political Crossfire Forums

[battleax86]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Something else to chew on:

Quote: Deaths from traffic fumes in Scotland are higher than those caused by passive smoking, according to the Scottish Green Party.

The Greens have called for tougher action against air pollution in Scotland's cities.

MSP Patrick Harvie said spending 24 hours in Glasgow city centre was the equivalent of smoking 15 cigarettes.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4401628.stm

When, say, going outside is more dangerous to your health than passive smoking - hopefully the point begins to sink in :wink:
Well, to begin with, your source is the Scottish Green Party. Not exactly what I'd call a scientific source, but that's besides the point. Yes, there are greater dangers than smoking. However, smoking is still a health risk and a more preventable one, at that. Pebble's analogy was a little flawed, but the point remains that it's not wise to ignore one health risk just because others might be more dangerous.

[Krysis]

Yes pollution from cars should be tackled. The problem is this thread is about the smoking ban. So how about sticking to the topic, this has nothing to do with it.

[Pebble]

Yeah, I know it was simllistic but I was in a rush. ;)

Anyway, the point remains LHG.

[antonio62]

Krysis wrote: Yes pollution from cars should be tackled. The problem is this thread is about the smoking ban. So how about sticking to the topic, this has nothing to do with it.

It is very relevant. It is the same thing. If you say we must ban smoking because it is damaging to peoples health it means you should ban cars as well.

No one has answered me yet so I'll say it again. What right dose the government have to tell people what they can do on private property. If you went to some ones house and they were smoking would you tell them put it out. I doubt many of you would and even if you did most people would refuse because what right do you have to tell them what to do in there house. If you don't like the smoke leave.

[Pebble]

antonio62 wrote: Krysis wrote: Yes pollution from cars should be tackled. The problem is this thread is about the smoking ban. So how about sticking to the topic, this has nothing to do with it.

It is very relevant. It is the same thing. If you say we must ban smoking because it is damaging to peoples health it means you should ban cars as well.

No one has answered me yet so I'll say it again. What right dose the government have to tell people what they can do on private property. If you went to some ones house and they were smoking would you tell them put it out. I doubt many of you would and even if you did most people would refuse because what right do you have to tell them what to do in there house. If you don't like the smoke leave.

Which is perhaps why the ban being discussed is about smoking in public places not in your own home?

[antonio62]

Pebble wrote: antonio62 wrote: Krysis wrote: Yes pollution from cars should be tackled. The problem is this thread is about the smoking ban. So how about sticking to the topic, this has nothing to do with it.

It is very relevant. It is the same thing. If you say we must ban smoking because it is damaging to peoples health it means you should ban cars as well.

No one has answered me yet so I'll say it again. What right dose the government have to tell people what they can do on private property. If you went to some ones house and they were smoking would you tell them put it out. I doubt many of you would and even if you did most people would refuse because what right do you have to tell them what to do in there house. If you don't like the smoke leave.

Which is perhaps why the ban being discussed is about smoking in public places not in your own home?

A pub is some ones property and if they want to smoke on it they should be able to. If they don't they can make it a no smoking area. The government actually has more right to ban cars on public roads because they actually are government property.

[Lord Hargreaves]

battleax86 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: Something else to chew on:

Quote: Deaths from traffic fumes in Scotland are higher than those caused by passive smoking, according to the Scottish Green Party.

The Greens have called for tougher action against air pollution in Scotland's cities.

MSP Patrick Harvie said spending 24 hours in Glasgow city centre was the equivalent of smoking 15 cigarettes.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4401628.stm

When, say, going outside is more dangerous to your health than passive smoking - hopefully the point begins to sink in :wink:
Well, to begin with, your source is the Scottish Green Party. Not exactly what I'd call a scientific source, but that's besides the point.

Well you're fine with blind acceptance of science on passive smoking, so why stop with Green propaganda? :roll:

battleax86 wrote: Yes, there are greater dangers than smoking.

Yes - like being Scottish (heart disease), or going outside (lung cancer) or taking a shower (brain damage) - and lets not forget the health problems of "living in the modern world" cost the British taxpayer £53.5bn a year.

battleax86 wrote: However, smoking is still a health risk and a more preventable one, at that. Pebble's analogy was a little flawed, but the point remains that it's not wise to ignore one health risk just because others might be more dangerous.

I'm not sure if you're totally aware of the scale of this. In the UK around 1/4 of the population smokes, and for those people lighting up is hobbie which involves a lot of their day-to-day life. When the matter of severely restricting the relaxation and entertainment of 1/4 of the nation is considered so trival an issue that to merely express doubt about it is to risk getting yourself labelled a looney and a nutcase is a grave day for civil liberty.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Krysis wrote: Yes pollution from cars should be tackled. The problem is this thread is about the smoking ban. So how about sticking to the topic, this has nothing to do with it.

Its amazes me how people can still not get the point I am trying to make here. I think we're on different planets.

I post a report that being Scottish or spending a considerable amount of time in Scotland" results in a greater chance of getting heart disease - and what responses do I get? "Yes... but smoking is dangerous too". Is there no science you do not trust?

In my attempt to argue that in banning smoking you should also ban even more assine activities because they carry a higher "health risk" - you say "OK"? Everything i quoted about car fumes in relation to passive smoking was not a cry for more regulation on pollution, rather, it was a cry to get a life. If you banned everything that harmed someone else or increased their chance of being harmed, we'd have nothing to do in this country.

You may have heard of a great British saying: "Live and let Live". It refers to our historical attitudes to tolerance in our great nation - there are things that may annoy us, irritate us, seem senseless to us, or maybe make us uncomfortable... but they are not crimes. Putting tobacco in your mouth, and lighting it inside a public building, is not my idea of criminality, and I don't understand how it meets anyone elses idea of it either.

[battleax86]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: battleax86 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: Something else to chew on:

Quote: Deaths from traffic fumes in Scotland are higher than those caused by passive smoking, according to the Scottish Green Party.

The Greens have called for tougher action against air pollution in Scotland's cities.

MSP Patrick Harvie said spending 24 hours in Glasgow city centre was the equivalent of smoking 15 cigarettes.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4401628.stm

When, say, going outside is more dangerous to your health than passive smoking - hopefully the point begins to sink in :wink:
Well, to begin with, your source is the Scottish Green Party. Not exactly what I'd call a scientific source, but that's besides the point.

Well you're fine with blind acceptance of science on passive smoking, so why stop with Green propaganda? :roll:
No, friend, I don't blindly accept everything that people call science. However, I have objectively looked at the evidence, and the evidence shows that smoking carries a serious risk of cancer, emphysema, and other diseases. Several of my own relatives have died as a result of diseases caused by smoking, so this scientific evidence tends to confirm what I have seen firsthand. I have this as backup for my position. You are backing yours up with propaganda from a Scottish political party that opposes much of what you stand for. You don't see the slightest difference there? :roll:

Lord Hargreaves wrote: battleax86 wrote: Yes, there are greater dangers than smoking.

Yes - like being Scottish (heart disease), or going outside (lung cancer) or taking a shower (brain damage) - and lets not forget the health problems of "living in the modern world" cost the British taxpayer £53.5bn a year.
Right then, let's ban being Scottish! There's a problem, though...being Scottish isn't preventable. Neither is going outside (which carries many times less of a lung cancer risk than smoking) and I haven't heard of any normal person sustaining brain damage from taking showers. Smoking, on the other hand, is preventable and poses a demonstrable risk of cancer and other diseases.

Lord Hargreaves wrote: battleax86 wrote: However, smoking is still a health risk and a more preventable one, at that. Pebble's analogy was a little flawed, but the point remains that it's not wise to ignore one health risk just because others might be more dangerous.

I'm not sure if you're totally aware of the scale of this. In the UK around 1/4 of the population smokes, and for those people lighting up is hobbie which involves a lot of their day-to-day life. When the matter of severely restricting the relaxation and entertainment of 1/4 of the nation is considered so trival an issue that to merely express doubt about it is to risk getting yourself labelled a looney and a nutcase is a grave day for civil liberty.
I don't label you a nutcase or a loon for expressing doubts and Lord knows that I agree with you on just about every other issue, so I wouldn't call you a nutcase at all. However, calling you that, though unfounded, is an expression of civil liberties, not a violation of it. Also, the relaxation and entertainment of a quarter of the population is indeed trivial when compared to the health of every single person in the quarter and others who choose not be in that quarter, but are exposed to the adverse health effects of that quarter's decision. Civil liberties are important, but when those liberties infringe upon the well being of others, they must be abridged.

Also, I haven't seen you do much protesting against the ban on narcotics. Why is that?

[Lord Hargreaves]

battleax86 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: battleax86 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: Something else to chew on:

Quote: Deaths from traffic fumes in Scotland are higher than those caused by passive smoking, according to the Scottish Green Party.

The Greens have called for tougher action against air pollution in Scotland's cities.

MSP Patrick Harvie said spending 24 hours in Glasgow city centre was the equivalent of smoking 15 cigarettes.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4401628.stm

When, say, going outside is more dangerous to your health than passive smoking - hopefully the point begins to sink in :wink:
Well, to begin with, your source is the Scottish Green Party. Not exactly what I'd call a scientific source, but that's besides the point.

Well you're fine with blind acceptance of science on passive smoking, so why stop with Green propaganda? :roll:
No, friend, I don't blindly accept everything that people call science. However, I have objectively looked at the evidence, and the evidence shows that smoking carries a serious risk of cancer, emphysema, and other diseases. Several of my own relatives have died as a result of diseases caused by smoking, so this scientific evidence tends to confirm what I have seen firsthand. I have this as backup for my position. You are backing yours up with propaganda from a Scottish political party that opposes much of what you stand for. You don't see the slightest difference there? :roll:

I think my point has been lost. Actually I do not trust the Scottish Green Party's "science" - like I do not trust "science" on passive smoking. I don't trust the "science" on Global Warming either, nor the "science" that says being Scottish is a risk to your health.

In order to score points, I attempted to challenge those who accept the "science" behind the dangers passive smoking to also accept the wild and wacky science behind much more other stupid and ignoramous things as a way of forcing them to be consistent and realising the extent of what the state would have to ban if this science was acted upon across the scale.

Unfortuantely I fell flat on my face, because apparently no one got the joke.

battleax86 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: battleax86 wrote: Yes, there are greater dangers than smoking.

Yes - like being Scottish (heart disease), or going outside (lung cancer) or taking a shower (brain damage) - and lets not forget the health problems of "living in the modern world" cost the British taxpayer £53.5bn a year.
Right then, let's ban being Scottish! There's a problem, though...being Scottish isn't preventable. Neither is going outside (which carries many times less of a lung cancer risk than smoking) and I haven't heard of any normal person sustaining brain damage from taking showers. Smoking, on the other hand, is preventable and poses a demonstrable risk of cancer and other diseases.

To say something should be banned because it would be easy to enforce is slightly bemusing way to justify it. At any rate, would it really be that easy to enforce? I love my local pub because its family run and the owner smokes like a chimney and has a drink alongside the customers most nights. Its friendly and homely. From this personal experience at least I can't say the interference of Westminster would improve the atmosphere - and I resend those who work and go to the pub being told how to enjoy themselves by politicians in Westminster who will almost certainly never visit.

battleax86 wrote:
Lord Hargreaves wrote: battleax86 wrote: However, smoking is still a health risk and a more preventable one, at that. Pebble's analogy was a little flawed, but the point remains that it's not wise to ignore one health risk just because others might be more dangerous.

I'm not sure if you're totally aware of the scale of this. In the UK around 1/4 of the population smokes, and for those people lighting up is hobbie which involves a lot of their day-to-day life. When the matter of severely restricting the relaxation and entertainment of 1/4 of the nation is considered so trival an issue that to merely express doubt about it is to risk getting yourself labelled a looney and a nutcase is a grave day for civil liberty.
I don't label you a nutcase or a loon for expressing doubts and Lord knows that I agree with you on just about every other issue, so I wouldn't call you a nutcase at all.

That comment wasn't specific to you - rather the political correctness crowd where no dissenting of the left wing orthodoxy will be tolerated

battleax86 wrote: However, calling you that, though unfounded, is an expression of civil liberties, not a violation of it. Also, the relaxation and entertainment of a quarter of the population is indeed trivial when compared to the health of every single person in the quarter and others who choose not be in that quarter, but are exposed to the adverse health effects of that quarter's decision. Civil liberties are important, but when those liberties infringe upon the well being of others, they must be abridged.

When 1/4 of the population will loose a not unsubstantial liberty it is never a trival matter, although with the 3/4 of the population in mind it might be justified... if there really was such a horrendus health risk. I doubt there is, and I don't support this typecasting of the liberties of a demographic such as smokers being a threat to others - and I don't support making criminals of decent and honest people who just want to go out and smoke.

battleax86 wrote:
Also, I haven't seen you do much protesting against the ban on narcotics. Why is that?

Well in my mind the link between drug abuse infringing the liberties of others who don't take them is much more solid, however having said that I'm currently undergoing a rethink on drug policy too. When we're talking say just personal, casual marijuana use, doesn't bother me - although that doesn't mean harder drugs don't have a much stronger case to answer both in their health effects and their effects on say degrading inner-city communities.

[Ssushi]

Quote: Well in my mind the link between drug abuse infringing the liberties of others who don't take them is much more solid,

I feel that I've had my liberty not to inhale smoke infringed by smokers, yet have never had my liberty infringed by someone on drugs...

Also, calling smoking a hobby is not very accurate LHG - its an addiction! That would like saying 'heroin addiction - more of a hobby really'... :roll:

[antonio62]

Ssushi wrote: Quote: Well in my mind the link between drug abuse infringing the liberties of others who don't take them is much more solid,

I feel that I've had my liberty not to inhale smoke infringed by smokers, yet have never had my liberty infringed by someone on drugs...

Also, calling smoking a hobby is not very accurate LHG - its an addiction! That would like saying 'heroin addiction - more of a hobby really'... :roll:

Nicotine isn't psychologically addictive people can stop if they want they just need willpower.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Ssushi wrote: Also, calling smoking a hobby is not very accurate LHG - its an addiction! That would like saying 'heroin addiction - more of a hobby really'... :roll:

Smoking is not an addiction because any smoker can stop smoking whenever they feel like it. An addiction is something you find impossible to give up, but people stop smoking all across the country every day. Smoking is much better and more accurately described as a habit.

Calling smoking an addiction is just another buzzword in the leftist self-victimisation culture, where everything bad happening to you is not your fault. If you can't stop smoking its because you don't really want to - its that simple.

Its no more lunatic than me saying I have the obesity "disease" because i'm "addicted" to fast food... no, I'm just fat and eat too much. I could change my lifestyle tomorrow, and it wouldn't be dependent on whether large multi-national corporations will "allow" me not to eat their sugary products

[Jajo]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Ssushi wrote: Also, calling smoking a hobby is not very accurate LHG - its an addiction! That would like saying 'heroin addiction - more of a hobby really'... :roll:

Smoking is not an addiction because any smoker can stop smoking whenever they feel like it. An addiction is something you find impossible to give up, but people stop smoking all across the country every day. Smoking is much better and more accurately described as a habit.

Calling smoking an addiction is just another buzzword in the leftist self-victimisation culture, where everything bad happening to you is not your fault. If you can't stop smoking its because you don't really want to - its that simple.

Its no more lunatic than me saying I have the obesity "disease" because i'm "addicted" to fast food... no, I'm just fat and eat too much. I could change my lifestyle tomorrow, and it wouldn't be dependent on whether large multi-national corporations will "allow" me not to eat their sugary products

Main Entry: ad•dic•tion
Pronunciation: &-'dik-sh&n
Function: noun
: compulsive physiological need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be physically, psychologically, or socially harmful
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Nothing there speaks of the impossibility you even see nicotine referred to within the definition, and while I can see that you can call smoking a hobby you can also call it an addictive hobby the two terms are not mutually exclusive.

The use of the term addictive is a correct way to describe smoking and saying other wise is different from a refutation on the existence and effects of passive smoking due to the fact that such theories are relatively hard to prove but the addictive nature of smoking is very easy to prove by going and smoking.

I do agree with you though on the idea that the government should not force pubs to be non smoking as the pub is a private building where you are have inferred permission to be, it is not a public place however for major streets owned by government and are public property smoking should be banned.

[battleax86]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Smoking is not an addiction because any smoker can stop smoking whenever they feel like it. An addiction is something you find impossible to give up, but people stop smoking all across the country every day. Smoking is much better and more accurately described as a habit.
I don't know if the British have some super-strong willpower that Americans don't possess, but over here, people usually need help to quit smoking, be it through a patch, special gum, or some other method. Smoking is indeed addictive and tobacco is on the same level as any other narcotic, albeit one that takes longer to kill.

I don't have time to answer your response to my post at the moment, but I'll get to that as soon as possible.

[Lord Hargreaves]

battleax86 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: Smoking is not an addiction because any smoker can stop smoking whenever they feel like it. An addiction is something you find impossible to give up, but people stop smoking all across the country every day. Smoking is much better and more accurately described as a habit.
I don't know if the British have some super-strong willpower that Americans don't possess, but over here, people usually need help to quit smoking, be it through a patch, special gum, or some other method. Smoking is indeed addictive and tobacco is on the same level as any other narcotic, albeit one that takes longer to kill.

Those things can help some people, but it isn't necessary to buy patches to quit smoking. You just... stop. When you give up smoking, it is true you'll probably feel withdrawal symptoms, but this does not make it "addictive".

[Lord Hargreaves]

Jajo wrote:
Main Entry: ad•dic•tion
Pronunciation: &-'dik-sh&n
Function: noun
: compulsive physiological need

The above quoted is how addiction is defined, the bits I deleted are in my view inaccruate attempts to clarify the definition to the reader.

An addiction is utterly compulsive; having another cigarette when you're trying to give up smoking is not "compulsive", rather, it just may be easier to have another than not.

An addiction must also be psychological to qualify - to be addicted to something, you literally need it, and this need is created in the brain. With smoking there is virtually no psycology involved (establishing it as different to alcohol and drugs), aside from say the usual difficulties of giving up old habits. Even if you have been smoking for 80 years, your body will not have developed a "need" for tobacco smoke, any more than if you're a serial self abuser your wrists will eventually develop a "need" to be slit. Rather, when you quit smoking and you experience a withdrawal symptom, this is merely when your body reacts to great change, it will need time to get used to not being pumped full of smoke at all hours of the day every day. Quite understandable really.

Jajo wrote:
I do agree with you though on the idea that the government should not force pubs to be non smoking as the pub is a private building where you are have inferred permission to be, it is not a public place however for major streets owned by government and are public property smoking should be banned.

You want to ban smoking in the street - as in, outside? Who are you, Stalin reincarnate? Sheesh :roll:

[Ssushi]

LHG, what on earth are you talking about?!? Nicotine is addictive, pain and simple. Heroin is addictive plain and simple. This is not about blaming others, it's a fact!

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=22807
"As is now well known, nicotine is also powerfully addictive"

[Lord Hargreaves]

Ssushi wrote: LHG, what on earth are you talking about?!? Nicotine is addictive, pain and simple. Heroin is addictive plain and simple. This is not about blaming others, it's a fact!

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=22807
"As is now well known, nicotine is also powerfully addictive"

Heroin is addictive, smoking is not. Smoking is not compulsive, it doesn't create a pscycological need in the user. Its not addictive. Its a habit. I'm trying to use "addictive" in some sort of proper way, not in way the word has become interchangable with the word "habit", so we get people saying insane things like "I'm addicted to chocolate/TV etc"

[Ssushi]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Ssushi wrote: LHG, what on earth are you talking about?!? Nicotine is addictive, pain and simple. Heroin is addictive plain and simple. This is not about blaming others, it's a fact!

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=22807
"As is now well known, nicotine is also powerfully addictive"

Heroin is addictive, smoking is not. Smoking is not compulsive, it doesn't create a pscycological need in the user. Its not addictive. Its a habit. I'm trying to use "addictive" in some sort of proper way, not in way the word has become interchangable with the word "habit", so we get people saying insane things like "I'm addicted to chocolate/TV etc"

I'm sure you are and I agree with choc and TV and the like BUT nicotine is a chemical!

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=22807
"As is now well known, nicotine is also powerfully addictive"