I also live in Albuquerque, and I must admit, the ban is nice When confronted by a petitioner in a pool hall asking if I would sign against the ban, I said I couldn't do that because while they can go outside to smoke, I can't go outside to play pool, bowl, eat, etc. etc. And while yes, you can eat outside at most restraunts, it gets cold here at night, and I don't see why someone smoking can intrude on my eating. Yes, my smoke-free eating intrudes on their smoking, but guess why people go to restraunts? To eat! They don't sell cigarettes at the restraunts here, so they make no money, other than the smokers who drink alot aswell, but maybe I would stay for drinks if there wasn't so much smoke. I also support a ban on cell phones in restraunts. (and noisy babies, if that's possible )
So you've got something against my niece? Well, there's another one on the way in January just to spite you! Maybe you won't freak out around Niece 2.0 as much as you did on the original.
I smoke (and I'm tryin' to quit) and I'm full support of a smoking ban in public places. Not only that I'd love to see the legal age to purchase tobacco products raised to 18 in the UK. I recently witnessed an instance at a skate park where a pair of 14-15 year old *** puffing female chavs aggresively lambasted a 13 year girl as being "un-cool" because she didn't smoke. The sooner we change our percepting of smoking to one that it is a socially unacceptable habit and "un-cool" to smoke, the better. However, there will always be people who love to smoke regardless of an all out ban whether it's a Cuba cigar or joint, just like there will always be people how need their next crack hit. (P.S. I really shouldn't have used that smiley...)
This argument is reminding me of the minimum wage, in the way people are saying its the government forcing things on us. Well live with it, i'm having to pay tution fees, while at the same time i'm been offered golden hello's by the army, the police the navy, teaching etc. We live in a nanny state, sometimes because you have to do something you dislike to benefit others. . As for the sex thing in the artical, sex in public places has been illegal for a long time now, i don't know what kinda establishments he has been frequenting for the melodrama.
That guy is an absolute moron. Seriously.. He has absolutely no consideration for the "rights" of non-smokers not to be acausted by 2nd-hand smoke. The smokers reply: if you don't like it, you can move. Uh huh. My reply to that: *I'M* not the one who wants to smoke, you want to smoke, YOU move.
Non smoker and in support of the ban. Here in my state there is also a public smoking ban. It is really nice being able to go somewhere and not have to worry about wether someone is going to come in and light up. I have asthma and my mom has Sarcoidosis (very rare disease) which is affecting her lungs. She has to stay indoors when there are high levels of contaminents in the air. If someone even lights up outside near her, I make it a point that they need to either smoke elsewhere or put it out. If they refuse to do either, I put it out for them. If I don't she may very well keel off then and there. So in my case it isn't just my own health I have to worry about, it is my family members too. Smokers have the choice to smoke if they wish, but not at the risk to others. If they are willing to be considerate of others and be willing to move it is bothering someone, fine by me smoke away. But if they are going to live in denial that it is a serious health threat to themselfs or anyone else around them, they should put it out. Also you can save alot of money from not smoking (unless you get your cigs for free). Here is a quote of a bumper sticker that I have seen and my Grandpa has lived by (making for some pretty funny events if someone refuses to put out their light)
Well game theory/the prisoners dilemma cuts in here. There is no incentive for a signle pub to ban it, if the pub down the road wont either. The pub down the road wont ban it, because it knows the first pub wont ban it, and take the profits. The reverse applies as well. Yet if they both did it, they would come off in a far better position. _________Ban____Don't Ban Ban_____10,10____0, 20 Don't Ban 20,0_____5,5 Neither pub has any incentive to ban, because they know the other will cheat. Similarly neither pub has an incentive to not apply for a smoking licence, because they know the other will. From memory, studies almost unanimously conclude that this is not hte case, infact business increases due to non-smokers returning. The difficulty is when it's voluntary, which is when the prisoners dilemma kicks in. That is a weak argument, for what should be obvious reasons. Diesel fumes are a carcinogen yes, but overall the costs that they contribute to society in the form of cancer/other costs (I'm sure someone could fill out a couple of hundred reasons if they really wanted to) are outweighed by the benefits that they bring to society in the increased standard of living we are able to enjoy due to them. On the otherhand cigarettes generally do not increase the standard of living for society, yet have a very high cost on society. Just your average shock journalist. This is going to come across as arrogant (fark it, it is arrogant), but peopel like the author feed on those who do not (for whatever reason) have a mind capable of using logic to reason against their arguments. There are a lot of them in the world.
No studies needed - Like I said before, NY State has a no smoking ban in public places now and the vast majority of bars, restaurants, etc have seen an increase in business.
You cannot apply game theory to something subjective like this, especially since you also say that pub A banning it is dependent on pub B banning it... besides I cant see a pub landlord sitting down and working out the nash equilbrium based on the benefits of banning smoking for his particular pub. Also, with a little thought a legislator could circumvent your entire argument by simply by imposing a limit on the number of pubs with "smoking licenses" in any one area and by being more likely to give licenses to those venues with better ventilation You call his argument weak, but it seems to me that you simply just find his analogy absurd... This whole argument is highly subjective. Where on earth do you draw the line? You say cars bring benefits to society? By that i assume that you think society is better off now than say 50 years ago when far fewer people had cars and people still walked to school.... Cars are purely a social convenience, anyone living in a city with decent public transport doesnt need one. They kill thousands of people each year through accidents (yes, i know accidents are often caused by human error, but it also takes someone to smoke a cigarette) and an unknown and probably unknowable figure through pollution but because they are seen as being useful and convenient to our hectic lifestyles that means they are ok? so essentially your argument seems to be that cigarettes are worth banning over cars because they get us to work a bit quicker? Also, ive already stated in the UK at least, the tax on cigarettes far outweighs the amount spent on smoking related illnesses, so surely by your own rational that makes them a net social contributor and this worth keeping? While i agree that the guy writes like an idiot and panders to a thoughtless readership. He does have a point. In the last few years there has been a trend to legislate over everything. it seems you cannot do anything without inffringing on some new law whether it is a student wanting to live in a box room or wanting to fast forwards through adverts on your Tivo or dvd player....
I disagree. While game theory is not applicable in all circumstances and needs to have it's outcomes assessed rationally (chain store paradox), it is applicable in some and here I think it is. True a landlord doesn't sit down and work out nash equilibriums etc. but there is some form of intuitive thought that acts as a proxy for it. Those numbers I threw up were random, to illustrate the prisoner's dilemma. Re. legislation, again I don't agree. I think in a situation where there are two pubs (we could do more, but lets keep it simple), while either of them allows smoking with the other one not, the one allowing smoking will allways come off better, potentially driving the other out of the market. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think it is in the overall interest of consumers to make only a limited number smoking venues. I've got more to say on this, but it's 1:40AM and when I tried to put them down they came out pretty jumbled, so they will have to wait until tomorrow, sorry about that. I find his argument weak because his analogy is absurd. Is that not the logical conclusion? I was walking to school in 2001 , but regardless I see your point. Overall I think most people would see increased numbers of cars as a benefit to society (subject to diminishing marginal returns of course), both in terms of production, and standard of living. You may not agree (although I think you do, you are just arguing the point, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), but overall in a democracy the greater society is what matters. As to where you draw the line (yes I know I have answered this in reverse), well somethings are obviously bringing little benefit to society. I am not saying ban everything (in public anyway) that has a greater externality than it's added benefit, only those where it is quite clearly creating far more of a negative externality than a benefit. Yes, where is that line? Well that's what we have a democractically elected legislature for. True, however through that convenience they raise our standard of living. Two points here, firstly it's immaterial if deaths caused by cars are accidental or not, there is a definate level of causation, ie. it is not just pure random error that occurs every now and then. Cars will cause deaths. But this is a tangential argument, and I think (again, I try and read your mind, apologies and correct me if I'm wrong) that you raised it to prempt a response you thought I may put forwards. Secondly, it is because they add more to our standard of living than they take away through deaths, that they are ok. Not because they are convenient. Murdering people may be convenient, but the costs are far greater than the benefits, so it is not ok. This is not necessarily my viewpoint, but societies. Again this is expressed through a democratically elected legislature. I think I've allready said this before, but cigarettes should be banned (in public places, but that is minutiae to the overall argument) because they take away far more than they contribute to society. Cars should not because they do not take away more than they contribute. Again this is in societies eyes. Costs and benefits are more than a dollar value. I think just about everyone here has had relatives/known someone who has suffered from some form of sickness (lung cancer generally) due to cigarettes. Yes they contribute more money than they cost (I am not sure if this will hold in the next twenty years though, but that is another discussion to be had later) in money, but the additional pain and suffering inflicted upon others in my view (and societies evidently (through this push for bans)) cancels and goes far further than this. I'm not debating that issue, it is for another thread. I'm saying throwing it up as backing for an argument (or even using it as an argument in itself) does not make for a strong point. If I wanted to I could disect the arguments in there, but what is the point? The author cannot respond, and generally those who use the column as an argument are unlikely to be able to respond well either. Journalists like the author exist across the world, and rely on shock , hyperbole and their immunity to challenge to sell their articles and as evidence to back up your position, are worthless. I am sorry if any of this is incoherent or offends (I don't think it will, but I haven't edited it) you fathazza (to the poster of that column, you have no sympathy, don't post crap), that is not my intention. It is now 2:05 AM and I'm going to bed (maybe, or you may get another response in an hour).
to be honest this is crap for the total reason is u dont seperate fat over weight ppl from others because they gorge on food so why seperate smokers its a persons chioce except being over weight is more acceptable these days then it is to smoke both are un healthy and can cause death
Not only do you speak poorly you're life comprehension seems to be right down there. Some overweight people are the victims of genetics and metabolism. Those of us who are overweight take great offense to you calling us all gorging sloths, piling food into our mouts and having it's juices and grease smear over our faces as we shovel it in. In truth, most fat people DONT stuff their faces, and the ones that do are the ones that get the attention. WHY? Because they're the dumbass people who go and eat at mc'ds for 30 days. No **** it's not healthy. But for most overweight people, it's not a choice nor our fault.
My life expectancy is not shortened, nor am I harmed in any way, when the person next to me chows down on a burger - is that so hard to understand?
Aside from the reasons given by Tulatin, you don't have a clue for other reasons. The key reason why is that being overweight harms only yourself, and nobody else. Smoking harms you, and everyone around you, most who do not want to be harmed. Isn't that obvious? EDIT: Kameleon got there first, but this needs to stay to emphasise how crap a point that was.
I smoke on and off and I'm equally 'on and off' about the ban. Sometimes I think it's a good thing (just to ensure that noone tries smoking on the train,in a restaurant, etc.) then sometimes i feel it's going overboard. I do, however, know one thing... giving up smoking is easy! Ok, sounds ridiculous from an on and off smoker but it's true. It's not an addiction, it's a habit! I smoked for 6 years but gave up in my 3rd year of uni because none of my housemates smoked, and it was just pathetic me locking myself in my room to smoke. I now smoke socially on the odd occasion just because I like having something to do with my hands . You only have to read the stories of '40 a dayer's for 40 years' giving up just like that (something generally brought on by a change in lifestyle - retirement?) to know that there's no real physical addiction. The only challenge is that 1st visit to the pub, or some such similar occasion when smoking goes with the territory, then afterwards you realise 'Oh, that was easy'. K, I'll let the bombardment commence now...
That doesn't hold water with me, smoking is physically addictive (though quite mildly....it's not heroin y'know). But it is also psychologically additive. It's the nicotine in cigarettes that make them physically additive, and it's the social situation/action of smoking that makes them psychologically addictive. The more you smoke the more nicotine your body (particularly your brain) receives. Any smoker can tell you that you get a dizzy "high" off a cigarette if you haven't smoked one for a few days. Your tolerance level to nicotine rises the more you smoke (daily) so dizzy "high" off the first ciggie off the day eventually dissappears (if you're a regular smoker). If you suddenly stop you start to feel a mild craving for a *** after a while, or rather your brain is craving the nicotine. This craving is easy to evercome with enough willpower depending on the individual, though it is the psychological addition makes it harder to quit! The action of smoking a *** can be psychologically perceived by the smoker as a relaxing/de-stressing action (i.e. "a happy sensation"), therefore smoking a *** = pleasure/reward. How many times have us smokers lit up when we're mega stressed? Think of it being like a baby's dummy. The social situation is another factor; going to the pub, etc;. If all your mates light up and you don't, you may feel out of place or edgy socially. So smoking regularly for long enough and you become psychologically conditioned into performing the "smoking" action (either by yourself or in a social group) and such conditioning can be much harder to break than a mere mild physical addiction. Those "'40 a dayer's for 40 years" who give up instantly have probably be subjected to a physical or pyschologial event that has allowed them to break their conditioning, i.e. a heart attack, being broke, etc;. Therefore one could argue that trying to give up smoking is more of a psychologically un-conditioning process whilst eliminating/reducing the physical addiction to nicotine rather than just a pure physical un-conditioning. It's a double-edged sword! A physical and psychological addiction!
True, true... but just as an aside, heroin is not nearly as physically addictive as people think. Alcohol is actually much worse, with much worse physical withdrawal symptoms (heroin withdrawal is like having a bad flu with agitation, while acute alcohol withdrawal in alcoholics can involve seizures and death). However the more mood-altering (or mind-altering) a substance, the more dysfunctional the psychological needs it serves. As such heroin tends to be the drug of choice for the more hard-core addict. About 25 to 40% of heroin users are not physically dependent. The physical withdrawal from smoking lasts about one to two weeks, tops, and of course feels nowhere near as bad. Kicking the smoking habit in the longer term however involves, as you say, a lot of behavioural changes to break the conditioning cycle, by removing the reward, adding an aversive stimulus, and by exposure and response prevention. But there are other dynamics involved also. Motivation, as always, is key, and when you have just been diagnosed with heart disease or cancer you are of course more likely to quit and stay quit, but in general motivation to quit is determined by: - perceived effectiveness of quitting (does it significantly benefit your health if you do? How likely are you to die if you don't?) - perceived value of consequences (how badly do you want to stay healthy and not die of smoking related illness?) - one's own perceived ability to quit (do I have enough willpower to do this?) - perceived social pressure or support (do they nag/support you to quit, or are they offering you a cig as they're lighting up themselves?)
